Health Psychology 1998, Vol. 17, No. 6, 537-545
Copyright 1998 by the American PsychologicalAssociation,Inc. 0278-6133/98/$3.00
Agency, Communion, and Cardiovascular Reactivity During Marital Interaction T i m o t h y W. S m i t h , L i n d a C. G a l l o , L a y n e G o b l e , L e Q. N g u , a n d K i m b e r l y A. S t a r k University of Utah The concepts of agency and communion have been used to describe sex differences in vulnerability to specific stressor domains. This study examined blood pressure and heart rate responses of 60 married couples to experimental manipulations of disagreement (i.e., communion stressor) and achievement challenge (i.e., agency stressor). Consistent with predictions, disagreement elicited heightened cardiovascular reactivity among wives, but not husbands. In contrast, the achievement challenge elicited heightened cardiovascular reactivity among husbands, but not wives. Participants' responses to a circumplex measure of interpersonal appraisal were consistent with the interpretation of differential responses to agency and communion stressors. Results are congruent with a situational approach to sex differences in cardiovascular reactivity and illustrate the utility of interpersonal methods in the explication of psychosocial risk for cardiovascular disease. Key words: cardiovascular reactivity, agency, communion, interpersonal circumplex, marital interaction, sex differences
Social processes such as hostility, social isolation, and social dominance are implicated in the development of coronary heart disease (CHD; Hazuda, 1994; Houston, Chesney, Black, Cates, & Hecker, 1992; Kaplan, Manuck, Williams, & Strawn, 1993; Miller, Smith, Turner, Guijarro, & Hallet, 1996). Psychosomatic models identify cardiovascular reactivity (CVR) as a mechanism linking such interpersonal processes and subsequent disease (Manuck, 1994). These risk factors are hypothesized to promote frequent, pronounced, and enduring increases in heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP), and such responses are hypothesized to foster the development of essential hypertension, hasten the development of atherosclerosis, and precipitate the emergence of acute CHD (Kamarck & Jennings, 1991; Manuck, 1994). This general psychosomatic model suggests that the specific social risk factors identified in epidemiological research should also be associated with heightened CVR (Smith & Christensen, 1992). That is, interpersonal processes that confer risk should also be associated with the purported pathophysiological mechanism. The interpersonal circumplex (Kiesler, 1983; Wiggins, 1979) provides a framework for integrating the literature on psychosocial risk
factors and the growing body of research on social determinants of CVR (Smith, Limon, Gallo, & Ngu, 1996). Social stimuli, interpersonal responses, and individual differences can be located in the conceptual space defined by the two circumplex axes--friendliness versus hostility, and dominance versus submissiveness (Gurtman, 1992; Wiggins & Broughton, 1991). Exposure to hostile stimuli (e.g., harassment) elicits increased CVR (Diamond et al., 1984; Hokanson, 1970), whereas exposure to social support--a stimulus that can be placed at the friendly pole of the circumplex--has generally been found to attenuate CVR (e.g., Lepore, 1995; Kamarck, Annunziato, & Amateau, 1995). Less is known about the effects of exposure to dominant and submissive stimuli. Expressing anger sometimes increases CVR and sometimes attenuates these responses, depending on contextual factors (Engebretson, Matthews, & Scheier, 1989; Hokanson, 1970). Our previous research indicates that exerting social dominance elicits heightened CVR (Brown & Smith, 1992; Smith, Allred, Morrison, & Carlson, 1989; Smith, Baldwin, & Christensen, 1990; Smith et al., 1996). Finally, when measured as individual differences, hostility and social support have generally been found to be related to CVR in the expected pattern (Houston, 1994; Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996). Little is known about the association of individual differences in social dominance and CVR. Thus, the interpersonal circumplex can be used to identify areas of converging findings regarding the social psychophysiology of CVR, as well as areas in need of additional research.
