Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T13:44:04.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Punitiveness with the Hostility and Direction of Hostility Questionnaire (HDHQ)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

Alistair E. Philip
Alistair E. Philip*
Affiliation:
Bangour Village Hospital, Broxburn, West Lothian
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Foulds' theory of personality (1965) lays stress on the need to consider the individual as a person in relation to others. Where the ability to enter into mutual personal relations with others denotes the mature individual, egocentricity in thinking and behaving marks out the immature. One feature of egocentricity is the need to apportion blame in any given situation, either to other people or to the self, so that Foulds found punitiveness a useful attitudinal measure of egocentricity. Rosenzweig's (1934) terms extrapunitiveness and intropunitiveness were used by Foulds, Caine and Creasy (1960) to identify punitiveness directed outward on to other people and inward on to the self; these authors devised subscales, three extrapunitive and two intropunitive, to tap various aspects of punitive expression. From the pattern of correlations between the subscales, they tentatively posited a factor of general hostility, while pointing out that the correlations were such as to indicate that the extrapunitiveness subscales were measuring something different from the intropunitiveness subscales.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 123 , Issue 575 , October 1973 , pp. 435 - 439
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1973 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Caine, T. M., Foulds, G. A., and Hope, K. (1967). Manual of the Hostility and Direction of Hostility Questionnaire (H.D.H.Q.). London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, W. J. (ed.) (1970). University of California Publications in Automatic Computation—Biomedical Computation Programs, Berkeley, Calif.: University of California.Google Scholar
Foulds, G. A. (1965). Personality and Personal Illness. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Foulds, G. A. (1971). ‘Personality deviance and personal symptomatology.’ Psychol. Med., 1, 222–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foulds, G. A., Caine, T. M., and Creasy, M. A. (1960). ‘Aspects of extra- and intropunitiveness.’ J. ment. Sci., 106, 599–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hope, K. (1963). The structure of hostility among normal and neurotic persons. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of London Library.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). ‘The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.’ Educ. psychol. Measmt., 20, 141–51.Google Scholar
Mayo, P. R. (1967). ‘Some psychological changes associated with improvement in depression.’ Brit. J. soc. clin. Psychol., 6, 63–8.Google Scholar
Philip, A. E. (1968). ‘The constancy of structure of a hostility questionnaire.’ Brit. J. soc. din. Psychol., 7, 16–18.Google Scholar
Philip, A. E. (1969). ‘The development and use of the hostility and direction of hostility questionnaire.’ J. psychosom. Res., 13, 283–7.Google Scholar
Philip, A. E. (1971). ‘Psychometric changes associated with response to drug treatment.’ Brit. J. soc. clin. Psychol., 10, 138–43.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, S. (1934). ‘Types of reaction to frustration.’ J. abnorm, soc. Psychol., 29, 298–300.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.