Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Cardiovascular response to harassment and the influence of apology strategies on recovery period Anderson, Jeremy C. 2000

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2000-0629.pdf [ 2.85MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0089686.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0089686-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0089686-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0089686-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0089686-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0089686-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0089686-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0089686-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0089686.ris

Full Text

C A R D I O V A S C U L A R R E S P O N S E T O H A R A S S M E N T A N D T H E I N F L U E N C E OF A P O L O G Y STRATEGIES O N R E C O V E R Y PERIOD by J E R E M Y C. A N D E R S O N B . S c , The University of Northern British Columbia, 1998 A THESIS SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF ARTS in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department o f Psychology)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A October 2000 © Jeremy C. Anderson, 2000  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  thesis  in  partial  University  of  British  available for  copying  of  department publication  this or of  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  scholarly  or for  her  The University of British C o l u m b i a Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  the  requirements that  I further agree that  purposes  may  representatives.  financial  Department  of  Columbia, I agree  and study.  permission.  Date  fulfilment  gain  It  shall not  be is  the  an  advanced  Library shall make  permission for  granted  by  understood be  for  allowed  the that  without  it  extensive  head  of  my  copying  or  my  written  11  Abstract 184 participants (92 male, 92 female) performed a laboratory stress task involving mental arithmetic i n a study examining the influence o f apology strategies on cardiovascular recovery from  anger provocation involving harassment.  Participants completed the Cook-Medley  Hostility Scale prior to the laboratory session, to assess their degree o f cynicism.  Participants  were randomly assigned to one o f four conditions: (1) non-harassed Control, (2) harassed/Good Apology, (3) harassed/Pseudo-apology, or (4) harassed/Delayed Apology. Measures o f systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure ( D B P ) , and heart rate ( H R ) , and samples o f salivary Cortisol were taken at consecutive baseline, task and return to baseline periods. Results indicate that verbal harassment resulted i n increased reported anger and increased cardiovascular reactivity i n participants, but did not result i n slower overall recovery than was seen i n Controls. Participants who received a genuine apology displayed faster decreases i n self-reported anger than those who received a fake apology, termed a pseudo-apology. Participants l o w i n cynicism displayed little i f any difference i n cardiovascular recovery between apology conditions, while those higher i n cynicism displayed faster S B P recovery when they received a genuine apology. High-cynical individuals displayed similar S B P recovery when given a pseudo-apology compared to when given no apology. M e n typically displayed slower overall S B P recovery than women and men displayed the fastest H R recovery when given a pseudo-apology.  Asian  participants displayed slower S B P recovery when they received no apology at the beginning o f the recovery period. It is concluded that a genuine apology can accelerate recovery from anger provocation but only i n certain population subgroups.  iii T A B L E OF CONTENTS Abstract  ii  List o f Tables  v  List o f Figures  vi  INTRODUCTION  1  Stress and Illness  1  Cardiovascular Disease, Reactivity Studies, and Hostility  2  Remorse and Apologies  7  The Current Study  11  METHOD  13  Participants  13  Pre-session Questionnaires and Habituation  13  Procedure  14  Baseline Period  14  Task Period  14  Recovery Period  16  Debriefing  16  Data Analysis Preparation  16  RESULTS  17  Self-report Emotion Rating Scales  17  Physiological Data  18  Comparing Harassed Participants to Non-harassed Controls  19  Comparing Harassed Participants According to Apology Condition  20  Systolic B l o o d Pressure  20  Diastolic B l o o d Pressure  22  iv Heart Rate  23  DISCUSSION  24  CONCLUSIONS  28  FUTURE RESEARCH  29  References  31  Endnotes  42  V  List o f Tables Table 1 Analysis o f Variance for Emotion Rating Scales  43  Table 2 Systolic B l o o d Pressure: 3-Wav Factorial A N O V A s Performed at Separate Recovery Time Points  44  Table 3 Diastolic B l o o d Pressure: 3-Way Factorial A N O V A s Performed at Separate Recovery Time Points  45  Table 4 Heart Rate: 3-Wav Factorial A N O V A s Performed at Separate Recovery Time Points  46  vi List o f Figures Figure 1. Emotion Rating Scale Happiness Ratings  47  Figure 2. Emotion Rating Scale Anger Ratings  48  Figure 3. Emotion Rating Scale Fear Ratings  49  Figure 4. Emotion Rating Scale Sadness Ratings  50  Figure 5. Emotion Rating Scale Disgust Ratings  51  Figure 6. Emotion Rating Scale Surprise Ratings  52  Figure 7. Emotion Rating Scale R a w Change: Baseline to Task  53  Figure 8. Emotion Rating Scale R a w Change: Task to 1 Recovery  54  Figure 9. Emotion Rating Scale R a w Change 1 Recovery to Final Recovery  55  Figure 10. Task to 1 Recovery Residua? H R Change  56  Figure 11. Task to 2  57  st  st  st  n d  Recovery Residual H R Change  Figure 12. Task to 1 Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Gender  58  Figure 13. Task to 2  Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Gender  59  Figure 14. Task to 4 Recovery Residual S B P Change: A p o l o g y Condition by Gender  60  Figure 15. Task to 1 Recovery Residual S B P Change: A p o l o g y Condition by C y n i c i s m  61  Figure 16. Task to 1 Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Ethnicity  62  Figure 17. Task to 2  n d  Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by C y n i c i s m  63  Figure 18. Task to 2  n d  Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Ethnicity  .......64  Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by C y n i c i s m  65  Figure 20. Task to 4 Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by C y n i c i s m  66  Figure 2 1 . Task to 4th Recovery Residual D B P Change: Apology Condition by C y n i c i s m  67  Figure 22. Task to 2  n d  Recovery Residual H R Change: A p o l o g y Condition by Gender  68  Figure 23. Task to 3  r d  Recovery Residual H R Change: A p o l o g y Condition by Gender  69  Figure 24. Task to 4th Recovery Residual H R Change: Apology Condition by Gender  70  st  n d  th  st  st  F  i  g  u  r  e  1 9  • Task to 3  r d  th  1 Introduction Within the past three decades or more, it has become increasingly clear that stress, something which is perhaps a universal human experience, can influence disease processes i n animals and humans. Stress can be defined as a transaction between the individual and the environment, i n which the person assesses both the threatening stimuli (stressor) and also available coping resources (i.e., the ability o f that individual to deal with the threat), and the psychological and physiological reactions to the perceived threat (Lazarus, & Folkman, 1984). Research examining the relationship between stress and cardiovascular disease has focused on how individual personality characteristics interact with stressors such that some people develop illness while others do not. The current study goes a step further, by examining a uniquely human social process, i.e., the influence o f apologies on cardiovascular functioning following interpersonal conflict. In so doing, this research illuminates the effect o f remedial strategies following acute emotional stress, the kind thought by some to be particularly salient for the development o f disease processes (Linden, Earle, Gerin, & Christenfeld, 1997). F o r it may not be the experience o f stress per se which results i n illness, but rather the manner i n which individuals are able to cope with that experience. Stress and Illness The physiological response associated with stress has traditionally been viewed within the context o f the "fight or flight" model proposed by Cannon (1929), expanded later by Selye (1936) to include three phases: (1) activation, (2) resistance and (3) exhaustion. W i t h i n Selye's model, whenever an organism encounters a perceived threatening stimulus, physiological changes occur within that organism (activation) i n order to better its ability to fight or flee from the threat (resistance). Activation and resistance to threat maintained beyond the organism's available resources results in exhaustion. It has been proposed that physiological activation beyond the resistance phase contributes to disease processes (Linden et al., 1997).  2 The physiological response to stress is partly the result o f increased activity o f the sympathetic nervous system (SNS). S N S activity stimulates the heart, resulting i n increases i n blood pressure and heart rate, dilates the pupils, inhibits digestion, stimulates the liver, resulting in increases i n blood glucose levels, constricts blood vessels i n the skin and dilates blood vessels i n skeletal muscles, and also stimulates the adrenal medulla, resulting i n production o f epinephrine and norepinephrine. Norepinephrine also serves as a neurotransmitter i n the S N S . Increased levels o f these hormones i n the blood have a similar effect o f SNS activity i n that they result i n increased blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, perspiration, and muscle strength. This has been termed the sympathoadreno-medullary ( S A M ) axis (McCabe, & Schneiderman, 1985). Further, the physiological response to stress also acts v i a the hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenocortical ( H P A ) axis. In this system, central nervous system ( C N S ) activity stimulates the hypothalamus, resulting i n secretion o f corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF), that acts on the pituitary gland to produce adrenocorticotrophic hormone ( A C T H ) . A C T H then activates the adrenal cortex which then produces corticosteroids, which regulate blood glucose and blood electrolytes, and suppress inflammation and immune system activity. Because H P A axis activity is regulated by hormonal pathways more so than S A M axis activity, H P A activity tends to be slower-acting and longer-lasting than S A M activity. It has been suggested that H P A axis activity is associated with experience o f chronic strain and negative affect and that H P A activation is more closely linked to disease processes, as it represents slower return to an organism's homeostatic functioning (Dienstbier, 1989; Taylor, 1991). Cardiovascular Disease, Reactivity Studies, and Hostility In the past three decades, there has been growing interest i n the psychological and behavioural aspects relating to cardiovascular disease ( C V D ) . The Type A behaviour pattern emerged i n the late 1970's as a cluster o f traits and behaviours thought to contribute to C V D . These include competitiveness, sense o f time urgency, achievement striving and hostility (Glass,  3 1977). Numerous studies have suggested that Type A individuals are at increased risk for C V D (Drummond, 1982; Schmidt, 1983), and that Type A ' s show greater severity o f C V D , even after controlling for other known risk factors (Frank, 1978). However, many studies failed to show a significant relationship between Type A behaviour pattern and increased risk o f C V D (MacDougall, Dembroski, Dimsdale, & Hackett, 1985). Surprisingly, other studies showed that, following one's first heart attack, Type A ' s were less likely than Type B ' s to die from a second heart attack (de Leo, Caracciolo, Berto, Mauro, et al., 1986; Ragland & Brand, 1988). Findings such as these led researchers to question the validity o f the Type A construct and led some authors to call for a closer examination o f specific components o f the Type A behaviour pattern (Costa, et al., 1987; Linden, 1987). These authors suggested that the hostility component i n the Type A behaviour pattern i n particular plays the vital role i n contributing to C V D . Hostility has itself been the topic o f C V D research for a long time. In one study, it was found that C V D patients with angina pectoris tended to show compulsiveness, repressed hostility and an inability to verbalize their anger (Wolff, 1969). A separate study found that expressed hostility was related to severity o f angina and duration o f C V D (Tennant and Langeluddecke, 1985). Given results such as these, researchers were left to propose a mechanism by which hostility exerts an influence on the development o f C V D . W i t h i n the cardiovascular literature, there have been numerous studies suggesting that hyperreactivity o f the S N S , resulting i n exaggerated increases i n heart rate ( H R ) and blood pressure (BP), is predictive o f development o f hypertension. M u c h o f this research has been done comparing the cardiovascular reactivity o f those with and without a family history o f hypertension. Several studies have found that normotensive individuals with a positive family history o f hypertension show greater reactivity to laboratory stressors (Ernst, Francis, & Enwonwu, 1990; Fredrikson, Tuomisto, & Bergman-Losman, 1991; Johnson, 1982; Jorgensen,  4 Gelling, & Kliner, 1992; Jorgensen, & Houston, 1986; Jorgensen, & Houston, 1988; Marrero, a l ' A b s i , Pincomb, & Lovallo, 1997; Sausen, Lovallo, & Wilson, 1991; Semenchuk, & Larkin, 1993; Stoney, & Matthews, 1988; Voegele, Jarvis, & Cheeseman, 1997). Other studies have shown that diagnosed hypertensives also show greater cardiovascular reactivity to laboratory stressors than normotensives (Drummond, 1983; Fredrikson, 1992; Tuomisto, 1997). Evidence from studies such as these led Fredrikson and Matthews (1990) i n their meta-analytic review article to conclude that chronic cardiovascular hyperreactivity is a factor leading to essential hypertension. However, other studies have failed to replicate such a relationship. Some researchers found that while hypertensives showed higher mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure ( D B P ) , the magnitude o f change during the stressor from baseline did not differ reliably from that o f normotensives (Lazaro, Valdes, Marcos, & Guarch, 1993; Koehler, Scherbaum, & Ritz, 1995; Koehler, 1996). Prior to these studies, one meta-analytic study and a literature review had suggested that effect sizes for observed differences i n reactivity are small (Rosenman, & Ward, 1988; Pickering, & Gerin, 1990). These authors argue there is little support for the reactivity hypothesis o f hypertension. This is echoed by Rosenman and Hjemdahl (1991) and Rosenman (1991) who point out that cardiovascular changes such as those observed i n the laboratory occur constantly i n an individual's waking state and that anxiety disorders, conditions characterized by cardiovascular hyperreactivity, correlate poorly with C V D . They argue the need for stronger evidence before assigning a causal role to reactivity for the development o f hypertension. Criticism such as this, as well as the above-mentioned findings regarding hostility and C V D , led to a new wave o f research relating hostility to reactivity. A t least as early as 1977, A . H . M a n n had found that hypertensive individuals tended to show more hostility than normotensives. Another early study had found that hostility accounted  5 for greater increases i n SBP, H R , and neuroendocrine levels i n Type A ' s than Type B ' s during a competitive task (Glass et a l , 1980). It was noted i n another review article that coronary-prone individuals seemed to be more aggressive (Diamond, 1982). In another study, it was found that only those scoring high in hostility showed elevated S B P reactivity as a function of the Type A behaviour pattern (Diamond et al., 1984). The finding that hostile individuals show greater reactivity than non-hostiles, was replicated i n some studies ( M c C a n n , & Matthews, 1988); however, others failed to show a convincing relationship (Sallis et al., 1987; Smith, & Houston, 1987). In spite o f this, researchers continued to find that hostility was related to C V D , even though many studies failed to show a relationship to reactivity, the proposed mechanism by which hostility exerts its influence on the development o f C V D . F e w studies found that overall hostility scores were related to C V D (Bernardo, et al., 1987), however, many authors remained adamant that hostility needed to be studied more closely in relation to reactivity and C V D (Costa et al., 1987; Dembroski, & Costa, 1988; Krantz, Contrada, H i l l , & Friedler, 1988; Linden, 1987; M a n n , 1986). These authors pointed to a multidimensional nature o f hostility. Beginning at this time, studies were published demonstrating that hostility was differentially related to C V D i f it was classed as "neurotic" vs. "non-neurotic" (Siegman, Dembroski, & Ringel, 1987), "overt" vs. "covert" (Jorgensen, & Houston, 1988), or "neurotic" vs. "antagonistic" (Suarez, & Williams, 1990). M o d e o f anger expression as well as hostility, may also be related to reactivity and C V D (Krantz, Contrada, H i l l , & Friedler, 1988). Reviews at this time similarly called for further sophisticated examinations o f specific hostility components (Schneiderman, Chesney, & Krantz, 1989). Following this, numerous studies have emerged which demonstrate the relationship between specific types o f hostility and cardiovascular reactivity. Some research found that ratings o f cynical hostility were related to greater reactivity (Christensen, & Smith, 1993; Powch,  6 & Houston, 1996). This and other findings demonstrating that expressive hostility is associated with greater reactivity during harassment suggests that more researchers would find such a relationship between hostility and reactivity i f they took into account the different components o f hostility (Felsten, & Leitten, 1993). Lawler, Harralson, Armstead, and Schmied (1993) also compared reactivity o f those with high and l o w neurotic and expressed hostility. They found a pattern o f results i n which degree o f reactivity was related to interactions between type o f hostility, gender and type o f lab task. Another study found that high hostility scores were associated with greater heart rate reactivity i n low-defensive men and that l o w hostility scores were associated with greater D B P reactivity i n low-defensive women (Shapiro, Goldstein, & Jamner, 1995). These studies suggest a complex relationship between reactivity and hostility. Around this time, Johan Denollet began reinvestigating the coronary-prone behaviour pattern. In a study o f cardiac patients, it was found that those displaying high negative affectivity had more physical complaints, overreacted to physical problems and produced higher hostility scores than did those with a repressive coping style (Denollet, 1991). Denollet (1993) later produced a theoretical model i n which distressed individuals—those who are hostile and stressed—and who are also socially inhibited, i n that they do not express their anger, are prone to C V D . This conceptualization is supported by the results o f studies finding that individuals characterized by hostility, avoidance coping and l o w expressed anger showed exaggerated reactivity to an emotional task (Vitaliano et al., 1993). It has also been found that hostility and self-deception are associated with elevated ambulatory B P means (Linden, Chambers, Maurice, & Lenz, 1993). Another study found that for a task designed to provoke hostility, only those who suppressed their anger showed cardiovascular hyperreactivity (Davidson, 1993). Holding anger i n coupled with hostile attitudes has been associated with increased reactivity (Lawler et a l , 1998) and with arterial plaque build-up (Matthews et al., 1998). Negative affectivity has itself recently been shown to produce hyperreactivity i n l o w hostile  7 individuals (Raeikkoenen, Matthews, Flory, & Owen, 1999). These findings are consistent with the concept o f the Type D behaviour pattern (Denollet, 1997). Denollet presents Type D as a behaviour pattern o f those at risk for C V D and is meant as an improvement on the Type A pattern. Type D ' s are described as showing high levels o f depressive affect, l o w self-esteem, little life satisfaction, low positive affect, high negative affect such as anger, and at the same time being socially inhibited. The same author has proposed a 24-item questionnaire, as well as a 16item screening form, used to classify individuals as Type D (Denollet, 1998). In addition to the work relating components o f hostility to cardiovascular reactivity, some recent research has turned towards examination o f rate o f recovery to baseline following a laboratory stressor. It has been theorized that negative emotions such as anger induce greater physiological arousal within an organism than do positive emotions and that once aroused, organisms minimize that arousal v i a homeostatic mechanisms (Taylor, 1991). Further, it has been suggested by the same author that effective coping with stress is characterized by quick recovery from such stress-related arousal. M a n y authors have found slower recovery rates among high hostile individuals (Ganster, Schaubroeck, Sime, & Mayes, 1991), Type A ' s versus Type B ' s (Palmero, Codina, & Rosel, 1993), those high i n anxiety and social avoidance (Vitaliano, Russo, Paulsen, & Bailey, 1995), as well as hypertensives (Koehler, Fricke, R i t z , & Scherbaum, 1997; Seibt, Boucsein, & Scheuch, 1998; O ' B r i e n , Haynes, & M u m b y , 1998). In a meta-analytic review, Hocking-Schuler, and O ' B r i e n (1997) conclude that individuals at high risk for hypertension show delayed recovery from laboratory stressors. Remorse and Apologies Remorse and apologetic behaviour are features o f social interaction which are familiar to most people. Nearly everyone can think o f a situation in which they either received an apology or gave an apology for some error or offense they committed. A n d one need not look far to encounter public apologies i n daily life. The news media regularly portray public figures  8 apologizing for their behaviour, be it a politician apologizing for a sex scandal, a sports figure apologizing for his drunk driving, or a criminal apologizing for his crime. Yet despite the importance and frequent display o f expressions o f remorse, the psychological literature is surprisingly lacking on this topic. A search o f available psychological abstracts by this author revealed fewer than 30 articles published from 1967 to the present relating to apologies and a review o f the sociological and sociolinguistic literature is only slightly more promising. Further, no studies within the apology literature included physiological measures. T o the author's knowledge, the current study is an original contribution i n that there has been no published psychophysiology study specifically examining the effects o f apologies. Perhaps psychology researchers neglect the study o f remorse and apologies because remorse is a difficult concept to define. The working definition I have used i n previous studies is, "Feeling sorry for something you have done, or not done, to another person." While this is a simple and easily understood definition for study participants, it is not one that invites disciplined inquiry from psychologists. Landman (1993) i n a comparison o f remorse with regret, defines remorse as, "gnawing distress arising from a sense o f guilt for past wrongs (as injuries done to others)," (pp. 51). Landman's definition seems more adequate, and she goes on to argue that remorse is a narrow, more-focused cousin o f regret. In particular, remorse applies to one's own past, voluntary, overt, and morally or legally wrong acts, or