ozarque (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ozarque) wrote,@ 2007-10-31 07:28:00 |
|
Testing -- please ignore
#Hostility Research Update
If there is a _theory_ of verbal self-defense for American English -- and I certainly hope there is, given all the decades I've spent working on it -- one of its most basic principles is that hostile language is dangerous to the health and well-being of people who speak American English. That statement means _literally_ dangerous, not dangerous in some metaphorical sense, and the danger is explicable in terms of physiological and neurophysiological mechanisms that can be objectively demonstrated.
Early in the history of the research regarding this principle, much confusion was created by some wandering down the garden path associated with the concept of the "Type A" personality; confusion was also created by some glitches in the choice of an instrument for diagnosing hostility. In recent years, however, those confusions have been put to rest, and the body of research literature is now substantial enough that I consider it safe to say that the principle itself is no longer controversial.
One of the first articles that I found helpful, decades ago, was this very brief one -- "Distrust, Rage May Be 'Toxic Core' That Puts 'Type A' Person at Risk," by Chris Raymond, on page 813 of _JAMA_ for 2/10/1989. It started by saying that hostility may well cause you to die of heart disease, went on to quote Redford B. Williams saying that "of all the aspects originally described as making up the global Type A pattern, only those related to hostility and anger are really coronary prone," and then said:
"According to Williams, the coronary-prone hostile personality comprises three parts: cynical mistrust of other people's motives..., frequent feelings of anger, and aggressive expression of hostility toward others without regard for their feelings." It also reported the results of a few small studies that appeared to support Williams' claims.
Over the years, many more studies -- some with very large populations -- have replicated and clarified the results of that earlier research. We've come a long way since 1989. And I would like to recommend to you two recent articles that provide a history and overview of the research to date, as well as useful bibliographies with links to additional sources of information.
The first article is "Psychosocial Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease: More Than One Culprit at Work," by Redford B. Williams et al., in _JAMA_ 290: 2190-2192 (2003), available online at http://tinyurl.com/2ce3hh . Here is its opening paragraph (with its bibliography subscripts deleted):
"Solid scientific evidence supporting the adverse effects of stress on health began to emerge nearly 30 years ago with the report by Rosenman et al. showing that men with type A behavior (time urgency, hostility, achievement striving) were twice as likely as their counterparts with type B behavior (lacking type A characteristics) to develop coronary heart disease (CHD) over an 8-year period. Failure to replicate this finding in another large-scale prospective study raised questions about the validity of type A behavior as a CHD risk factor. However, subsequent research makes a strong case that of the 3 components of the global type A behavior pattern, hostility is the one most reliably associated with increased CHD risk."
The second article is "Hostility as a Predictor of Survival in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease," by Stephen H. Boyle et al., on pp. 629-532 of _Psychosomatic Medicine_ 66:529-632 (2004), available online at http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cg
"The ACM consisted of the combination of the cynicism, hostile attribution, hostile affect, and aggressive responding subscales that were identified in an earlier study (Barefoot et al. 1989) by a rational analysis of the item content. ... A reanalysis of an earlier study of CAD patients, with additional follow-up, showed that the ACM was a significant predictor of both CHD and total mortality while the total CMHS was not. One explanation for this finding relates to the item content of the total scale, which contains a variety of items, only some of which reflect the construct of hostility. To the extent that it is 'hostility' that identifies individuals at risk for negative health outcomes, a scale that provides a purer measure of that construct will likely have a stronger relation to survival. The results of our study are consistent with this notion."
#Hostility Research Update
If there is a _theory_ of verbal self-defense for American English -- and I certainly hope there is, given all the decades I've spent working on it -- one of its most basic principles is that hostile language is dangerous to the health and well-being of people who speak American English. That statement means _literally_ dangerous, not dangerous in some metaphorical sense, and the danger is explicable in terms of physiological and neurophysiological mechanisms that can be objectively demonstrated.
Early in the history of the research regarding this principle, much confusion was created by some wandering down the garden path associated with the concept of the "Type A" personality; confusion was also created by some glitches in the choice of an instrument for diagnosing hostility. In recent years, however, those confusions have been put to rest, and the body of research literature is now substantial enough that I consider it safe to say that the principle itself is no longer controversial.
One of the first articles that I found helpful, decades ago, was this very brief one -- "Distrust, Rage May Be 'Toxic Core' That Puts 'Type A' Person at Risk," by Chris Raymond, on page 813 of _JAMA_ for 2/10/1989. It started by saying that hostility may well cause you to die of heart disease, went on to quote Redford B. Williams saying that "of all the aspects originally described as making up the global Type A pattern, only those related to hostility and anger are really coronary prone," and then said:
"According to Williams, the coronary-prone hostile personality comprises three parts: cynical mistrust of other people's motives..., frequent feelings of anger, and aggressive expression of hostility toward others without regard for their feelings." It also reported the results of a few small studies that appeared to support Williams' claims.
Over the years, many more studies -- some with very large populations -- have replicated and clarified the results of that earlier research. We've come a long way since 1989. And I would like to recommend to you two recent articles that provide a history and overview of the research to date, as well as useful bibliographies with links to additional sources of information.
The first article is "Psychosocial Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease: More Than One Culprit at Work," by Redford B. Williams et al., in _JAMA_ 290: 2190-2192 (2003), available online at http://tinyurl.com/2ce3hh . Here is its opening paragraph (with its bibliography subscripts deleted):
"Solid scientific evidence supporting the adverse effects of stress on health began to emerge nearly 30 years ago with the report by Rosenman et al. showing that men with type A behavior (time urgency, hostility, achievement striving) were twice as likely as their counterparts with type B behavior (lacking type A characteristics) to develop coronary heart disease (CHD) over an 8-year period. Failure to replicate this finding in another large-scale prospective study raised questions about the validity of type A behavior as a CHD risk factor. However, subsequent research makes a strong case that of the 3 components of the global type A behavior pattern, hostility is the one most reliably associated with increased CHD risk."
The second article is "Hostility as a Predictor of Survival in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease," by Stephen H. Boyle et al., on pp. 629-532 of _Psychosomatic Medicine_ 66:529-632 (2004), available online at http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cg
"The ACM consisted of the combination of the cynicism, hostile attribution, hostile affect, and aggressive responding subscales that were identified in an earlier study (Barefoot et al. 1989) by a rational analysis of the item content. ... A reanalysis of an earlier study of CAD patients, with additional follow-up, showed that the ACM was a significant predictor of both CHD and total mortality while the total CMHS was not. One explanation for this finding relates to the item content of the total scale, which contains a variety of items, only some of which reflect the construct of hostility. To the extent that it is 'hostility' that identifies individuals at risk for negative health outcomes, a scale that provides a purer measure of that construct will likely have a stronger relation to survival. The results of our study are consistent with this notion."
