Martijn van Teffelen

Chapter 2 26 model has been reported with distinctions between hostility, anger, verbal aggression, and physical aggression (Buss & Perry, 1992; Maier et al., 2009). Taken together, the findings of methodologically heterogeneous factor analytic studies hardly converge in terms of number of produced factors and factor content. A major caveat in the available evidence is that previous work focused on two levels of analysis: a higher order domain, trait, or latent construct (e.g., hostility) and lower-level facets (e.g., experience and expression). Consequently, the outcomes of EFA’s are likely to be a function of the combination of instruments, subscales and items that were fed into the respective models. Theoretically the ABC- or AHA-model has been influential. However, empirical evidence shows that the optimal factor structure of hostility is debatable. Moreover, it is unclear how different homogenous facets relate to each other and how central they are to the broad-hostility domain. Lack of consensus leads to measurement imprecision. Close inspection of item-content in widely adapted measures of hostility facets for example shows that items often cross-capture hostility facets. For example, how often one shows certain aggressive behaviors when ang ry (Reactive Proactive Questionnaire) (Raine et al., 2006), or “I have become so mad that I have broken things” (Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire) (Buss & Perry, 1992), or “When I get mad, I say nasty things” (State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2) (Spielberger, 1999). Studies in the broad personality psychology field suggest that there is value in investigating model solutions that include more than two conceptual, hierarchical layers (Bacon, 2001). For example, within the construct of narcissism it has been shown that seemingly diverging results of factor analytic studies (i.e., showing different ‘optimal’ factor solutions) converge into a five-layered hierarchical model in which lower-order facets become more and more specific with each hierarchical layer (Crowe et al., 2019). Other examples of presumed diverging models that converge into a multi-layered hierarchical model have been reported for agreeableness (Crowe et al., 2018), impulsivity (Kirby & Finch, 2010), emotion expression (Barr et al., 2008), and avoidance behavior (Declercq & De Houwer, 2009). Along the same lines, hostility could potentially be expressed as a hierarchical structure consisting of one higher order domain that clusters into two to many facets that become more specific in each additional hierarchical layer. To the best of our knowledge, no hierarchical cluster analysis on hostility has been previously performed. In sum, factor-analytic evidence tends to converge with a multidimensional view of the hostility construct, but previous work shows differences in number and content of factor solutions. The current study, including facet-level and broad-domain measures, therefore builds on earlier work by examining the hierarchical structure of the hostility concept. The main expectation is that a multidimensional hierarchical structure will be uncovered.