Anger response styles and blood pressure: At least Don’t Ruminate about it!
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on anger suggests a link with blood pressure (BP), but the findings are complex and highly variable; this is at least partly attributable to measurement issues. PURPOSE: In this study we used a new model of anger responding that comprises 6 independent anger response styles in 2 dimensions: Aggression, Assertion, Social Support Seeking, Diffusion, Avoidance, and Rumination. Linear and interactive relations between the anger response styles and resting and ambulatory BP were tested, controlling for traditional risk factors and level of hostility. METHODS: Data from 2 samples of different cardiovascular health status were examined. In Study 1, 109 healthy participants (45 men and 64 women) were recruited. Study 2 involved a sample of 159 hypertensive patients (90 men and 69 women). All participants provided demographic and health information; completed the Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire, a hostility measure; and underwent resting BP measurement. Study 2 participants also provided 24-hr ambulatory BPs. RESULTS: Examination of linear effects revealed inconsistent associations between anger response styles and BP. The moderating effect of Rumination on the relationship between the other anger response styles and BP was examined next. Rumination had a deleterious influence on the relation between Avoidance and Assertion and resting and ambulatory BP levels. The moderating influence of Rumination on Social Support Seeking varied between the genders. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results suggest that rumination is a critical moderating variable in the relation of anger and BP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it