Timothy W. Smith, Linda C. Gallo, Layne Goble, Le Q. Ngu, and Kimberly A. Stark, Department of Psychology, University of Utah. Linda C. Gallo is now at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. This research was supported by the University Research Committee, University of Utah. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timothy W. Smith, Department of Psychology, 502 Behavioral Sciences Building, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112. Electronic mail may be sent to
[email protected].
Sex Differences in C V R The interpersonal circumplex is also useful as a conceptual tool in the examination of sex differences in CVR. 537
538
SMITH, GALLO, GOBLE, NGU, AND STARK
Although several writers initially suggested that heightened CVR among men might contribute to their greater risk of CHD (Matthews, 1989; Matthews & Stoney, 1988; Stoney, Davis, & Matthews, 1987; Wingard, Suarez, & BarrettConnor, 1983), subsequent research has suggested a more complex pattern. Some studies indicated that men are particularly responsive to tasks involving achievement and competition and that other stressors produced either no sex differences in CVR or evidence of greater reactivity among women (e.g., Lash, Gillespie, Eisler, & Southard, 1991; Smith et al., 1996). Such findings are consistent with the hypothesis that men and women would be differentially responsive to stressors emphasizing gender-related characteristics. However, the results of other studies examining this gender-relevance hypothesis have not been consistent with this prediction (Davis & Matthews, 1996; Matthews, Davis, Stoney, Owens, & Caggiula, 1991). Several theorists have suggested that traditional sex roles render men and women susceptible to distinct types of stressors (see Helgeson, 1994, for a review). The masculine sex role emphasizes the pursuit of agency, a broad motive complex consisting of achievement, mastery, status, and power (Lippa, 1995; Wiggins, 1991). In contrast, the feminine sex role emphasizes the pursuit of communion, a similarly broad motive complex involving interpersonal relatedness, caring, friendship, and love. Helgeson (1994) suggested that men are prone to experience stress resulting from the excessive pursuit of agentic goals, whereas women are susceptible to the effects of excessive involvement in communal concerns. Conceptual and empirical analyses have demonstrated that agency corresponds to the dominant pole of the interpersonal circumplex, whereas communion corresponds to the friendly pole (Lippa, 1995; Wiggins & Broughton, 1991). The Present Study Given the differential importance assigned to agentic and communal goals in the traditional sex roles, it is likely that sex differences in CVR will be apparent in situations that activate these broad social motives. To test this implication of the interpersonal approach to CVR, we manipulated agentic and communal concerns during marital interaction. We selected marital interaction as a context for evaluating the effects of agency and communion CVR for two reasons. First, marriage is an important psychosocial influence on health (Ewart, 1993). Epidemiological studies suggest that marriage reduces the risk of CHD and other serious illnesses (Burman & Margolin, 1992), but this benefit is moderated by characteristics of the relationship, such as its constellation, quality, and history (e.g., Eaker, Haynes, & Feinleib, 1983; Tucker, Friedman, Wingard, & Schwartz, 1996). Psychophysiological studies indicate that marital interactions are a potent stressor (Ewart, Taylor, Kraemer, & Agras, 1991; Gottman & Levenson, 1988). Thus, additional psychophysiological studies could help to explicate the ways in which marital processes influence health. Second, marriage and other romantic relationships often involve sex differences and conflict involving agentic and communal concerns
(Baucom, Notarious, BurneR, & Haefner, 1990; Buss, 1989). For example, relationship distress has been found to be more closely correlated with psychophysiologic reactivity during marital interaction among wives than among husbands (Gottman & Levenson, 1992). Thus, marital interactions provide an ecologically valid context for examining the effects of agency and communion on CVR. Toward this end, we examined the effects of achievement challenge and disagreement on CVR while married couples engaged in a current events discussion. Given that achievement motivation is a component of agency, we expected that this manipulation would heighten husbands' but not wives' CVR during the discussion. Given that disagreement with one's spouse would likely activate communal concerns (e.g., maintenance of relationship quality), we expected that this manipulation would heighten wives' but not husbands' CVR. Because agentic and communal strivings during marital interaction could be construed as active coping in this interpersonal context (Smith et al., 1989, 1990), we examined systolic blood pressure (SBP) and HR responses as the primary indices of CVR (Obrist, 1981; Schneiderman & McCabe, 1989). We also asked participants to rate their spouse's behavior during the task on an interpersonal circumplex measure (Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988). We expected that the differential activation of communal concerns should lead wives to perceive their husbands as less friendly, whereas agentic concerns should lead husbands to perceive their wives as less submissive. Method
Participants A sample of 60 married couples was recruited from introductory psychology courses, university married student housing, and from the community. The mean age of participants was 25.4 years (SD = 6.2); the mean years of education, 14.6 (SD = 5.7). Of the participants, 83% were White, and the remainder were Hispanic or Asian American. They had been married for a mean of 3.2 years (SD = 4.6), and 43% of the couples had one or more children. All of the couples received $30, and students received partial course credit.
