Martijn van Teffelen

Hierarchical structure of hostility 35 2 forms of aggression (e.g., relational, or passive-rational aggression) and men exhibit more direct forms (e.g., physical aggression) (Björkqvist et al., 1992), the results might differ from a sample that includes more men. Third, 30 patients were included in the present sample to ensure enough variation at the extreme end of the hostility dimension. Network models of psychopathology suggest that overall symptom severity is positively related to the strength of correlations between symptom clusters (Robinaugh et al., 2020). Recent work shows that hostility is associated with increase psychopathological severity (Cassiello-Robbins et al., 2015). Theoretically it could be possible that different patterns in the patient subgroup may impact the present findings, for example by artificially driving up correlations. Nonetheless, absence of bimodality and univariate outliers suggests that hostility levels in the present sample reflect a distribution that might be expected in the population and is in line with the dimensional approach to psychopathology (Kotov et al., 2017). Fourth, all self-reports were administered in Dutch. Consequently, the results of present work may be culturally bias and may not generalize to non-Dutch cultures. Fifth, the present work approached hostility from a trait approach. As a result, self-report measures were used. A recommendation for future research is to include measures that capture (state) aspects of hostility on different analytical levels, such as physiologically (e.g., variations in heart-rate variability or skin conductance) or behaviorally (e.g., Competitive Reaction Time Task or Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm; Cherek et al., 2003; Taylor, 1967). Last, in the present study we worked with a selection of instruments that measure hostility constructs. The STAXI-2 and AQ show excellent psychometric properties (Hornsveld et al., 2009; Lievaart et al., 2016; McKay et al., 2016; Spielberger, 1999) and are extensively used and cited - A Web of Science citation report on 15 November 2019 reveals that the STAXI(-2) and AQ are cited respectively 6160 and 4139 times in scientific articles since 1988. The FOA is less commonly used and cited but does show good psychometric properties in its original form and closely fits modern definitions of aggressive behavior (i.e., any behavior that is intended to cause harm to another person) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Despite this careful questionnaire selection, future research needs to examine whether this hierarchical structure holds when more or other instruments are used. The current finding that hostility is a construct that can be interpreted at different levels of theoretical generality versus specificity comes with several main implications. One implication is that a person can score high on a measure that captures one aspect of hostility but will not necessarily score high on another. For example, a person with a tendency to be easily angered does not necessarily easily engage in aggressive behavior. Also, a person with the tendency to respond physically aggressive, does not necessarily have the tendency to be verbally aggressive. Hostile affect, cognition and behavior may therefore have different antecedents and consequences, requiring a different approach in clinical context. More importantly, the current study illustrates that the lack of consensus in the current hostility literature is likely the result of conceptual identity confusion (i.e., jingle and jangle fallacies). This, in turn, leads to