HOSTILITY IN HOSTILITY IN MARRIAGEMARRIAGE

The Behavioral Effects of Trait The Behavioral Effects of Trait Hostility on Marital Interaction & Hostility on Marital Interaction &

SatisfactionSatisfaction

OVERVIEWOVERVIEW

IntroductionIntroduction Brief View of Personality & MarriageBrief View of Personality & Marriage What does Hostility do?What does Hostility do? Goals of this StudyGoals of this Study Methods/ProcedureMethods/Procedure SampleSample ResultsResults ImplicationsImplications

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

Why do some marriages fail, while others Why do some marriages fail, while others last until the death of one spouse?last until the death of one spouse?

What are the behaviors that contribute to What are the behaviors that contribute to marital distress?marital distress?

What role does conflict play in marital What role does conflict play in marital dissolution?dissolution?

Does support or positive affect matter?Does support or positive affect matter?

Personality & MarriagePersonality & Marriage

Negative traits associated with less Negative traits associated with less satisfaction & more distresssatisfaction & more distress

(Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Kelly & Conley, 1987; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese,2000)(Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Kelly & Conley, 1987; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese,2000)

Positive traits associated with relationship Positive traits associated with relationship satisfactionsatisfaction (Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000)(Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000)

Personality characteristics have been Personality characteristics have been known to predict perceptions of known to predict perceptions of support/positive behaviorssupport/positive behaviors (Pasch, Bradbury, & Lewis, 1997)(Pasch, Bradbury, & Lewis, 1997)

What Does Hostility Do?What Does Hostility Do?

Traits in the hostility domain include: Traits in the hostility domain include: cynicism, anger, mistrust, and aggressioncynicism, anger, mistrust, and aggression (Barefoot et al. 1989)(Barefoot et al. 1989)

Hostile persons display low levels of Hostile persons display low levels of social support and high levels of social social support and high levels of social conflictconflict (Gallo & Smith, 1999)(Gallo & Smith, 1999)

Hostility predicts deterioration in Hostility predicts deterioration in personal relationspersonal relations (Newton & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1995)(Newton & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1995)

What Does Hostility Do?What Does Hostility Do?

Greater marital instability has been Greater marital instability has been associated with more hostility and less associated with more hostility and less warmthwarmth (Matthews & Wickrama, 1996)(Matthews & Wickrama, 1996)

Tend to interrupt, acknowledge spouses Tend to interrupt, acknowledge spouses verbal contributions less in interactionsverbal contributions less in interactions (Kiecolt-Glaser et al. 1998)(Kiecolt-Glaser et al. 1998)

One hostile person in a marital couple One hostile person in a marital couple escalates the overall level of expressed escalates the overall level of expressed negativitynegativity (T.W. Smith et al., 1990)(T.W. Smith et al., 1990)

First-Year Project: Goals First-Year Project: Goals

Goals were to examine:Goals were to examine: Role of hostility in newlywed Role of hostility in newlywed

relationshiprelationship Association between hostility & Association between hostility &

specific conflict behaviors/affectspecific conflict behaviors/affect Link between hostility & marital Link between hostility & marital

satisfactionsatisfaction

First-year Project: HypothesesFirst-year Project: Hypotheses

(1) Level of hostility would be positively (1) Level of hostility would be positively associated with frequency of negative associated with frequency of negative affectaffect

(2) Level of hostility would be negatively (2) Level of hostility would be negatively associated with frequency of positive associated with frequency of positive affectaffect

(3) Hostility would be associated with (3) Hostility would be associated with lower levels of marital satisfactionlower levels of marital satisfaction

First-year Project: SampleFirst-year Project: Sample

Subset of 66 of 105 couples participating in Subset of 66 of 105 couples participating in Marital & Family Development ProjectMarital & Family Development Project

Principal Investigator: Erika Lawrence, Ph.DPrincipal Investigator: Erika Lawrence, Ph.D

4-yr. longitudinal study of newlywed couples 4-yr. longitudinal study of newlywed couples in their first marriagein their first marriage