failures to act. When individuals commit some offense or error for which they feel remorse, a common strategy is to offer an apology. In a study comparing an apology following destructive criticism o f participants by a confederate with other interventions, such as the opportunity to offer retaliatory criticism or statements by the criticizer that they did not intend to cause harm, it was found that often an apology was the most effective remedial strategy (Baron, 1990). In a study involving children, it was found that after witnessing a transgression by an actor, children rated  9 the actor most favorably i f he had a good reputation, gave an apology and appeared remorseful (Darby, & Schlenker, 1989). Similar results have been found with university undergraduates. One study had students read a vignette depicting a man who incurred a motor vehicle accident while drunk (Taylor, & Kleinke, 1992). These authors found that those students who read the vignette in which the man expressed remorse for his actions rated the man as being more responsible and more sensitive. This is echoed by studies i n which participants were asked to rate criminal confessors to sexual assault (Kleinke, Wallis, & Stalder, 1992) and vehicular manslaughter (Robinson, Smith-Lovin, & Tsoudis, 1994). In these studies it was found that participants rated confessors more favorably i f they expressed remorse. It should be noted that i n these studies, although perceptions o f the offender changed, sentencing recommendations did not. It is clear from these studies that the apology is an effective way o f impression management following one's offense. It suggests that an apology may be an effective way o f reducing anger i n victims o f an offence, although i n the above studies, victims were not those rating the offenders. A n earlier study specifically compared victim responses following harm when they received an apology to when no apology was given (Ohbuchi, Agarie, & Kameda, 1989). They found that those who received an apology experienced reduced aggression and improved impression o f the offender. Further, they suggest that more severe offenses require more elaborate apologies. Within the literature examining apologies, there is no standard by which apologies are judged. Various authors have proposed specific components o f apologies (Holmes, 1990) however, there is little consistency across studies as to what constitutes a genuine apology. The system I have used i n previous research (Anderson & Prkachin, 1998) includes six verbal components, the first being an explicit expression o f remorse (e.g., " I ' m sorry."). The second is a statement o f why one feels remorse and this requires specificity (e.g., " I ' m sorry for stepping  10 on your toe," as opposed to, " I ' m sorry for... you know.") and being sorry for the right thing (e.g., " I ' m sorry I called you a liar," as opposed to, " I ' m sorry you feel that way."). Next, one must accept responsibility his or her actions (e.g., "It's my fault."). A genuine apology also includes an explanation for the offensive behaviour. It is important to provide an explanation without trying to excuse the offence and shirk responsibility (e.g., " I ' m sorry. I wasn't looking where I was going," vs. " I ' m sorry I bumped into you but I had to answer my cell phone quickly."). The fifth component is a promise o f forbearance. This is a statement stating that the offensive behaviour is not reflective o f the offender's true character, therefore the victim can trust the behaviour w i l l not recur i n the future (e.g., " I ' l l be more careful in the future."). Finally, a genuine apology is accompanied by a offer o f restitution (e.g., " I ' l l pay to have it cleaned."). Obviously, these components are not the only factors making up a genuine apology. Aside from what is actually said, non-verbal factors such as facial expression, body posture and tone o f voice speak to the sincerity o f the apologizer. Indeed, previous research conducted by this author suggests that non-verbal factors are essential i n perception o f apology sincerity (Anderson & Prkachin, 1998). In a pilot study conducted for the current research interest, nine participants read and listened to the delivery o f eight different apology scripts, created by the investigator each with a different number or combination o f the apology components listed above. Participants were asked to rate the perceived sincerity o f each apology on a 9-point Likert scale for which 1 = "Not at all sincere" and 9 = "Extremely sincere." It was found that by varying the number and combination o f components included i n an apology script and the manner i n which it is presented one can reliably manipulate the perceived sincerity o f the apology. The apology which received the highest mean rating ( M = 8.75, S D = 1.28) formed the Good Apology script and the apology with the lowest mean rating ( M = 2 . 5 , S D = 1 . 5 1 ) formed the Pseudo-apology script used i n the following investigation. Researchers involved i n the  11  current study wanted to investigate the effects o f different types o f apologies on cardiovascular recovery. The Current Study The research study is partly a replication o f Earle, Linden, and Weinberg (1999), who examined differential effects o f harassment on cardiovascular and salivary Cortisol reactivity and recovery i n men and women. Salivary Cortisol is a marker o f A C T H and is indicative of H P A axis activity (Linden et al., 1997). B y measuring Cortisol, investigators are able to tease apart the relative contributions o f S A M axis activity, associated with effective coping with stress, and H P A axis activity, the axis associated with negative affect and more relevant to disease processes. In that study, male and female participants all performed a mental arithmetic task and those i n the experimental group were verbally harassed by the experimenters i n order to induce anger. The researchers then compared the patterns o f reactivity and recovery of those who were harassed to those who were not, as well as comparing the patterns produced by men to those produced by women. They found that harassed participants showed greater reactivity than controls and that men show delayed recovery to baseline levels, while women tended to show overcompensation i n cardiovascular recovery. Consistent with that research, the first hypothesis o f this study is that harassed participants w i l l show greater cardiovascular reactivity to the task than w i l l non-harassed controls. Hypothesis 2 states that harassed participants w i l l show delayed recovery relative to non-harassed controls. The unique feature o f this study is its examination o f apology strategies and their consequence for cardiovascular recovery to baseline. Indeed, the author is aware o f no previous psychophysiological study involving apologies. Following the arithmetic task, harassed participants were assigned to one o f three groups: those who received a good apology, those who  12 received a pseudo-apology and those who received no apology. Hypothesis 3 states that harassed participants w i l l show differential recovery depending upon the apology condition to which they are assigned. Further, participants i n this study were assessed for level o f cynical hostility (high or low).  Consistent with the above-noted research literature, Hypothesis 4 states  that cynical participants w i l l show attenuated return to baseline relative to non-cynicals. It should be noted that Hypotheses 1 is merely a validity check. Support for Hypothesis 1 is required for investigators to conclude that the task manipulation was successful—that participants were indeed angered by the harassment—and that this anger is associated with cardiovascular hyperreactivity. Support for Hypothesis 2 is useful although not required as a validity check. It is upon these two supporting hypotheses that the central question i n the current study, Hypothesis 3, rests. Given the premise based on the above apology literature, that an effectively delivered apology reduces anger i n its audience, one may suggest that the influence o f apology strategies on cardiovascular recovery (Hypothesis 3) results from its reducing (or not reducing) anger i n participants. Hypothesis 4 is included i n this study due to the previously demonstrated specific effects o f cynical hostility on cardiovascular reactivity and recovery and also because cynicism might reasonably be expected to influence one's interpretation o f the sincerity o f an apology. Although there were no specific hypotheses related to either gender or ethnicity, these factors were included i n the data analysis. Earle, Linden, and Weinberg (1999) did in fact find significant differences in recovery related to gender, although it is unclear how those findings may relate to the current study with its examination o f apologies. Previous apology research by the author (Anderson, & Prkachin, unpublished), failed to find a gender difference i n response to apologies. Studies conducted i n our lab have not yet discovered differences i n reactivity or recovery due to ethnicity, however the relatively large resident Asian population at U B C allows for sufficient n such that one could examine ethnic factors (comparing A s i a n to Caucasian) with  13 reasonable statistical power. Further, cross-cultural research comparing apology strategies has suggested ethnic differences i n both social context i n which apologies are given and the specific components used i n apology statements (Cupach, & Imahori, 1993; Ide, 1998). Method Participants Participants i n this study were psychology undergraduates from the University o f British Columbia who received bonus course credit for their participation. O f the 192 participants tested, 184 (92 males, 92 females) were included i n the analysis. Testing sessions for 6 participants were aborted due to incidents o f mechanical failure and aborted for 2 participants due to their inability to perform arithmetic. Sample ethnicity was as follows: 48% A s i a n , 4 2 % European/Caucasian, 4% Indo-Canadian, 6% various others. This ethnic proportion allowed experimenters to examine effects o f ethnicity, comparing Asians to Caucasians. Pre-session Questionnaires and Habituation One day prior to their participation i n the laboratory portion o f the study, participants were asked to come to the lab to obtain a battery o f pre-session questionnaires and sign a consent form. The battery included the Cook-Medley Hostility scale, a measure containing a Cynicism subscale by which participants were classified as either H i g h or L o w cynical hostility i n this study, and numerous other questionnaires examined i n a separate study (Habra, Linden, & Anderson, manuscript i n progress). Further, participants completed a Medical Screening Questionnaire to determine the presence o f any medical conditions which might alter reactivity or suggest danger to the participant o f participating. During their pre-session visit, participants were given a tour o f the lab and had their blood pressure taken using the same equipment used the following day. This visit was expected reduce the novelty o f the lab environment and assist with habituation, such that observed changes can be attributed solely to the experimental manipulation.  