Procedure Baseline period. The experiment took place in a two-room laboratory. On arrival, participants were told that the purpose of the experiment was to examine the effects of listening and speaking on BP and HR. Husbands and wives were seated across from one another at a wooden table, with a removable partition placed between them. A BP cuff was then attached to the upper portion of each participant's nondominant ann, and headphones were positioned to allow delivery of tape-recorded instructions. During a 10-rain baseline task, participants were asked to view one pair of photographs (e.g., landscapes, wildlife) each minute. To maintain a relatively stable level of involvement in a minimally demanding baseline task (Jennings, Kamarck, Stewart, Eddy, & Johnson, 1992), participantswere asked aftereach minute to indicatewhich of the two photographs they preferred.
Achievement challenge and agreement manipulations. After the baseline, couples in the high-challenge condition were told that their speech responses would be audiotaped and coded for verbal
CARDIOVASCULAR REAC'rIV1TY IN MARRIAGE competence (i.e., clarity, knowledge of issues, vocabulary), ostensibly because competence could influence cardiovascular functioning. Participants in the low-challenge condition were told that their responses would be audiotaped and, therefore, should be clear and audible, but that speech content was not of concern. The spouses were randomly assigned to take either the same or opposite sides in two issues: the imposition of rent controls in the Salt Lake City area and the adoption of stricter admission standards at the University of Utah. Participants were given notes listing reasons and arguments for these positions. Participants were instructed that they could use the notes to prepare, but that they should not read the responses verbatim. Preparationanddiscussionperiods. Following a 4-rain preparation period, the partition was removed and tape-recorded prompts guided the couple through the discussion task. Spouses altematexl speaking and listening, addressing each issue twice. Thus, the total discussion task consisted of 4 rain of speaking and 4 rain of listening. Speaking order was counterbalanced.
Manipulation Check Items After the discussion task, participants completed Likert-scale manipulation check items that asked about the importance of various characteristics of their speeches. On ten 5-point scales, participants rated the degree to which the experimenter would attend to aspects of verbal competence (e.g., knowledge of the topic, vocabulary, organization) and aspects of clarity (e.g., speech clarity, speaking rate). The five verbal competence items were summed to form one index, and the clarity-related items were summed to form a second.
539
wives were treated as dependent observations, as any statistical dependency across spouses could inflate the significance tests (Kenny, 1995). For the psychophysiological measures, two repeated factors were added: periods (preparation, listening, speaking) and measurements within periods. Consistent with recent guidelines (Llabre, Spitzer, Saab, Ironson, & Sclmeiderman, 1991), C V R was quantified through change scores (i.e., task-baseline). Baseline values were calculated as the mean of the final three baseline measurements. Although correlation between baseline values and change scores are typically inconsequential (Llahre et al., 1991), they can influence the outcome of analyses of reactivity scores (Benjamin, 1967). Thus, baseline values were included as a covariate in the analyses of C V R ) The effects of high versus low achievement challenge and agreement versus disagreement on husbands' and wives' C V R were tested in single degrees of freedom, directional contrasts that corresponded to the specific, a priori predictions articulated above 0Vampold, Davis, & Good, 1990). 2 The predictions were tested initially considering all periods (i.e., collapsing across measurements within periods and across preparation, listening, and speaking). When this initial contrast was significant, then the specific prediction was tested separately in the preparation and discussion (i.e., combining listening and speaking values) phases. In this manner, the effects of the activation of the agentic and communal concerns could be evaluated prior to and during their behavioral expression.
