124 COPING RESOURCES
1 Psychophysiological reactivity model: suggests that hostile individuals show exaggerated
cardiovascular and neuroendocrine responses to stressors.
2 Psychosocial vulnerability model: suggests that hostile individuals experience more
interpersonal conflict. Hostility may lead to more stress and also be associated with
less social support.
3 Transactional model: combines the above two models and suggests that hostile indi -
viduals experience more interpersonal conflict and also have greater physiological
reactivity – a ‘double whammy’ effect.
4 Health behaviour model: suggests that hostility affects health because hostile indi -
viduals engage in health-risk behaviour patterns that mediate the effects of hostility
on health. For example, hostile people may be cynical about health warnings or
resistant to medical advice.
5 Constitutional vulnerability model:raises the possibility that individual differences
(which might be genetic) are associated with both the personality tendency and
the disease risk, i.e. the association between hostility and CHD is due to a third
variable.
Overall, Smith et al. conclude that there is considerable support for a number
of these models. Hostile people do display heightened physiological responses; they
also experience increased levels of conflict and less social support. However, research
has not yet established whether these tendencies mediate the relationship between
hostility and health. There is some evidence that hostile people do display poorer
health behaviour patterns but it is also clear that this does not wholly account for
the relationship between hostility and health. Finally, the development of molec-
ular genetics offers opportunities to explore the constitutional vulnerability model.
Further research is awaited on these mechanisms. However, it is possible that several
mechanisms play a part in explaining the association between hostility and health.
An interesting possibility in relation to the development of hostility is suggested
by the work of Matthews et al. (1996). In this work, negative behaviours during
parent–son discussions aimed at resolving disagreements were observed in 51 Caucasian
adolescent (12–13 years of age) boys. Results showed that the frequency of negative
behaviours in the family discussions predicted hostility and expressed anger assessed
three years later even after controlling for baseline hostility. This would suggest that
hostility may be nurtured within particular family backgrounds that are characterized
by negative behaviours during interactions. In contrast, work by Caspi et al. (1997)
shows that measures of temperament taken at 3 years old predict later health-related
risk behaviour in early adulthood and that this effect is mediated by personality measures
taken in late adolescence. This would appear to be good evidence that personality traits
are something we are born with or at least develop very early in life and remain stable
throughout our lives. Together, however, these studies suggest that, while certain
aspects of personality may be stable from a very young age, other aspects change and
develop over time as a result of our interaction with our environment. Thus both
‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ explanations may be needed to account for personality trait
development.