14 Procedure Consistent with previous studies o f this sort conducted in this lab, prior to the testing session participants were informed v i a written instructions that they were to: (1) refrain from consuming alcohol, caffeine, refrain from smoking, and refrain from exercising vigorously for 12 hours prior to participation i n the study; (2) eat a light meal at least 1 hour prior to their visit; (3) take care brushing their teeth the night prior to their visit so as not to cause their gums to bleed and to refrain from brushing on the day o f their visit. U p o n arriving on the day o f their visit, participants were greeted by an experimenter who collected their completed questionnaires and obtained their further verbal consent to participate in the study. E a c h participant was randomly assigned to one o f four conditions: (1) Harassed/Good Apology, (2) Harassed/Pseudo-apology, (3) Harassed/Delayed apology, and (4) Non-harassed Control. Participants were told that the purpose o f the study was to assess their physiological reaction to a challenging cognitive task, although they were not told they would be harassed. Baseline Period The experiment began by having the participant be seated alone i n the testing room and attaching an automated digital B P and H R monitor (Dinamap 845 Vital Signs Monitor, Critikon, Inc., Tampa, F L ) to the participant's non-dominant arm. Participants were asked to relax quietly. Baseline Dinamap readings were taken at Time 0, and minutes 2 , 1 0 , and 12. A t the end o f minute 12, participants were asked to produce a saliva sample and complete a visual analogue emotion rating scale ( E R S ) form. Task Period Following the baseline period, the experimenter entered the testing room to provide more detailed task instructions. Each participant was again told that the purpose o f the study was to examine the effects o f a challenging task on one's blood pressure and heart rate and that to do  this they would be performing some mental arithmetic. Consistent with previous reactivity studies (e.g., Earle, Linden & Weinberg, 1999), participants were instructed that when told to start, they were to perform serial subtractions o f 7, starting at 9000 (i.e., "9000, 8993, 8986, 8979... etc.), out loud and as fast as possible for several minutes until instructed to stop. They were informed that a lab technician (in reality a study confederate) had arrived and would be telling them when to start and stop. Further, participants were informed that a prize o f $50.00 would be awarded to the individual who demonstrated the best performance, based on number o f subtractions and accuracy, and therefore they should be motivated to count as quickly and accurately as possible. A t approximately minute 17 o f the study protocol, participants were instructed by the confederate to begin counting backwards. Dinamap readings were taken at approximately minutes 1 7 , 2 1 , 2 4 , 2 7 , and 30, lasting a total o f 13 minutes. This time frame was chosen to allow salivary Cortisol levels to reach a peak prior to the recovery period. Participants i n the Non-harassed/Control condition were left to count unfettered until the end o f the task period. For those i n the harassed groups, confederates provided scripted, harassing comments identical 1  to those used i n Earle, Linden, and Weinberg (1999) at approximately minutes 20, 23, and 26. This was done with the intent o f producing mild feelings o f anger or irritation i n participants. Prior to the study, confederates were trained to deliver their scripts i n a consistent and firm, but not overly harsh or abusive, manner. A t the end o f minute 30, participants were told to stop counting by confederates and to provide a second saliva sample and complete a second E R S form. A l l instructions were provided v i a an intercom. Confederates were gender-matched to participants such as to avoid potential confounding effects o f gender dynamics between confederate and participant.  16 Recovery Period The recovery period began immediately after the participant stopped counting and lasted for 20 minutes to approximately minute 50. Participants were asked over the intercom by the confederate to relax quietly until the end o f the session. Dinamap readings were taken at 5minute intervals beginning at minute 35 until minute 50. Saliva samples were taken at minutes 40 and 50. Participants were asked to complete a third E R S form at minute 40 and a fourth at minute 50. Harassed participants i n the Good Apology and Pseudo-apology conditions received a scripted apology from the confederate at approximately minute 32. Those in the Delayed 2  Apology and Non-harassed/Control condition were left to spend the recovery period i n silence. Debriefing The debriefing period occurred immediately following the recovery period and was conducted by the experimenter with the confederate ( i f applicable). In addition, all participants received a written debriefing form explaining the full hypotheses, conditions, and procedures used i n the study. A s well as receiving a full explanation, participants i n the Harassed/Delayed Apology condition received their apology, and those i n the Harassed/Pseudo-apology condition received a further genuine apology for the deception. Both the experimenter and confederate were available to answer any questions or concerns participants had. Data Analysis Preparation Self-report ratings were quantified by measuring the distance i n centimetres between participants' tick mark on each 10 c m visual analogue scale and the far left point o f that scale representing no such emotion. B l o o d pressure and heart rate raw values were recorded for each time point. Systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were recorded separately, as opposed to one mean value. Saliva samples were frozen and transported to another laboratory prior to being assayed for Cortisol.  17 Results Self-report Emotion Rating Scales Ratings were first analyzed by performing six 4 (condition) x 4 (time) between-within A N O V A s for each subscale o f the E R S form (Happiness, Anger, Fear, Sadness, Disgust & Surprise). The results, including F values, degrees o f freedom and g values, are displayed i n Table 1. Results from the omnibus F-tests a l l show main effects for both Time and Condition, l i test results for three subscales (Happiness, Anger and Fear) obtained a significant interaction between Time and Condition, suggesting that participants i n different experimental conditions reported differing intensity o f these emotions over time. M e a n emotion ratings are displayed i n Figures 1-6. A s can be seen from the figures, participants i n the harassed conditions show greater increase (Anger and Fear) and decrease (Happiness) i n emotion intensity over time, than those i n the Control condition. Post-hoc comparisons for each o f the three subscales bearing an interaction were performed using Tukey's H S D . N o post-hoc comparison o f Happiness ratings was significant. O f note, comparisons for the Anger subscale revealed that: (1) participants i n all conditions did not differ at baseline i n their reported anger, (2) participants in harassed groups reported significantly more anger than those in the Control condition following the task period (g < .05) but did not differ significantly between harassed groups, and (3) that participants i n the Pseudoapology condition reported significantly more anger than those i n the Control and Good Apology condition at recovery (g < .05) but did not differ from those i n the Delayed Apology condition. A l s o , comparisons for the Fear subscale showed that: (1) groups did not differ i n their fear ratings at baseline, (2) following the task period, participants in the Pseudo-apology condition reported more fear than those i n the Control (p. < .01) and Good Apology (g < .05) conditions but did not differ from the Delayed Apology condition, and (3) that participants in the  18 Pseudo-apology condition reported significantly more fear than those i n the Control condition (p. < .05) during the recovery period but did not differ from those i n the Good apology and Delayed apology conditions. R a w change scores were computed for each emotion subscale examining change from the end o f baseline to the end o f the task, the end o f task to the end o f the first half o f the recovery period, and the end o f the first to the end o f the second half o f the recovery period. Graphs portraying mean raw change scores are displayed i n Figures 7-9. Series o f two-tailed One Sample t-tests were performed to determine significant differences between change scores. A l l tests were run at a = .01 level o f significance to control for Type I error. Results o f these tests showed that Anger subscale ratings increased significantly more following the task than any other subscale. There was a corresponding decrease i n Happiness subscale ratings (see Figure 7). Following the first half o f the recovery period, Surprise and Anger ratings showed significantly greater decrease than any other subscale. Happiness ratings increased significantly. During the last half o f the recovery period, Anger, Fear, Sadness, Disgust and Surprise ratings decreased equally significantly. They all differed significantly from Happiness ratings which showed a significant increase. Physiological Data Data were analyzed by first converting raw B P values to residualized change scores. This is the recommended manner o f analyzing such data (Linden, Earle, Gerin, & Christenfeld, 1997; Manuck, Kasprowicz, & Muldoon, 1990), because residuals represent unique variance not accounted for by baseline levels. These residualized change scores were then entered into three Independent Samples t-tests to test Hypothesis 1, that harassed participants displayed greater reactivity compared to the non-harassed control group.  19 Harassed participants showed greater increases i n S B P , t (175) = -3.334, p < .01, i n D B P , t (174) = -3.687, p < .001, and i n H R , t (177) = -4.380, p < .001, than did those i n the Control condition. Recovery was defined as the amount o f change from the final task reading to each recovery reading. Therefore, raw change for each o f the four measurement time points i n the recovery period may be computed by subtracting each recovery B P level from the last task B P level. However, since recovery B P values are partly a function o f one's task B P values, raw B P values were converted to residualized change scores in the same manner as those computed to assess reactivity, to account for task B P levels. Comparing Harassed Participants to Non-harassed Controls To test Hypothesis 2, that harassed participants w i l l display delayed recovery relative to the control group, a series o f Independent Samples t-tests were first performed at each recovery measurement time point, comparing non-harassed participants to harassed participants i n the Delayed Apology condition. Results o f these t-tests for S B P failed to show a significant difference between groups at Recovery 1, t (81) = .20, ns, Recovery 2, t (80) = .26, ns, Recovery 3, t (80) = .87, ns, or Recovery 4, t (81) = 1.34, ns. Results o f these t-tests for D B P failed to show a significant difference between groups at Recovery l , t ( 8 1 ) = .81,ns, Recovery 2, t (80) = . 18, ns, Recovery 3, t (80) = -.91, ns, or Recovery 4, t (81) = .49, ns. The same series o f t-tests were performed for H R , and results for these tests were significant at Recovery 1, t (83) = 2.23, p < .05, and Recovery 2, t (82) = 2.01, p < .05. These are displayed i n Figures 10 and 11. A s shown by the figures, participants i n the Delayed Apology condition showed faster H R recovery than did those i n the control condition.  20 Comparing Harassed Participants according to Apology Condition Systolic B l o o d Pressure. Four 3 (condition) x 2 (gender) x 2 (ethnicity) x 2 (cynicism) factorial A N O V A s were performed comparing residualized change scores from Task to Recovery 1, Task to Recovery 2, Task to Recovery 3 and Task to Recovery 4. This analysis revealed a main effect o f Gender at Recovery 1, F (1, 98) = 9.11, p < .01, Recovery 2, F (1, 98) = 5.78, p < .05, and Recovery 4, F (1,97) = 5.85, p < .05. A n examination o f Figures 12,13, and 14 reveals that males display slower recovery than females regardless o f apology condition. Because gender did not interact with any other factor it was subsequently dropped from the model, allowing for a less convoluted analysis o f the remaining factors involving four 3(condition) x 2(cynicism) x 2(ethnicity) factorial A N O V A s . The results are displayed i n Table 2. Five minutes after the end o f the task period, there was a significant interaction between Condition and Cynicism. A s can be seen from Figure 15, participants scoring high i n cynicism showed the largest recovery in the Good Apology condition and less recovery i n the Pseudoapology and Delayed Apology conditions, while those scoring l o w i n cynicism showed an opposite pattern. Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey's H S D showed that for Low-cynical participants, S B P recovery did not differ across apology condition, although for High-cynical participants, those i n the Good Apology condition showed larger recovery compared to those i n the Delayed apology condition (p. < .05). A n Independent Samples t-test performed at each level of apology condition showed that H i g h and Low-cynical participants did not show differential recovery i n the Good Apology condition, but that High-cynical participants showed less recovery than Low-cynical participants in the Pseudo-apology (p. < .01) and Delayed Apology (p < .05) conditions. There was a significant interaction between condition and ethnicity, when comparing Caucasian to Asian participants. This interaction is displayed i n Figure 16. Post-hoc  21 comparisons using Tukey's H S D showed that Caucasian participants' S B P recovery did not differ across apology conditions. There was a trend for Asians to show significantly less S B P recovery i n the Delayed Apology condition compared to the Good and Pseudo-apology conditions (p. = .053). Independent Samples t-tests performed at each level o f apology condition showed that Caucasians and Asians did not differ i n the Good Apology and Pseudo-apology conditions, but that Asians showed attenuated recovery compared to Caucasians in the Delayed Apology condition (p < .05). Ten minutes following the end o f the task period, there was a significant interaction between apology condition and Cynicism. This is displayed i n Figure 17. Post-hoc comparisons performed using Tukey's H S D showed that Low-cynical participants did not differ i n their S B P recovery across apology conditions, but that High-cynical participants showed significantly greater recovery i n the Good Apology condition when compared to the Delayed Apology condition. Independent Samples t-tests performed at each level o f apology condition, showed that H i g h and Low-cynical participants do not differ i n their recovery i n the Good Apology condition but that High-cynical participants show less recovery compared to Low-cynicals i n the Pseudo-apology (p < .05) and Delayed Apology (p < .01) conditions. There was a significant interaction between apology condition and Ethnicity, displayed i n Figure 18. Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey's H S D showed that neither Caucasians nor Asians show differential recovery within-groups across apology conditions. Independent-samples t-tests performed at each level o f apology condition showed that Caucasians and Asians do not differ i n their S B P recovery when in the Good Apology Condition, but that Caucasians showed significantly less recovery than Asians i n the Pseudo-apology condition (p < .05) and that Asians showed significantly less recovery than Caucasians i n the Delayed apology condition. Fifteen minutes following the end o f the task period, there was a significant interaction between apology condition and Cynicism. This is displayed i n Figure 19. Post-hoc comparisons  22 performed using Tukey's H S D showed that High-cynical participants did not differ i n their S B P recovery across apology conditions, but that Low-cynical participants showed significantly greater recovery i n the Good Apology condition when compared to the Pseudo-apology condition. Independent Samples t-tests performed at each level o f apology condition showed that H i g h and Low-cynical participants do not differ i n their recovery i n the Good Apology condition but that High-cynical participants show less recovery compared to Low-cynicals i n the Pseudo-apology (p. < .01) condition. Twenty minutes following the end o f the task period, there was a significant interaction between apology condition and Cynicism. This is displayed i n Figure 20. Post-hoc comparisons performed using Tukey's H S D showed that neither High-cynical nor Low-cynical participants differed in their S B P recovery across apology conditions. Independent-samples t-tests performed at each level o f apology condition, showed that H i g h and Low-cynical participants do not differ in their recovery in the Good Apology condition but that High-cynical participants show less recovery compared to Low-cynicals i n the Pseudo-apology (p_ = .01) condition. Diastolic B l o o d Pressure. Four 3 (condition) x 2 (gender) x 2 (ethnicity) x 2 (cynicism) factorial A N O V A s were performed comparing residualized change scores from Task to Recovery 1, Task to Recovery 2, Task to Recovery 3 and Task to Recovery 4. This analysis revealed no significant main effect or interaction o f any kind. A s with S B P , Gender was subsequently dropped as a factor i n order to increase power and the data were re-analyzed i n a series o f 3(condition) x 2(cynicism) x 2(ethnicity) factorial A N O V A s . The results are displayed i n Table 3. A s can be seen from the table, there was a single significant interaction between apology condition and Cynicism at Recovery 4. This is displayed i n Figure 21. Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey's H S D revealed that High-cynicals do not differ i n their D B P recovery across apology conditions but that Low-cynicals show slower recovery i n the Good Apology condition  23 than i n the Pseudo-apology and Delayed Apology conditions. Independent Samples t-tests performed at each level o f apology condition failed to reveal a significant difference i n D B P recovery between H i g h and Low-cynicals. Heart Rate. Analysis then turned to recovery for harassed participants only. Four 3 (condition) x 2 (gender) x 2 (ethnicity) x 2 (cynicism) factorial A N O V A s were performed comparing residualized change scores from Task to Recovery 1, Task to Recovery 2, Task to Recovery 3 and Task to Recovery 4. O f note, the only significant F-test results involved two 3-way interactions between apology condition, gender and cynicism occurring for Task to Recovery 1 and Task to Recovery 4, and a 2-way Condition by Gender interaction for Task to Recovery 4. The 3-way interactions must be treated with caution due to small n's encountered at this fine-grained an analysis. Given that Ethnicity showed neither a significant main effect or an interaction with another variable, it was dropped from a subsequent analysis involving a series o f four 3(condition) x 2(gender) x 2(cynicism) factorial A N O V A s , resulting i n larger cell sizes. The results are displayed i n Table 4. In this analysis, there was a significant interaction between apology condition and Gender at Recovery points 2 , 3 , & 4. These are displayed i n Figures 2 2 , 2 3 , & 24. Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey's H S D revealed that men only show differential H R recovery at Recovery 4 (p < .05). In this case, men i n the Pseudo-apology condition recovered faster than those i n the Good Apology condition. Women however, displayed faster recovery i n the Delayed Apology condition than the Good Apology condition only at Recovery 2. Further, Independent Samples t-tests performed at each level o f apology condition revealed that males and females only differed significantly in their H R recovery by Recovery 4. A s can be seen from the figure, males showed faster H R recovery than females when i n the Pseudo-apology condition, t (48) = -2.39, p. < .05.  24 Discussion The purpose o f this study was to induce feelings o f anger i n participants such that different apology strategies might be evaluated for their effect on recovery, that is, negative affect, and the concurrent cardiovascular activity. The manipulation appears to have been successful. The data from the self-report E R S forms indicate strongly that harassed participants experienced significantly more anger, within the context o f general affective arousal, than did non-harassed participants. Further, physiological measures show clearly that harassed participants experienced significantly greater increases i n SBP, D B P and H R during the task period than did non-harassed control participants. Therefore one may conclude that the data support Hypothesis 1 o f this study, that harassed participants w i l l demonstrate greater cardiovascular reactivity than non-harassed participants performing a similar stress task. Hypothesis 2, that harassed participants w i l l show attenuated cardiovascular recovery to baseline relative to non-harassed controls, was not supported by the data. A l l other things being equal, harassed participants did not show slower recovery than those i n the Control condition. In fact, the H R data show that i n some cases harassment was associated with faster  recovery than  no harassment. This suggests that verbal harassment by itself does not result i n slower cardiovascular recovery. This is puzzling, and inconsistent with previous research upon which the current study is based. A n observation o f the recovery data reveals D B P is largely uninfluenced by factors examined i n this study, such as apology condition, cynicism, gender or ethnicity. S B P on the other hand, is clearly influenced by cynicism and ethnicity. The most robust effect noted for S B P recovery was the interaction between apology condition and cynicism. Low-cynical participants were, for the most part, unaffected by apology condition. However, High-cynical participants consistently displayed less recovery than did Low-cynical participants, when i n the pseudo-apology condition. A n d frequently throughout the recovery period, High-cynical  25 participants displayed less recovery when i n the Pseudo-apology and Delayed Apology conditions than i n the Good Apology condition. O f note, at one point during the recovery period (R3) High-cynical participants actually displayed significantly greater recovery than Low-cynicals when i n the Good Apology condition. This is a curious finding, i n fact the opposite o f what one might expect. It might be the case that Low-cynicals are able to become more personally engaged with the apologizer and thus find his/her apology more physiologically arousing. Or perhaps Low-cynical individuals not being angry find the Good Apology to be "over-doing it," and that it then becomes ingenuine-sounding such that they then display the pattern o f High-cynicals i n the Pseudo-apology condition. These are questions to be examined i n a future study. These data suggest that the type o f apology is largely irrelevant for Low-cynical individuals, however, it is particularly important for more cynical participants. These people respond with particularly quick recovery when presented with a genuine display o f remorse and particularly slow recovery when presented with an ingenuine expression o f remorse. L o o k i n g at the E R S data, participants i n the Pseudo-apology condition at recovery generally rate their anger higher than those in the Good apology condition. However, it is only the H i g h cynicals who demonstrate delayed physiological recovery i n coincidence with that reported anger. Therefore, the data provide partial support for Hypothesis 4, that cynical participants w i l l show attenuated recovery relative to non-cynicals. When angered, cynicals do i n fact show attenuated recovery i f they are not offered an expression o f remorse or i f that offering sounds ingenuine. However, cynicism does not result i n delayed recovery per se, for when offered a genuine expression o f remorse they respond favorably to it, and periodically show greater recovery than Low-cynicals. Due to the ethnic composition o f the undergraduate population at the University o f B . C . from which participants i n this study were drawn, researchers were fortunate to be able to  26 examine cardiovascular differences between Asians and Caucasians. A s can be seen from Figures 16 and 18, Asians and Caucasians display an opposite recovery profile demonstrating significant effects i n the first half o f the recovery period. Ten minutes following the end o f the task period, groups do not differ i n the good apology condition, although Caucasians demonstrate attenuated recovery relative to Asians when in the Pseudo-apology