Interpersonal Appraisal
Manipulation Checks and Construal of Spouse
Participants also completed an adjective checklist that assessed their construal of their spouses' behavior during the task. The checklist represents a shortened version of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Wiggins et al., 1988), a widely used measure of the interpersonal circumplex. We administered four items per oetant, rather than the standard eight items. Standardized dominance and friendliness factor scores were calculated (Wiggins & Broughton, 1991). For dominance, ratings greater than zero reflect varying degrees of dominant behavior; ratings less than zero reflect submissiveness. Similarly, friendliness ratings greater than zero reflect varying degrees of friendly behavior, whereas ratings less than zero reflect hostility. This measure was sensitive to interpersonal manipulations in our previous work (Smith et al., 1996), providing evidence of its validity in research of this type.
As predicted, both husbands and wives in the highachievement challenge condition rated IQ-related characteristics as more relevant than did participants in the lowachievement challenge condition (husbands: M = 23.8 vs. 11.5; wives: M = 24.8 vs. 10.9), both ts(55) > 9.0, p < .0001. Also as expected, both husbands and wives in the high-achievement challenge condition rated clarity-related items as less relevant to the subsequent evaluation of their performance than did participants in the low-achievement challenge condition (husbands: M = 13.8 vs. 17.3; wives: M = 13.7 vs. 16.3), both ts(55) > 2.9, p < .002. No other effects from the overall analysis of variance (ANOVA) of these ratings were significant. Thus, the achievement challenge manipulation was clearly understood by husbands and wives. The effects of the agreement versus disagreement manipulation on participants' ratings of their spouse's behavior during the discussion task were consistent with prediction. Wives in the disagree condition rated their husbands as less friendly than did wives in the agree condition (M = - 0 . 7 2
Physiological Data An inflatable cuff, attached to a Dinamap automated, oscillometrie BP monitor (Model 8100; Critikun Inc., Tampa, FL) was used to record BP and HR. A reading was taken during each minute of the baseline and preparation periods and during each of the speaking and listening periods. The experimenter operated this equipment in the adjacent room, which was not visible to the participant. Results
Overview of the Analyses The framework for the analysis was a 2 (high vs. low achievement challenge) × 2 (agree vs. disagree) × 2 (husband vs. wife) mixed factorial. Data from husbands and
1 Elimination of the baseline values as a covariate did not alter any of the results reported here. 2 Contrasts were calculated from the analysis of covariance model described above. T tests (i.e., t = square root of F in the single df case) are reported as the significance test (i.e., rather than single df F tests), given the use of directional, single-tailed significance tests.
540
SMITH, GALLO, GOBLE, NGU, AND STARK
vs. +0.21), t(55) = 2.66, p < .01. Also as predicted, the agreement versus disagreement manipulation had no effect on husbands' ratings of their wives' friendliness (M = -0.35 vs. -0.29), t(55) < 1.0. No other effects from the overall ANOVA on friendliness ratings were significant, and the agreement versus disagreement manipulation had no effects on wives' or husbands' ratings of spouse dominance, ts(55) < 1.0. The effects of the achievement challenge manipulation on participants' ratings of their spouses' dominance during the discussion were also as predicted. Husbands in the highachievement challenge condition rated their wives as more dominant (or less submissive) than did husbands in the low-achievement challenge condition ( M = +0.15 vs. -0.59), t(55) = 2.35, p < .01. Also as predicted, the achievement challenge had no effect on wives' ratings of their husbands' dominance (M = +0.34 vs. +0.43), t(55) < 1.0. Finally, the achievement challenge manipulation had no effects on husbands' or wives' ratings of spouse friendliness, t(55) < 1.0.
