Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32991609›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Uncovering the hierarchical structure of self-reported hostility.

Martijn W van Teffelen, Jill Lobbestael, Marisol J Voncken, Frenk Peeters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Martijn W van TeffelenDepartment of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2411-5323
Jill LobbestaelDepartment of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.
Marisol J VonckenDepartment of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.
Frenk PeetersDepartment of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hostility and other related terms like anger and aggression are often used interchangeably to describe antagonistic affect, cognition, and behavior. Psychometric studies suggest that hostility consists of multiple separate factors, but consensus is currently lacking. In the present study we examined the hierarchical structure of hostility. The hierarchical structure of hostility was examined in N = 376 people (i.e., a mixed community and highly hostile sample), using both specific and broad hostility self-report measures. A series of Principal Components Analyses revealed the structure of hostility at five levels of specificity. At intermediate levels, hostility can consistently be expressed in affective, cognitive, and behavioral components. At the most specific level, hostility can be expressed in terms of Angry Affect; Hostile Intent; and Verbal, Relational, and Physical Aggression. The pattern of associations showed significant convergence, and some divergence with broad and more specific hostility measures. The present findings stress the need for novel instruments that capture each hostility facet separately to reduce conceptual confounding.

Indexed as

HostilityAdultAffectAggressionAngerCognitionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPersonality InventoryPrincipal Component AnalysisSelf Report

Identifiers

PMID32991609
PMCPMC7523964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.