condition and Asians demonstrate attenuated recovery relative to Caucasians when i n the Delayed-apology condition. This interaction is interesting i n the sense that Caucasians show the pattern o f recovery expected by the researchers: they show the least recovery i n response to an ingenuine expression o f remorse, but recover well following displays o f genuine remorse or when left alone. Asians on the other hand, recover well when they receive an apology, regardless o f its quality, but show attenuated recovery i f not offered an apology. This is an unexpected finding, and suggests that Asians place more importance on the receipt o f an apology rather than the supposed sincerity o f that apology. This is consistent with some cross-cultural studies examining Asian/North American use o f the apology. Ide (1998) and Haley (1998) argue that Japanese use o f apologies occurs within a separate social context than North American use o f apologies. Within Japanese culture, an apology is a perfunctory remark made i n a wide number o f social engagements. Embedded within this is the concept o f "face," one's social reputation, and the importance o f allowing one to save and/or maintain face. In North America, the apology appears to be reserved for cases o f social conflict i n which the speaker wishes to communicate a feeling o f remorse for his/her actions. Further, Cupach and Imahori (1993) found that the Japanese tend to utilize different components when giving an apology than do Americans. Specifically, Americans tend to include humor, excuses or aggression more than the Japanese. It is difficult to estimate to what degree this research applies to findings i n the current study, as the A s i a n sample is largely Chinese, not Japanese. However it may be that an apology  27 for these participants ought not necessarily represent a feeling o f deep remorse and therefore the distinct qualities o f the apology are not necessarily attended to, accounting for the lack o f difference between the Good and Pseudo-apology conditions. Rather, the essential element may in fact be the adherence to social convention (i.e., offering o f an apology following a social transgression or other interaction) and allowing recipients to facilitate face-saving o f the transgressor. This might account for Asians displaying delayed recovery in the Delayed apology condition. Having not received an apology, the participant is not able to perform his/her social duty to assist the harasser i n saving face. This could be the focus o f a future study comparing Asians' responses to more varying and culturally-specific apologies. There was a main effect o f gender on S B P recovery throughout the recovery period. A s can be seen from Figures 12,13, & 14, males typically displayed slower recovery than females. Ten minutes following the end o f the task period, males demonstrated particularly less recovery than females when i n the Delayed apology condition. These results are consistent with Earle, Linden, and Weinberg (1999) who found that males showed delayed S B P recovery to baseline relative to females. Further, i n looking at the H R data, males appear to show the fastest H R recovery when they receive a pseudo-apology and they tend to show faster H R recovery than females when i n this condition. This is consistent perhaps, with popular perception that men are put off by the expression o f feelings. Does the relatively slow H R recovery displayed by male participants who received a good apology represent physiological arousal due to the discomfort o f having another man express his feelings? It is difficult to offer a definitive answer, as the H R data are not consistent with some o f the other measures. However, it may be a question to address i n future research.  28  Conclusions First, the current study is consistent with earlier research arguing that laboratory stress tasks involving an affective component result i n greater cardiovascular reactivity. In this study, verbal harassment produced increased feelings o f anger i n participants and was associated with increased reactivity. One may conclude that verbal harassment is an effective paradigm for studying anger and reactivity. Second, Cynical Hostility is a factor which can in some conditions result i n decreased S B P recovery following a laboratory stress task involving negative affect. The current study examined the interaction between apology strategy and Cynical Hostility, adding useful information to current debate i n the area. It appears that apologies, viewed as verbal strategies for resolving interpersonal conflict, are effective at reducing negative affect such as anger when they communicate genuine remorse. Ingenuine expressions o f remorse, termed pseudoapologies, result i n maintained anger. Physiologically, expressions o f remorse influence cardiovascular recovery very little i n Low-cynicism individuals; they react to stress and recover adequately. Conversely, expressions o f remorse following interpersonal conflict affect S B P recovery very much i n High-cynicism individuals. Given a genuine apology, these individuals recover well, at times showing faster recovery than Low-cynicals. However, an ingenuine expression o f remorse is worthless for these people and results i n delayed cardiovascular recovery comparable with receiving no apology at all. The above finding is significant, because it links cynical hostility, a personality variable thought to be related to cardiovascular disease, to delayed cardiovascular recovery, a potential mechanism by which stress influences the development o f such disease. B y manipulating the quality o f apologies participants received following anger induction, researchers were able to demonstrate the effects o f social interaction and cynicism on cardiovascular functioning.  29 In the real world, conflict is usually followed by some sort o f social interaction between the offender and the offended, often involving remedial strategies such as the apology. In this manner the results o f this study shed light on the current debate i n this area, explaining perhaps why some researchers find a relationship between personality variables and cardiovascular functioning, while others do not. Were other researchers studying cardiovascular reactivity and recovery to include i n their examination an analysis o f the social interactions which can occur following stressful activities involving interpersonal conflict, they would likely find relationships with personality variables as well. For the crucial element i n the current study is the interaction o f apologies with cynicism, not one or the other per se. One may conclude that examining the influence o f apology strategies is a useful paradigm for studying the relationship between personality variables and cardiovascular reactivity/recovery. Third, consistent with previous research by Earle, Linden, and Weinberg (1999) and others, males largely demonstrated attenuated cardiovascular recovery relative to females. Finally, Asians demonstrated different cardiovascular response to apologies than did Caucasians. Future Research One puzzling feature o f the current study is that when H i g h Cynical participants receive a Good apology, they actually show greater decreases i n S B P than do Low-cynicals at times. It is puzzling, for i f Cynical hostility is related to a cardiovascular response to stress that results i n excessive or maintained arousal leading to hypertension and eventually C V D , then one might have expected these individuals to show delayed cardiovascular recovery regardless o f the apology they receive. Y e t the current study's finding suggests that these individuals do not show attenuated cardiovascular recovery i n all circumstances and rather are perhaps especially sensitive to the interpersonal dynamics involved i n verbal exchanges. So it may be that these individuals, who would benefit physiologically from positive remedial efforts following conflict, construct social environments i n which they are unlikely to receive such remedial social  30 interactions and are left to ruminate about wrongs done to them. Future study should address this issue. A novel feature o f this study is the effect o f ethnicity on recovery. It appears that whereas Caucasians attend to specific qualities o f apologies, Asians perhaps place greater importance on simply receiving apologies. Whether this is because o f the different normative context i n which Asians and Caucasians give and receive apologies, or because o f cultural differences i n apology styles, is not addressed by the results o f this study. It should be pursued by researchers i n the future. Finally, future research may be directed at the concept o f forgiveness. It would seem that the next logical social interaction following an apology would be an offer or denial o f forgiveness. Scobie and Scobie (1998) have identified four models o f forgiveness, including a health model, and comment on the advantages o f adopting a forgiveness strategy as opposed to one o f anger, denial or condoning. It has been suggested by some authors that forgiveness is a therapeutic process (Denton & Martin, 1998) i n therapy. Most relevant to the current findings is research demonstrating a tentative link between individuals' level o f stress response to a laboratory stress task (mirror tracing) and assessed level o f forgiveness (Neumann & C h i , 1999). Whether the findings o f these authors and those o f the current study reflect two sides o f the same coin cannot be addressed i n this paper, although the topic warrants future investigation.  31 References a l ' A b s i , M . , Everson, S. A . , Lovallo, W . R. (1995). Hypertension risk factors and cardiovascular reactivity to mental stress i n young men. International Journal o f Psychophysiology. 20,155-160. Anderson, J., & Prkachin, G . (1998). Unpublished manuscript conducted for undergraduate honours thesis. Baron, R. A . (1990). Countering the effects o f destructive criticism: The relative efficacy o f four interventions. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 75,235-245. Bennett, M . , & Dewberry, C . (1994). "I've said I'm sorry, haven't I?" A study o f the identity implications and constraints that apologies create for their recipients. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality. Social, 13,10-20. Bernardo, M . , de Flores, T., Valdes, M . , Mestre, L . , & Fernandez, G . (1987). Coronary heart disease and psychological variables: Is Type A enough to increase the risk? Personality and Individual Differences, 8. 733-736. Cannon, W . B . (1929). B o d i l y changes in pain, hunger, fear and rage ( 2  nd  ed.). N e w  York: Appleton. Costa, P. T., Stone, S. V . , M c C r a e , R. R „ Dembroski, T. M . (1987). Hostility, agreeableness, antagonism, and coronary heart disease. Holistic Medicine, 2,161-167. Christensen, A . J., & Smith, T. W . (1993). Cynical hostility and cardiovascular reactivity during self-disclosure. Psychosomatic Medicine. 55.193-202. Cupach, W . , & Imahori, T. (1993). Managing social predicaments created by others: A comparison o f Japanese and American facework. Western Journal o f Communication. 5 7 . 4 3 1 444.  32 Darby, B . W . , & Schlenker, B . R. (1989). Children's reactions to transgressions: Effects o f the actor's apology, reputation and remorse. British Journal o f Social Psychology, 28. 353-364. Davidson, K . W . (1993). Suppression and repression i n discrepant self-other ratings: Relations with thought control and cardiovascular reactivity. Journal o f Personality, 61, 669691. de L e o , D . , Caracciolo, S., Berto, F., Mauro, P., M a g n i , G . , & Miraglia, G . (1986). Type A behavior pattern and mortality after recurrent myocardial infarction: Preliminary results from a follow-up study o f 5 years. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 46, 132-137. Dembroski, T. M . , & Costa, P. T. (1988). Assessment o f coronary-prone behavior: A current overview. Annals o f Behavioral Medicine. 10. 60-63. Denollet, J. (1991). Negative affectivity and repressive coping: Pervasive influence on self-reported mood, health, and coronary-prone behavior. Psychosomatic Medicine. 