Cardiovascular Reactivity Effects of agreement versus disagreement. As predicted, wives in the disagreement condition displayed larger increases in SBP than did wives in the agreement condition (M = 12.6 mmHg vs. 8.2 mmHg), t(55) = 2.35,p < .02. As depicted in Figure 1, this difference occurred during both the preparation, t(55) = 2.04, p < .025, and discussion periods, t(55) = 3.01, p < .005. Also as predicted, this manipulation had no effect on the SBP responses of husbands, t(55) < 1.0. Again as predicted, wives in the disagreement condition
displayed larger increases in HR than did wives in the agreement condition (M = 7.4 beats per minute [bpm] vs. 3.3 bpm), t(55) = 2.74, p < .005. As presented in Figure 2, this effect was significant only during the discussion period, t(55) = 3.31, p < .001. As predicted, this manipulation had no effect on husbands' HR reactivity, t(55) < 1.0. Wives in the disagreement condition also displayed larger increases in DBP than did wives in the agreement condition (M = 10.7 mmHg vs. 7.1 mmHg), t(55) = 2.62, p < .005, during both the preparation (M = 7.9 mmHg vs. 4.7 mmHg), t(55) = 1.84, p < .04, and the discussion periods (M = 12.2 mmHg vs. 8.3 mmHg), t(55) = 3.17, p < .005. The agreement versus disagreement manipulation had no effect on the diastolic blood pressure (DBP) responses of husbands, t(55) < 1,0. Effects of high- versus low-achievement challenge. As predicted, husbands in the high-achievement challenge condition displayed larger increases in SBP than did husbands in the low-challenge condition (M = 12.1 mmHg vs. 8.7 mmHg), t(55) = 1.82, p < .04. As depicted in Figure 3, this effect was significant only during the discussion period, t(55) = 2.48, p < .01. As expected, the achievement challenge manipulation had no effect on the SBP responses of wives, t(55) < 1.0. As predicted, husbands in the high-achievement challenge condition displayed larger increases in HR than did husbands in the low-achievement challenge condition (M = 5.7 bpm vs. 0.7 bpm), t(55) = 3.27, p < .001. As depicted in Figure 4, this effect was significant during both the preparation, t(55) = 2.24, p < .024, and the discussion periods, t(55) = 3.38, p < .001. As expected, the achievement
Figure 1. Effects of disagreement on systolic blood pressure (SBP) reactivity. *p < .05. ***p < .005.
CARDIOVASCULAR REACTIVITY IN MARRIAGE
Figure 2. .005.
Effects of disagreement on heart rate (HR) reactivity, bpm = beats per minute. ***p
.15).
CARDIOVASCULAR REACTIVITY IN MARRIAGE and an extension of that work to the marital context could be useful. Although the results of analyses of the spouse appraisal measure were consistent with prediction, it is unclear whether those appraisals were veridical. For example, although the disagreement manipulation clearly altered wives' construal of their husbands' behavior, without independent ratings of the interaction it is not possible to determine the extent to which this reflects actual differences in husbands' behavior. The same is true for the effects of the achievement stressor on husbands' appraisal of wives' dominance. If the disagreement manipulation altered husbands' behavior, it did so without altering their CVR, as would have been the case for any effects of the achievement manipulation on wives' behavior. The effects on spouse appraisals might simply reflect motivational influences on cognitive processes. Activated communal and agentic concerns could alter such social perceptions in the absence of changes in the spouses' behavior (e.g., Smith & Brehm, 1981). The responses assessed here are influenced by complex psychophysiological processes (Cacioppo, Uchino, & Berntson, 1994; Sherwood, 1993). As a result, the underlying determinants of the effects on BP and HR cannot be established. Recent research suggesting sex differences in these underlying autonomic and hemodynamic processes (e.g., Davis & Matthews, 1996; Lawler, Wilcox, & Anderson, 1995) indicates that the addition of the related psychophysiological methods to social interactional studies might