4.1 Article

Psychophysiological responses to anger provocation among Asian Indian and white men

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1207/s15327558ijbm1102_2

关键词

anger expression; culture; cardiovascular reactivity; coping self-statements; role-play assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To examine cultural differences in response to anger provocation, affective, cognitive, behavioral, and cardiovascular responses to social confrontation, role plays were measured in 20 Indian male immigrants in the United States and 40 White men. Participants engaged in 2 interactions with a nonacquiescent male confederate and were instructed to suppress or express their anger in counterbalanced order Following each role play, participants state anger, and resentful and reflective cognitions pertaining to anger were assessed. Participants' videotaped behavioral responses were assessed for problem-solving skills and negative and positive verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Blood pressure and heart rate (HR) responses were recorded throughout the session. Results revealed that Indian participants used more introspective strategies comprising of repression and rational coping self-statements to anger provocation than their White counterparts. White participants experienced significantly higher HR responses and showed more awareness of physiological sensation compared to the Indian participants, but only when asked to exhibit their anger Indian participants had a faster diastolic blood pressure (DBP) recovery when allowed to engage it? anger inhibition (which is a culturally determined mode of functioning) compared to when they had to exhibit anger before inhibiting it. White men showed a heightened cardiac response to anger expression, something not seen among Indian men. Indian men, in contrast, exhibited delayed DBP recovery from anger expression and increased introspective cognitive strategies when asked to engage in anger exhibition, a behavior not congruent with their culture of origin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据