Premium
Situational and individual‐difference correlates of annoyance extent and variability in daily provocations
Author(s) -
Gidron Y.,
Stewart S. H.,
BenZur H.,
Breznitz S.
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
british journal of health psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.05
H-Index - 88
eISSN - 2044-8287
pISSN - 1359-107X
DOI - 10.1111/j.2044-8287.1998.tb00561.x
Subject(s) - annoyance , hostility , psychology , context (archaeology) , situational ethics , trait , psychological intervention , clinical psychology , developmental psychology , social psychology , audiology , medicine , psychiatry , paleontology , computer science , programming language , biology , loudness
Objectives . This study wished to replicate previous findings on the effects of situational factors on annoyance extent of Israeli students in Canadian students, and to examine the roles of trait hostility and monitoring in annoyance extent and variability. Design . A within‐subject design tested the effects of situational dimensions (e.g. damage, intentionality), on annoyance extent, and a correlational design tested the relation between individual‐difference traits and annoyance extent and variability. Methods . Two Canadian student samples ( N = 73 and N =79) completed a questionnaire to determine the effects of nine situational dimensions on annoyance extent. The second sample was additionally assessed for trait hostility (abbreviated Ho scale) and trait monitoring (Miller Behavioral Style Scale). Annoyance variability was defined as difference in annoyance extent between severe and mild provocations. Results . Eight situational dimensions conceptually related to harm (damage, correct‐ability, investment), control/information (intentionality, expectedness, agent, preventability) and social context (audience) consistently affected annoyance extent. Hostility and monitoring were positively and significantly correlated with annoyance extent ( r = .34, r = .31, respectively). Finally, hostility was negatively correlated with annoyance variability. Conclusions . Several situational dimensions were found to have a robust effect on annoyance extent cross‐culturally. The negative correlation between hostility and annoyance variability may reflect cognitive and/or response biases. Interventions aimed at reducing health risks of hostile individuals (e.g. coronary heart disease) may need to alter these biases when facing provocations of different severity, to help them adapt more appropriately.