be informative. Also, although a growing body of research supports the hypothesis that CVR is related to the development of disease (Manuck, 1994), it is far from clear whether the types of responses observed in this study are relevant to disease etiology. Finally, it is also unclear whether the differential responsiveness of husbands and wives to agency and communion concerns aroused during marital interactions would generalire to other relationships and settings. In a recent study of individuals, an achievement challenge similar to the one used here had equal potentiating effects on CVR among men and women (Smith, Nealey, Kircher, & Limon, 1997). Although the marital context is important in the study of CVR for the reasons outlined previously, it will be important to examine the effects of agency and communion stressors on men and women in other social settings. Summary and Conclusions Consistent with predictions, an achievement challenge heightened CVR among husbands, but not wives. In conWast, disagreement heightened CVR among wives, but not husbands. This pattern is consistent with previous theory suggesting that women are vulnerable to stressors involving the broad motive complex of communion, whereas men are vulnerable to stressors that activate concerns with agency (Helgeson, 1994). The results are also consistent with sex and sex role differences in motivational and behavioral aspects of marital functioning (e.g., Baucom et al., 1990), in that wives were responsive to a potential threat to the quality
543
of the interaction, whereas husbands were responsive to a possible threat to competence or dominance. Furthermore, the results extend previous studies of the psychophysiology of marital interaction (Gottman & Levenson, 1988, 1992) by experimentally manipulating these central aspects of marital process. These results also suggest that rather than crosssituational effects, sex differences in CVR might be better conceptualized as differences in responsiveness to sexlinked aspects of social context (Davis & Matthews, 1996; Matthews et al., 1991; Wright, Murray, Storey, & Williams, 1997). Finally, these results underscore the potential utility of the interpersonal perspective (Kiesler, 1991; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996) in explicating psychosocial influences on cardiovascular risk. Given that the most robust psychosocial risk factors for cardiovascular illness involve interpersonal functioning (Adler & Matthews, 1994) and that CVR is the primary mechanism thought to link such variables to disease, further social psychophysiological studies of CVR are needed. The interpersonal perspective can provide clear conceptual landmarks and refined measurement procedures for modeling the psychophysiology of psychosocial risk. References Adler, N., & Matthews, K. (1994). Health psychology: Why do some people get sick and some stay healthy? Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 229-259. Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations incompatible? American Psychologist, 51, 909-917. Baucom, D. H., Notarious, C. I., Burnett, C. K., & Haefner, P. (1990). Gender differences and sex-role identity in marriage. In E D. Fincham & T. N. Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of marriage: Basic issues and applications (pp. 150-171). New York: Guilford. Benjamin, L. (1967). Facts and artifacts in using analysis of covariance to "undo" the law of initial values. Psychophysiology, 4, 187-206. Brown, P. C., & Smith, T. W. (1992). Social influence, marriage, and the heart: Cardiovascular consequences of interpersonal control in husbands and wives. Health Psychology, 11, 88-96. Burman, B., & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships and health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 39-63. Buss, D. M. (1989). Unmitigated agency and communion: An analysis of the negative components of masculinity and femininity. Sex Roles, 22, 555-568. Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164-168. Cacioppo, J. T., Uchino, B. N., & Bemtson, G. G. (1994). Individual differences in the autonomic origins of heart rate reactivity: The psychometrics of respiratory sinus arrhythmia and pre-ejection period. Psychophysiology, 31, 412--419. Davis, M. C., & Matthews, K. A. (1996). Do gender-relevant characteristics determine cardiovascular reactivity? Match versus mismatch of traits and situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 527-535. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369-389. Diamond, E. L., Schneiderman, N., Schwartz, D., Smith, J. C.,