First-year Project: SampleFirst-year Project: Sample

AgeAge Husbands averaged 26.4 (S.D.=4.7) yrs of ageHusbands averaged 26.4 (S.D.=4.7) yrs of age Wives averaged 25.0 (S.D. =4.3) yrs of ageWives averaged 25.0 (S.D. =4.3) yrs of age

Race/EthnicityRace/Ethnicity Husbands: 89% CaucasianHusbands: 89% Caucasian Wives: 92% Caucasian Wives: 92% Caucasian

EducationEducation 16 years on average for both16 years on average for both

First-Year Project: ProcedureFirst-Year Project: Procedure

Completed questionnaires prior to an in Completed questionnaires prior to an in lab sessionlab session

Interviewed separately about marriageInterviewed separately about marriage 10-min. videotaped discussions of topic 10-min. videotaped discussions of topic

of his/her choosing regarding a conflict of his/her choosing regarding a conflict issue issue

9 mo. Follow-up questionnaires9 mo. Follow-up questionnaires

Measures: Hostility & AngerMeasures: Hostility & Anger

Cook-Medley Hostility ScaleCook-Medley Hostility Scale 50 True/False Questions50 True/False Questions Coefficient alpha: husbands (.88), wives (.87)Coefficient alpha: husbands (.88), wives (.87)

Buss-Perry Aggression QuestionnaireBuss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire Hostility SubscaleHostility Subscale

8 questions in Likert format8 questions in Likert format Coefficient alpha: husbands (.86), wives Coefficient alpha: husbands (.86), wives

(.75)(.75)

Measures: Hostility & AngerMeasures: Hostility & Anger

Buss-Perry Aggression QuestionnaireBuss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire Anger SubscaleAnger Subscale

7 questions in Likert format7 questions in Likert format Coefficient alpha: husbands (.64), wives Coefficient alpha: husbands (.64), wives

(.62)(.62)

Measures: Marital SatisfactionMeasures: Marital Satisfaction

Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMS)Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMS) 3 items with Likert response format3 items with Likert response format Coefficient alpha: husbands (.93), wives Coefficient alpha: husbands (.93), wives

(.96)(.96)

Measures: Marital SatisfactionMeasures: Marital Satisfaction

Norton’s Quality of Marriage Index (QMI)Norton’s Quality of Marriage Index (QMI) 6 items with Likert format6 items with Likert format Coefficient alpha: husbands (.95), wives (.94)Coefficient alpha: husbands (.95), wives (.94)

Measures: Marital SatisfactionMeasures: Marital Satisfaction

Marital Adjustment Test (MAT)Marital Adjustment Test (MAT) 15 items with mixed format15 items with mixed format Coefficient alpha: husbands (.60), wives (.63)Coefficient alpha: husbands (.60), wives (.63)

Measures: Negative TemperamentMeasures: Negative Temperament

Schedule for Adaptive & Non-adaptive Schedule for Adaptive & Non-adaptive Personality (SNAP)Personality (SNAP) Negative Temperament SubscaleNegative Temperament Subscale

28 True/False items28 True/False items Coefficient alpha: husbands (.87), wives (.88)Coefficient alpha: husbands (.87), wives (.88) Means: Husbands (M=52.75, S.D.= 6.69), wives Means: Husbands (M=52.75, S.D.= 6.69), wives

(M=45.28, S.D.=7.45)(M=45.28, S.D.=7.45)

Measures: Behavioral Coding Measures: Behavioral Coding

Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF)Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF) Facial expressionFacial expression Vocal toneVocal tone Speech contentSpeech content

5 positive codes 5 positive codes 10 negative codes10 negative codes 1 neutral1 neutral

Percent agreement ranged from 82%-100%Percent agreement ranged from 82%-100%

Table 1 Descriptives for Trait Hostility and Anger Measures

Husbands

Wives

Anger (AQ)

Hostility (AQ)

Hostility (C-M)

Anger (AQ)

Hostility

(AQ)

Hostility (C-M)

Mean

15.90

15.90

17.38

16.58

16.34

14.73

S.D.