53. 538556. Denollet, J. (1993). Biobehavioral research on coronary heart disease: Where is the person? Journal o f Behavioral Medicine. 16. 115-141. Denollet, J. (1997). Personality, emotional distress and coronary heart disease. European Journal o f Personality, 11. 343-357. Denollet, J. (1998). Personality and coronary heart disease: The Type-D Scale-16 (DS16). Annals o f Behavioral Medicine. 20.209-215. Denton, R., & Martin, M . (1998). Defining forgiveness: A n empirical exploration o f process and role. American Journal o f Family Therapy. 26.281-292. Diamond, E . L . (1982). The role o f anger and hostility i n essential hypertension and coronary heart disease. Psychological Bulletin, 92,410-433.  33 Diamond, E . , Schneiderman, N . , Schwartz, D . , Smith, J., Vorp, R., & DeCarlo Pasin, R. (1984). Harassment, hostility, and Type A as determinants o f cardiovascular reactivity during competition. Journal o f Behavioral Medicine, 7,171-189. Dienstbier, R. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and physical health. Psychological Review. 96. 84-100. Drummond, P. D . (1982). Personality traits in young males at risk for hypertension. Journal o f Psychosomatic Research, 26, 585-589. Drummond, P. D . (1983). Cardiovascular reactivity i n m i l d hypertension. Journal o f Psychosomatic Research, 27, 291-297. Earle, T. L . , Linden, W . , & Weinberg, J. (1999). Differential effects o f harassment on cardiovascular and salivary Cortisol stress reactivity and recovery i n women and men. Journal o f Psychosomatic Research, 46, 125-141. Ernst, F. A . , Francis, R. A . , & Enwonwu, C . O. (1990). Manifest hostility may affect habituation o f cardiovascular reactivity i n Blacks. Behavioral Medicine, 16,119-124. Felsten, G . L . , & Leitten, C . L . (1993). Expressive, but not neurotic hostility is related to cardiovascular reactivity during a hostile competitive task. Personality and Individual Differences. 14. 805-813. Felsten, G . (1995). Cynical hostility influences anger, but not cardiovascular reactivity during competition with harassment. International Journal o f Psychophysiology, 19,223-231. Felsten, G . (1996). Cardiovascular reactivity during a cognitive task with anger provocation: Partial support for a cynical hostility-anger-reactivity link. Journal o f Psychophysiology. 10.97-107. Frank, K . A . , Heller, S., Kornfeld, D . , Spom, A . , & Weiss, M . (1978). Type A behavior pattern and coronary angiographic findings. Journal o f the American Medical Association, 240, 761-763.  34 Fredrikson, M . (1991). Psychophysiological theories on sympathetic nervous system reactivity in the development o f essential hypertension. Scandinavian Journal o f Psychology, 32, 254-274. Fredrikson, M . (1992). B l o o d pressure reactivity to active and passive behavioral conditions i n hypertensives and normotensives. Scandinavian Journal o f Psychology, 33,68-73. Fredrikson, M . , & Matthews, K . A . (1990). Cardiovascular responses to behavioral stress and hypertension: A meta-analytic review. Annals o f Behavioral Medicine, 12, 30-39. Fredrikson, M . , Tuomisto, M . , & Bergman-Losman, B . (1991). Neuroendocrine and cardiovascular stress reactivity in middle-aged normotensive adults with parental history o f cardiovascular disease. Psychophysiology, 28, 656-664. Ganster,D. C , Schaubroeck, J., Sime, W . E . , & Mayes, B . T. (1991). The nomological validity o f the Type A personality among employed adults. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 76, 143-168. Glass, D . C . (1977). Stress, behavior patterns, and coronary disease. American Scientist. 65. 177-187. Glass, D . , Krakoff, L . , Contrada, R., Hilton, W . , Kehoe, K . , Mannucci, E . , Collins, S., Snow, B . , & Elting, E . (1980). Effect o f harassment and competition upon cardiovascular and plasma catecholamine responses i n Type A and Type B individuals. Psychophysiology. 17,453463. Habra, M . , Linden, W . , & Anderson, J. Manuscript i n progress. Haley, J. O. (1998). Apology and pardon: Learning from Japan. American Behavioral Scientist. 41, 842-867. Hocking-Schuler, J. L . , & O ' B r i e n , W . H . (1997). Cardiovascular recovery from stress and hypertension risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Psychophysiology, 34, 649-659.  35 Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies i n N e w Zealand English. Language i n Society, 19. 155199. Ide, R. (1998). "Sorry for your kindness": Japanese interactional ritual i n public discourse. Journal o f Pragmatics, 29. 509-529. Johnson, D . W . (1982). Behavioural treatment in the reduction o f coronary risk factors: Type A behaviour and blood pressure. British Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 21. 281 -294. Jorgensen, R. S., Gelling, P. D . , & Kliner, L . (1992). Patterns o f social desirability and anger i n young men with a parental history o f hypertension: Association with cardiovascular activity. Health Psychology. 11.403-412. Jorgensen, R. S., & Houston, B . K . (1986). Family history o f hypertension, personality patterns, and cardiovascular reactivity to stress. Psychosomatic Medicine. 48.102-117. Jorgensen, R. S., & Houston, B . K . (1988). Cardiovascular reactivity, hostility, and family history o f hypertension. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 50, 216-222. Kleinke, C . L . , Wallis, R . , & Stalder, K . (1992). Evaluation o f a rapist as a function o f expressed intent and remorse. Journal o f Social Psychology, 132, 525-537. Koehler, T. (1996). Cardiovascular, electrodermal and catecholamine responses to stress in borderline hypertensives. Stress Medicine, 12.187-191. Koehler, T., Fricke, M . , Ritz, T., & Scherbaum, N . (1997). Psychophysiological reactivity o f borderline hypertensives and their recovery after mental stress. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 66,261-267. Koehler, T., Scherbaum, N , & Ritz, T. (1995). Psychophysiological responses o f borderline hypertensives in two experimental situations. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 63, 44-53.  36 Krantz, D . S., Contrada, R. J . , H i l l , D . R., & Friedler, E . (1988). Environmental stress and biobehavioral antecedents o f coronary artery disease. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56. 333-341. Landman, J. (1993). Regret: The persistence o f the possible. N e w York: Oxford University Press. Lawler, K . A . , Harralson, T. L . , Armstead, C . A . , Schmied, L . A . (1993). Gender and cardiovascular responses: What is the role o f hostility? Journal o f Psychosomatic Research, 37, 603-613. Lawler, K . A . , K l i n e , K , Seabrook, E . , Krishnamoorthy, J., Anderson, S. F., W i l c o x , Z . C , et al. (1998). Family history o f hypertension: A psychophysiological analysis. International Journal o f Psychophysiology, 28, 207-222. Lazaro, M . L . , Valdes, M . , Marcos, T., & Guarch, J. (1993). Borderline hypertension, daily stress and psychological variables. Stress Medicine, 9,215-220. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. N e w York: Springer. Leon, G . R., Finn, S. E . , Murray, D . , & Bailey, J. M . (1988). Inability to predict cardiovascular disease from hostility scores or M M P I items related to Type A behavior. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 597-600. Linden, W . (1987). O n the impending death o f the Type A construct: Or is there a phoenix rising from the ashes? Canadian Journal o f Behavioural Science, 19. 177-190. Linden, W . , Chambers, L . , Maurice, J., & L e n z , J. W . (1993). Sex differences i n social support, self-deception, hostility, and ambulatory cardiovascular activity. Health Psychology, 12,376-380. Linden, W . , Earle, T., Gerin, W . , & Christenfeld, N . (1997). Physiological stress reactivity and recovery: Conceptual siblings separated at birth? Journal o f Psychosomatic Research. 42.117-135.  37 MacDougall, J., Dembroski, T., Dimsdale, J., & Hackett, T. (1985). Components o f Type A , hostility, and anger-in: Further relationships to angiographic findings. Health Psychology. 4. 137-152. M a n n , A . H . (1977). Psychiatric morbidity and hostility i n hypertension. Psychological Medicine. 7. 653-659. M a n n , A . H . (1986). Invited review: The psychological aspects o f essential hypertension. Journal o f Psychosomatic Research, 30. 527-541. Manuck, S., Kasprowicz, M . S., & Muldoon, M . (1990). Behaviorally-evoked cardiovascular reactivity and hypertension: Conceptual issues and potential associations. Annals o f Behavioral Medicine, 12, 17-29. M a r r e r o , A . F., a l ' A b s i , M . , Pincomb, G . A . , & Lovallo, W . R. (1997). M e n at risk for hypertension show elevated vascular resistance at rest and during mental stress. International Journal o f Psychophysiology, 25, 185-192. M c C a b e , P., & Schneiderman, N . (1985). Psychophysiologic reactions to stress. I n N . Schneiderman & J. T. Tapp (Eds.), Behavioral medicine: The biopsychosocial approach. Hillsdale, N J : Erlbaum. M c C a n n , B . S., & Matthews, K . A . (1988). Influences o f potential for hostility, Type A behavior, and parental history o f hypertension on adolescents' cardiovascular responses during stress. Psychophysiology, 25, 503-511. M i l l e r , S. B . , Friese, M . , & Sita, A . (1995). Parental history o f hypertension, sodium loading, and cardiovascular response to stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 381-389. Neumann, J., & C h i , D . (1999). Relationship o f church giving to immunological and T x P A stress response. Journal o f Psychology and Theology, 27,43-51.  38 Ohbuchi, K . , Kameda, M . , & Agarie, N . (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role i n mediating appraisal o f and response to harm. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 56,219-227. O ' B r i e n , W . H . , H a y n e s , S. N . , & M u m b y , P . B . (1998). Differences i n cardiovascular recovery among healthy young adults with and without a parental history o f hypertension. Journal o f Psvchophysiology, 12. 17-28. Palmero, F., Codina, V . , & Rosel, J. (1993). Psychophysiological activation, reactivity, and recovery i n Type A and Type B scorers when in a stressful laboratory situation. Psychological Reports. 73. 803-811. Pickering, T. G . , & Gerin, W . (1990). Cardiovascular reactivity i n the laboratory and the role o f behavioral factors i n hypertension: A critical review. Annals o f Behavioral Medicine. 12,3-16. Powch, I. G . , & Houston, B . K . (1996). Hostility, anger-in, and cardiovascular reactivity i n White women. Health Psychology. 15.200-208. Raikkonen, K . , Matthews, K . A . , F l o r y , J . D . , & Owens, J. F. (1999). Effects o f hostility on ambulatory blood pressure and mood during daily living i n healthy adults. Health Psychology. 18.44-53. Ragland, D . R., & Brand, R. J. (1988). Type A behavior and mortality from coronary heart disease. N e w England Journal o f Medicine. 318. 65-69. Robinson, D . T., Smith-Lovin, L . , & Tsoudis, O. (1994). Heinous crime or unfortunate accident? The effects o f remorse on responses to mock criminal confessions. Social Forces. 73. 175-190. Rosenman, R. H . (1990). Type A behavior pattern: A personal overview. Journal o f Social Behavior and Personality. 5.1-24.  39 Rosenman, R. H . (1991). Does anxiety or cardiovascular reactivity have a causal role i n hypertension? Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 26,296-304. Rosenman, R. H . , & Hjemdahl, P. (1991). Is there a causal relationship o f anxiety, stress or cardiovascular reactivity to hypertension? Stress Medicine, 7,153-157. Rosenman, R. H . , & W a r d , M . M . (1988). The changing concept o f cardiovascular reactivity. Stress Medicine, 4. 