544
SMITH, GALLO, GOBLE, NGU, AND STARK
Vorn, R., & Pasin, R. D. (1984). Harassment, hostility, and Type A as determinants of cardiovascular reactivity during competition. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 7, 171-189. Eaker, E. D., Haynes, S. G., & Feinleib, M. (1983). Spouse behavior and heart disease in men: Prospective results from the Framingham Heart Study. II. Modification of risk in Type A husbands according to the social and psychological status of their wives. American Journal of Epidemiology, 118, 28-41. Engebretson, T. O., Matthews, K. A., & Scheier, M. F. (1989). Relations between anger expression and cardiovascular reactivity: Reconciling inconsistent findings through a matching hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 513-521. Ewart, C. K. (1993). Marital interaction--The context for psychosomatic research. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 410--412. Ewart, C. K., Taylor, L. B., Kraemer, H. C., & Agras, W. S. (1991). High blood pressure and marital discord: Not being nasty matters more than being nice. Health Psychology, 10, 155-163. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1988). The social psychophysiology of marriage. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 182-202). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 221-233. Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personality measures: The interpersonal circumplex as a nomological net. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 105-118. Hazuda, H. E (1994). A critical evaluation of U.S. epidemiological evidence and ethnic variation. In S. A. Shumaker & S. M. Czajkowski (Eds.), Social support and cardiovascular disease (pp. 119-142). New York: Plenum Press. Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412-428. Hokanson, J. E. (1970). Psychophysiological evaluation of the catharsis hypothesis. In E. L. Megargee & J. E. Hokanson (Eds.), The dynamics of aggression (pp. 74-86). New York: Harper & Row. Houston, B. K. (1994). Anger, hostility, and psychophysiological reactivity. In A. W. Siegman & T. W. Smith (Eds.), Anger, hostility, and the heart (pp. 97-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Houston, B, K., Chesney, M. A., Black, G. W., Cates, D. S., & Hecker, M. H. L. (1992). Behavioral clusters and coronary heart disease. Psychosomatic Medicine, 54, 447-461. Jannings, J. R., Kamarck, T., Stewart, C., Eddy, M., & Johnson, P. (1992). Alternate cardiovascular baseline assessment techniques: Vanilla or resting baseline. Psychophysiology, 24, 474-475. Kamarck, T. W., Armunziato, B., & Amateau, L. M. (1995). Affiliation moderates the effects of social threat on stress-related cardiovascular responses: Boundary conditions for a laboratory model of social support. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 183-194. Kamarck, T. W., & Jennings, J. R. (1991). Biobehavioral factors in sudden cardiac death. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 42-75. Kaplan, J. R., Manuck, S. B., Williams, J. K., & Strawn, W. (1993). Psychosocial influences on atherosclerosis: Evidence for effects and mechanisms in nonhuman primates. In J. Blascovich & E. S. Katldn (Eds.), Cardiovascular reactivity to psychological stress and disease (pp. 3-26). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kenny, D. A. (1995). Design and analysis issues in dyadic research. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 164-184. Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185-214.