4.30

6.43

8.55

3.92

5.22

7.97

RESULTSRESULTS

Table 2 Trait hostility correlations between spouses Hostility

(C-M) Husbands

Hostility (AQ)

Husbands

Hostility (C-M) Wives

.33*

11

Hostility (AQ) Wives

21

00

* p < .05

Table 3 Correlations between Trait Anger and Hostility and Conflict Behavior

Husbands

Wives

Anger (AQ)

Hostility (AQ)

Hostility (C-M)

Anger (AQ)

Hostility

(AQ)

Hostility (C-M)

Negative Affect

Disgust -10 -13 -03 -09 -26* -19 Contempt -03 -05 -02 -01 -11 -15 Belligerence -03 -13 -06 -05 -02 01 Domineering 10 -04 07 -04 -13 -19 Anger 07 04 04 06 -07 -09 Defensiveness -17 -25 -21 -18 -04 -15 Whining -08 -19 -04 -11 -14 01 Sadness 18 30* 11 03 27* 34** Fear/Tension -19 -09 -01 05 -02 -11 Stonewalling

14 05 01 -12 -15 -14

Positive Affect

Interest 17 16 -04 -05 -03 -13 Affection 23 25 10 -07 -28* -15 Humor 12 11 -12 -01 -09 00 Excitement 06 00 -06 08 -14 01 Validation 11

13 -07 -06 02 08

Global Codes

Negative -14 -22 -07 -05 -03 -13 Positive 17 21 -09 -06 -07 02 Negative: Positive (ratio)

-15 -17 10 04 09 00

* = p < .05; **p<.01

Table 4 Correlations between Trait Anger and Hostility and Marital Satisfaction

Husbands

Wives

MAT

KMS

QMI

MAT

KMS

QMI

AQ-Anger

-36**

-39** -27* -34** -52** -37**

AQ-Hostility -38**

-35** -45** -31* -37** -25*

Hostility-C-M

-37** -43** -31* -12 -15 -08

* p < .05; **p<.01

RESULTS: Hypothesis 1RESULTS: Hypothesis 1

(1) Level of hostility would be positively (1) Level of hostility would be positively associated with frequency of negative affectassociated with frequency of negative affect A significant positive association was found A significant positive association was found

between husbands’ and wives’ hostility and between husbands’ and wives’ hostility and sadness.sadness.

However for wives, a negative association However for wives, a negative association between disgust and hostility was found.between disgust and hostility was found.

RESULTS: Hypothesis 2RESULTS: Hypothesis 2

(2) Level of hostility would be negatively (2) Level of hostility would be negatively associated with frequency of positive affectassociated with frequency of positive affect A significant negative association was found A significant negative association was found

between affection and hostility for wives.between affection and hostility for wives. However no other negative associations However no other negative associations

with positive behaviors were found.with positive behaviors were found.

RESULTS: Hypothesis 3RESULTS: Hypothesis 3

(3) Hostility would be associated with (3) Hostility would be associated with lower levels of marital satisfactionlower levels of marital satisfaction Significant negative associations were Significant negative associations were

found between both husbands’ and found between both husbands’ and wives’ hostility and their self-reported wives’ hostility and their self-reported marital satisfaction.marital satisfaction.

Discussion: StrengthsDiscussion: Strengths

Multiple measures of target constructsMultiple measures of target constructs Controlled for variability across relationshipsControlled for variability across relationships Comprehensive examination of marital Comprehensive examination of marital

interactioninteraction

Discussion: LimitationsDiscussion: Limitations

SampleSample Self-selectedSelf-selected HomogeneityHomogeneity Non-hostileNon-hostile

MeasuresMeasures Psychometrics Psychometrics (MAT, Cook)(MAT, Cook)

Conceptualization of SPAFF codes Conceptualization of SPAFF codes (sadness vs disappointment)(sadness vs disappointment)

Cross-sectional, correlationalCross-sectional, correlational

Implications/Future DirectionsImplications/Future Directions

Behavioral Interaction at later time pointBehavioral Interaction at later time point Possible relationship between the effects of Possible relationship between the effects of

trait level hostility in marital dyad and health trait level hostility in marital dyad and health perceptions/outcomesperceptions/outcomes

Integrate positive and negative Integrate positive and negative Integrate traits and behaviorsIntegrate traits and behaviors