The autonomic characteristics of hostility and defensiveness were assessed in 55 male undergraduates based on composite Cook Medley Hostility (Chost) and Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability (MC) scores to create 4 groups: Defensive Hostile (DH; high MC, high Chost), High Hostile (HH; low MC, high Chost), Defensive (Def; high MC, low Chost) and Low Hostile (LH; low MC, low Chost). All subjects engaged in a video game (VG) and hand cold pressor (CP) task. Cardiovascular responses in DH subjects were predicted to show enhanced sympathetic α and β-adrenergic activity and the least vagal control compared to others across tasks. DH and LH men showed significant heart rate reactivity to the CP task compared to HH men. LH men showed significant reductions in high frequency power (vagal assessment) to the tasks compared to HH men. Future studies may employ harassment techniques and include the factors of gender and ethnicity in their assessments.

Background
Hostility and anger have been attributed as psychosocial risk factors for coronary heart disease. Heightened cardiovascular reactivity (CVR), and poor recovery, to provocative stressors are thought to hasten this risk.
Purpose
To examine the relationship between hostility and anger inhibition (AI), and the moderating situational influences of harassment and evaluation, in predicting CVR and recovery to mental arithmetic (MA) stress using a multiple regression approach.
Methods
48 male undergraduate students engaged in the following 3 minute tasks during recording of the electrocardiogram, impedance cardiography, and blood pressure: baseline, MA, and evaluation. Hostility and AI were assessed with the Cook-Medley Hostility Scale and the Speilberger Anger In subscale, respectively.
Results
An interaction between hostility and AI showed high diastolic blood pressure reactivity to the MA task among hostile anger inhibitors. Harassment did not modify this effect. However, harasser evaluation predicted prolonged systolic blood pressure (SBP) responding among men scoring high in AI, and facilitated SBP recovery among those scoring low on AI.
Conclusions
The findings highlight the interactive influences of AI and hostility in predicting CVR to stress and underscore the importance of recovery assessments in understanding the potentially pathogenic associations of these constructs.