Kiesler, D. J. (1991). Interpersonal methods of assessment and diagnosis. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (F,ds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 438-468). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Lash, S. J., Gillespie, B. L., Eisler, R. M., & Southard, D. R. (1991). Sex differences in cardiovascular reactivity: The role of gender determined appraisal of challenge. Health Psychology, 10, 392-398. Lawler, K. A., Wilcox, Z. C., & Anderson, S. L. (1995). Gender differences in patterns of dynamic cardiovascular regulation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 357-365. Lepore, S. J. (1995). Cynicism, social support, and cardiovascular reactivity. Health Psychology, 14, 210-216. Lippa, R. (1995). Gender-related individual differences and psychological adjustment in terms of the Big Five and circumplex models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1184--1202. Llabre, M. M., Spitzer, S. B., Saab, P. G., Ironson, G. H., & Schneiderman, N. (1991). The reliability and specificity of delta versus residualized change as measures of cardiovascular reactivity to behavioral challenges. Psychophysiology, 28, 701-711. Manuck, S. B. (1994). Cardiovascular reactivity in cardiovascular disease: "Once more unto the breach." International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1, 4-31. Matthews, K. A. (1989). Interactive effects of behavior and reproductive hormones on sex differences in risk for coronary heart disease. Health Psychology, 8, 373-387. Matthews, K. A., Davis, M. C., Stoney, C. M., Owens, J. E, & Caggiula, A. R. (1991). Does the gender relevance of stressors influence sex differences in psychophysiological responses? Health Psychology, I0, 112-120. Matthews, K. A., & Stoney, C. M. (1988). Influences of sex and age on cardiovascular responses during stress. Psychophysiology, 50, 46-56. Miller, T. Q., Smith, T. W., Turner, C. W., Guijarro, M. L., & Hallet, A. J. (1996). A recta-analytic review of research on hostility and physical health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 322-348. Obrist, E A. (1981). Cardiovascularpsychophysiology: A perspective. New York: Plenum. Schneiderman, N., & McCabe, E M. (1989). Psychophysiologic strategies in laboratory research. In N. Schneiderman, S. M. Weiss, & P. G. Kaufmann (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in cardiovascular behavioral medicine (pp. 347-364). New York: Plenum. Sherwood, A. (1993). Use of impedance cardiography in cardiovascular reactivity research. In J. Blascovich & E. S. Katldn (Eds.), Cardiovascular reactivity to psychological stress and disease (pp. 157-200). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Smith, T. W., Allred, K. D., Morrison, C. A., & Carlson, S. D. (1989). Cardiovascular reactivity and interpersonal influence: Active coping in a social context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 209-218. Smith, T. W., Baldwin, M., & Christensen, A. (1990). Interpersonal influence as active coping: Effects of task difficulty on cardiovascular reactivity. Psychophysiology, 27, 429-437. Smith, T. W., & Brehm, S. (1981). Person perception and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1137-1149. Smith, T. W., & Christensen, A. J. (1992). Cardiovascular reactivity and interpersonal relations: Psychosomatic processes in social context. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 279-301. Smith, T. W., Limon, J. P., Gallo, L. C., & Ngu, L. Q. (1996). Interpersonal control and cardiovascular reactivity: Goals, behav-
CARDIOVASCULAR REACTIVITY IN MARRIAGE ioral expression, and the moderating effects of sex. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1012-1024. Smith, T. W., Nealey, J. B., Kircher, J. C., & Limon, J. P. (1997). Social determinants of cardiovascular reactivity: Effects of incentive to exert influence and evaluative threat. Psychophysiology, 34, 65-73. Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. In B. A. Maber & W. B. Mailer (Eds.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 13, pp. 1-97). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Stoney, C. M., Davis, M. C., & Matthews, K. A. (1987). Sex differences in physiological responses to stress and in coronary heart disease: A causal link? Psychophysiology, 24, 127-131. Tucker, J. S., Friedman, H. S., W'mgard, D. L., & Schwartz, J. E. (1996). Marital history at midlife as a predictor of longevity: Alternative explanations to the protective effect of marriage. Health Psychology, 15, 94-101. Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. R., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488-531. Wampold, B. E., Davis, B., & Good, R. H. (1990). Hypothesis validity of clinical research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5& 360-367.
545
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of traitdescriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412. Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Cicehetti & W. Grove (Eds.), Thinking
clearly in psychology: Essays in honor of Paul Everrett Meehl (pp. 89-113). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wiggins, J. S., & Broughton, R. (1991). A geometric taxonomy of personality scales. European Journal of Personality, 5, 343-365. Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (F_xl.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88-162). New York: Guilford Press. Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., & Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-B5). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 517-530. Wingard, D. L., Suarez, L., & Barrett-Connor, E. (1983). The sex differential in mortality from all causes and ischemic heart disease. American Journal of Epidemiology, 117, 165-172. Wright, R. A., Murray, J. B., Storey, P. L., & Williams, B. J. (1997). Ability analysis of gender relevance and sex differences in cardiovascular response to behavioral challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 405-417.