241-251. Sallis, J. F., Johnson, C . C , Trevorrow, T. R., Kaplan, R. M . , & H o veil, M . (1987). The relationship between cynical hostility and blood pressure reactivity. Journal o f Psychosomatic Research, 31,111-116. Sausen,K. P., Lovallo, W . R., & Wilson, M . F . (1991). Heart rate reactivity, behavior pattern, and parental hypertension as predictors o f cardiovascular activity during cognitive challenge. Psychophysiology, 28,639-647. Schmidt, T. S. (1983). Cardiovascular hyperreactivity as an indication o f increased cardiovascular risk. Activitas Nervosa Superior, 25, 91-99. Schneiderman, N . , Chesney, M . A . , & Krantz, D . S. (1989). Biobehavioral aspects o f cardiovascular disease: Progress and prospects. Health Psychology, 8, 649-676. Scobie, E . , & Scobie, G . (1998). Damaging events: The perceived need for forgiveness. Journal for the Theory o f Social Behaviour, 28, 373-401. Seibt, R., Boucsein, W . , & Scheuch, K . (1998). Effects o f different stress settings on cardiovascular parameters and their relationship to daily life blood pressure i n normotensives, borderline hypertensives and hypertensives. Ergonomics, 41,634-648. Seibt, R . , Scheuch, K . , Boucsein, W . , & Grass, A . (1998). Cardiovascular reactivity o f different mental stress models i n normotensives, borderline hypertensives and hypertensives. Selye, H . (1976). The stress o f life (rev. ed.). N e w York: M c G r a w - H i l l .  40 Semenchuk, E . M , & Larkin, K . T. (1993). Behavioral and cardiovascular responses to interpersonal challenges among male offspring o f essential hypertensives. Health Psychology. 12,416-419. Shapiro, D . , Goldstein, I. B . , & Jamner, L . D . (1995). Effects o f anger/hostility, defensiveness, gender, and family history o f hypertension on cardiovascular reactivity. Psvchophysiology. 32. 425-435. Siegman, A . W . , Dembroski, T. M . , & Ringel, N . (1987). Components o f hostility and severity o f coronary artery disease. Psychosomatic Medicine, 49,127-135. Smith, M . A . , & Houston, B . K . (1987). Hostility, anger expression, cardiovascular responsivity, and social support. Biological Psychology, 24,39-48. Stoney, C . M . , & Matthews, K . A . (1988). Parental history o f hypertension and myocardial infarction predicts cardiovascular responses to behavioral stressors i n middle-aged men and women. Psvchophysiology. 25.269-277. Suarez, E . C , & Williams, R. B . (1990). The relationships between dimensions o f hostility and cardiovascular reactivity as a function o f task characteristics. Psychosomatic Medicine. 52, 558-570. Suarez, E . C , Harlan, E . , Peoples, M . C , & Williams, R. B . (1993). Cardiovascular and emotional responses i n women: The role o f hostility and harassment. Health Psychology. 12,459-468. Taylor, A . E . (1991). Asymmetrical effects o f positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin. 110. 67-85. Taylor, C , & Kleinke, C . L . (1992). Effects o f severity o f accident, history o f drunk driving, intent, and remorse on judgments o f a drunk driver. Journal o f Applied Social Psychology. 22.1641-1655.  41 Tennant, C . C , & Langeluddecke, P. M . (1985). Psychological correlates o f coronary heart disease. Psychological Medicine, 15. 581-588. Tuomisto, M . T. (1997). Intra-arterial blood pressure and heart rate reactivity to behavioral stress i n normotensive, borderline, and m i l d hypertensive men. Health Psychology. 16,554-565. V i t a l i a n o , P . P., Russo, J., Bailey, S. L . , Young, H . M . , & M c C a n n , B . (1993). Psychosocial factors associated with cardiovascular reactivity i n older adults. Psychosomatic Medicine. 55.164-177. Vitaliano, P. P., Russo, J., Paulsen, V . M . , Bailey, S. L . (1995). Cardiovascular recovery from laboratory stress: Biopsychosocial concomitants i n older adults. Journal o f Psychosomatic Research, 39, 361-377. Voegele, C , Jarvis, A . , & Cheeseman, K . (1997). Anger suppression, reactivity, and hypertension risk: Gender makes a difference. Annals o f Behavioral Medicine, 19, 61-69. Wolff, K . (1969). Angina pectoris and emotional disturbances: Therapeutic implications. Diseases o f the Nervous System, 30,401-404.  42 Endnotes 1. Harassment Scripts Script #1: " L o o k [participant name], you're always subtracting way too slow. Y o u ' v e got to do it  much faster. Continue where you stopped."  Script #2: "[participant name], you're  still too slow and also inaccurate. This can't be your  best. N o w try it again from where you left off." Script #3: " Y o u ' r e obviously not good enough at doing this,  now try harder. Keep going!"  2. Apology Scripts Good Apology: "Listen [participant name], I ' m really sorry for being so rude to you a few minutes ago. I f I upset you while you were counting that's totally my fault. I was speaking to you that way on purpose as part o f the experiment. I ' m usually more courteous and professional. But I do feel bad about this. I ' m sorry." Pseudo-apology: " Y o u seemed a little agitated there. W e l l , I ' m sorry i f you got upset during the task, but it's important for you to go really fast, or the experiment isn't going to work."  43 Table 1 Analysis o f Variance for Emotion Rating Scales  F  Source  df  Happiness  Anger  Fear  Sadness  Disgust  Surprise  Between subjects Condition Withingroups error  3  .374  5.260**  4.758**  2.772*  2.726*  3.311*  116  (8.155)  (4.031)  (3.650)  (4.852)  (5.549)  (5.296)  Within subjects Time  3  31.369***  50.265***  20.847***  11.842***  28.631***  50.028***  Timex Condition  9  2.218*  4.451***  2.661**  1.179  .763  .981  348  (1.051)  (1.011)  (.845)  (.847)  (1.192)  (1.085)  Group error  Note. Terms i n parentheses represent mean square error. *p_ < .05 **_p<.01 * * * £ < .001  44 Table 2 Systolic B l o o d Pressure: 3-Way Factorial A N O V A s Performed at Separate Recovery Time Points  Source  F df  Task to Recovery 1  Task to Recovery 2  Task to Recovery 3  Task to Recovery 4  Condition  2  1.115  .219  .755  1.448  Cynicism  1  7.685**  6.608*  3.095  1.141  Ethnicity  1  .044  .006  2.017  .007  Condition x Cynicism  2  4.245*  5.074**  6.193**  6.074**  Condition x Ethnicity  2  4.250*  5.000**  2.821  1.386  Cynicism x Ethnicity  1  2.860  .752  1.286  .005  Condition x Cynicism x Ethnicity  2  .050  .563  2.252  .223  (51.134)  (46.070)  (47.461)  (44.751)  109  109  108  108  Error Error d f  Note. Error terms i n parentheses represent M e a n Square Error. *p < .05 **p< .01  45 Table 3 Diastolic B l o o d Pressure: 3-Way Factorial A N O V A s Performed at Separate Recovery Time Points  Source  F df  Task to Recovery 1  Task to Recovery 2  Task to Recovery 3  Task to Recovery 4  Condition  2  .453  .435  1.532  2.274  Cynicism  1  .452  .003  .732  .288  Ethnicity  1  .142  .205  .457  .017  Condition x Cynicism  2  .517  .520  1.200  3.596*  Condition x Ethnicity  2  1.626  1.039  1.595  .439  Cynicism x Ethnicity  1  2.461  2.142  1.119  2.361  Condition x Cynicism x Ethnicity  2  2.273  1.770  1.605  2.602  (51.002)  (40.252)  (46.568)  (49.695)  109  109  108  108  Error Error d f  Note. Error terms i n parentheses represent M e a n Square Error. *p < .05  46 Table 4 Heart Rate: 3-Wav Factorial A N O V A s Performed at Separate Recovery Time Points  Source  F df  Task to Recovery 1  Task to Recovery 2  Task to Recovery 3  Task to Recovery 4  Condition  2  2.090  3.392*  .921  1.547  Cynicism  1  2.759  1.126  3.270  1.823  Gender  1  .024  .013  1.581  .152  Condition x Cynicism  2  1.371  1.311  .965  1.699  Condition x Gender  2  2.781  4.648*  3.499*  6.555**  Cynicism x Gender  1  .002  1.332  .225  .010  Condition x Cynicism x Gender  2  1.910  1.362  1.056  2.929  (63.698)  (64.245)  (63.868)  (58.374)  127  127  127  126  Error Error d f  Note. Error terms i n parentheses represent M e a n Square Error. *p < .05 **p< .01  Figure 1 E R S Happiness Ratings 3.5 3.0 o .3  Condition  2.5 2.0  CO  Q S  Control  1.5  Good Apology  1.0 Pseudo-apology  .5-1 0.0  Delayed Apology  Baseline  Recovery 1 Task  Recovery 2 Time  Condition Control Good Apology Pseudo-apology Delayed Apology Baseline  Recovery 1 Recovery 2  Task Time  Figure 3 E R S Fear Ratings  Condition Control Good Apology Pseudo-apology Delayed Apology Baseline  Recovery 1 Recovery 2  Task Time  Figure 4 E R S Sadness Ratings 3.5  N  Condition Control Good Apology Pseudo-apology Delayed Apology Baseline  Recovery 1 Task Recovery 2 Time  3.51 3.02 5-  Condition Control Good Apology Pseudo-apology  0.0  Delayed Apology  |  Baseline  Recovery 1 Task  Recovery 2 Time  Figure 6 E R S Surprise Ratings 3.5! 3.0 o  2.5  a  2.0J  Condition Control  1.5 |  Good Apology  1-0 Pseudo-apology .5 0.0  Delayed Apology  B aseline  Recovery 1 Task  Recovery 2 Time  Figure 7. Baseline to Task E R S R a w Change Sores  1.5 1.0 .5 (50  6  o.o -.5  -1.0 -1.5  Happiness Anger  Fear  Disgust Sadness  Surprise  Figure 8. Task to 1st Recovery E R S R a w Change Scores  1.5 1.0  60  U  .5 0.0  -.5  -1.0 -1.5  Happiness  Fear Anger  Disgust Sadness  Surprise  Figure 9. 1st Recovery to Final Recovery E R S R a w Change Scores  1.5 1.0  oo  6  o.o  i  i i  r  -.5 -1.0 -1.5 Happiness Anger  Fear  Disgust Sadness  Surprise  Figure 10. Task to 1st Recovery Residual Heart Rate Change  13 in <D  T3 <D N • i-H  -a  0-  </5 fi  Control  No Apology Condition  Figure 11. Task to 2nd Recovery Residual Heart Rate Change 6  1  n  4-  ID  <D N  a  T3  o-  to  P  Control  N o Apology Condition  58 Figure 12. Task to 1st Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Gender  -a =s • rH Vi  &  <L> N  • rH  ==  VP,  T3  Gender  c/3  •Male Female G o o d Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology Condition  59 Figure 13. Task to 2nd Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Gender 6-  13 • rH  <D  1  1  N  • rH  & T3 •  W/,  D  m  Gender  m  • M a l e  VZ\ F e m a l e Good Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology Condition  60 Figure 14. Task to 4th Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Gender  6 13  4 u <U N  2  • rH  T3 c/3  0  I  V, Gender  -2\  P 1)  • M a l e  -4 -6  (23 F e m a l e Good Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology Condition  61 Figure 15. Task to 1st Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Cynicism  13 =s  4j  'cfl  <D  2  N  0 Cynicism  -2  -4  |  -6  ^ H i g h N o Apology  Good Apology  Pseudo-apology  Condition  | Low  62 Figure 16. Task to 1st Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Ethnicity  6  13 • t—i <D tf  T3  ID N  1  42  • rH  T3  0  22  Ethnicity  -2<D  -4-  |  -6  £2 A s i a n Good Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology Condition  | Caucasian  63 Figure 17. Task to 2nd Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Cynicism  13 <U tf <D N  T3  Cynicism c/3  p  |  | Low  IZ^High Good Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology Condition  64 Figure 18. Task to 2nd Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Ethnicity  6  n  T3  C/3  2 N • TH  0  T3  Ethnicity  /2J  r/3  |  -4  [Caucasian  £2 Asian  -6  G o o d Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology Condition  65 Figure 19. Task to 3rd Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Cynicism  13  I oo  <D  Pi  1  T3 <D N  1  W  • TH  =  T3 00  Cynicism •  D |  | Low  E2High Good Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology  Condition  66 Figure 20. Task to 4th Recovery Residual S B P Change: Apology Condition by Cynicism 6  13 <D  N  T3 C/3  D  n  4\ V///, WA  2  0  Cynicism -2  -4  •  WA  |  |Low  £ 2 High  -6  G o o d Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology Condition  67 Figure 21. Task to 4th Recovery Residual D B P Change: Apology Condition by Cynicism  6 13  rs  4]  <u tf  N T3  T3 C/3  0  V777X Cynicism  -2-  D |  -4-  | Low  E22High  -6 Good Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology Condition  68 Figure 22. Task to 2nd Recovery Residual H R Change: Apology Condition by Gender  6-,  -a rs tf  -a  42  N  c3  0  T3  Gender  -2 p  -4 -6  Y7% F e m a l e Good Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology Condition  69 Figure 23. Task to 3rd Recovery Residual H R Change: Apology Condition by Gender  13  =s  T3  42-  ID N  0 Gender  -2  D |  | Male  p^Female Good Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology Condition  70 Figure 24. Task to 4th Recovery Residual H R Change: Apology Condition by Gender  tf N  Gender  C/2  P |  |Male Female  Good Apology  N o Apology  Pseudo-apology Condition  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0089686/manifest

Comment

Related Items