State Hostility Scale – SHOS

Abstract

The State Hostility Scale (SHOS) is a specialized self-report measure designed to capture the immediate, transient level of hostile feelings or aggressive affect experienced by an individual at a specific moment in time. Unlike measures of stable personality traits, the SHOS assesses a momentary emotional “state.” Developed and introduced into the psychological literature by Anderson, Deuser, and DeNeve in 1995, the scale is a fundamental tool in experimental research focused on the link between situational variables (such as environmental stressors or social manipulations) and aggressive responses.

The full version of the SHOS typically comprises 35 items, although a shorter 10-item version is sometimes referenced in the literature. These items are structured to measure key components of acute hostility, including feelings of perceived threat, environmental danger, and the degree of psychological or social distance felt toward others.

Keywords

State Hostility Scale, SHOS, State Affect, Anger Measurement, Aggression, Self-Report, Psychological Scale, Current Mood, Affective Aggression, Psychometrics, Craig Anderson.

Authors

Craig A. Anderson, W. E. Deuser, K. DeNeve

Purpose

The central purpose of the State Hostility Scale (SHOS) is to provide a standardized, quantitative assessment of the intensity and severity of acute hostile feelings and aggressive cognitive impulses currently experienced by a research participant. This focus on transient emotional states makes the SHOS indispensable in experimental and social psychology, particularly when researchers need to measure rapid shifts in affective responses following specific environmental or psychological manipulations (e.g., exposure to frustrating tasks, hot temperatures, or violent media).

The scale goes beyond a simple measure of general anger by capturing the multifaceted nature of a negative affective state. It assesses elements such as perceived threat, the feeling of danger in one’s immediate surroundings, and the sense of social distance or psychological separation from a target. Its utility spans various research domains, including studies on social conflict, intergroup dynamics, and the mechanisms underlying affective aggression.

Construct

The SHOS is designed to measure State Hostility, a psychological construct defined as a temporary, acute emotional condition characterized by feelings of ill will, resentment, and an immediate behavioral readiness to act antagonistically. This construct is explicitly differentiated from Trait Hostility, which refers to a stable, enduring personality characteristic.

The development of the SHOS drew heavily upon established foundational work in measuring transient affect, notably incorporating elements inspired by generalized affect scales developed by Zuckerman et al. (1964) and the State-Trait Anger Scale (STAS) by Spielberger et al. (1983). The assessment is structured around three primary components that contribute to the overall experience of state hostility:

• Perceived Threat and Danger: Items assessing the degree to which the individual feels endangered or threatened by the immediate situation or environment.
• Hostile Affect: Direct measures of internal feelings such as anger, rage, irritation, and bitterness (e.g., “I feel mad,” “I feel furious”).
• Hostile Cognition and Behavioral Intent: Measures reflecting the impulse or desire toward antagonistic actions and thoughts (e.g., “I feel like yelling at somebody,” “I feel like swearing”).

Validity

The State Hostility Scale is consistently regarded in research literature as a highly valid instrument for assessing temporary hostile states. Its validity is primarily evidenced by its strong correlation with behaviors and cognitive patterns associated with anger and hostility, particularly within controlled experimental settings.

The initial validation work (Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995) demonstrated robust criterion validity, showing that the scale accurately reflected predicted changes in hostile affect in response to experimental manipulations, such as exposure to environmental stressors like elevated temperatures. Furthermore, the scale’s items were systematically derived from pre-validated instruments focused on generalized affect and state anger (e.g., Zuckerman et al., 1964; Spielberger et al., 1983), providing substantial support for its construct validity within the theoretical framework of affective aggression research.

Reliability

The SHOS demonstrates high internal consistency, confirming its status as a reliable psychometric tool for measuring acute hostile states. Across numerous studies, researchers typically report high alpha coefficients, indicating that the items consistently measure the same underlying emotional construct, thereby supporting its use in time-sensitive experimental contexts.

However, the scale developers noted specific caveats regarding item performance. Certain items occasionally exhibit poor item-total correlations, suggesting potential ambiguity or instability in participant interpretation. Specifically, the items containing the keywords “willful,” “tender,” and “vexed” have been identified as potentially problematic. Researchers, including Craig A. Anderson, have advised excluding these three items in certain samples to ensure optimal reliability and psychometric integrity, particularly when working with diverse or non-college populations.

Factor Analysis

Although detailed factor loading tables were not explicitly provided in the core source documentation, the scale’s design—which is rooted in established mood and anger inventories—suggests a strong, dominant primary factor loading onto Hostile Affect. The instrument is fundamentally structured to capture the emotional intensity and immediate experience of anger and hostility.

The noted instability and recommendation to exclude items like “willful,” “tender,” and “vexed” strongly imply that formal factor analyses conducted by the developers revealed that these specific items did not load consistently or strongly onto the main factor, or introduced unwanted measurement error due to poor comprehension. Researchers utilizing the SHOS are thus routinely encouraged to perform confirmatory factor analyses appropriate for their specific population sample to maximize the scale’s psychometric rigor.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychological scale; Self-Report Questionnaire (Mood Assessment)

Format: Paper-and-Pencil or electronic administration; uses a 5-point Likert-type scale, typically ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). The standard full version contains 35 items.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population; primarily utilized with adult and college-aged samples.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults.

Population Details: The scale has been extensively validated and applied in controlled laboratory settings, primarily using university students engaged in research concerning social behavior and aggressive responses.

Test Methodology: Participants are instructed to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with 35 statements regarding their “Current Mood.” Scoring involves calculating a total sum of the item scores. Items indicative of positive or non-hostile affect (e.g., friendly, cooperative) must be reverse-scored before summation. Higher total scores indicate a greater intensity of state hostility.

Keywords

Psychometrics, State Hostility, Aggression Model, Affect, Mood Assessment, Craig Anderson, Hostility, Anger, Social Psychology, Experimental Stressors, Spielberger, Social Distance.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected] (Craig A. Anderson)

Correspondence Address: Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D.; W112 Lagomarcino Hall; Department of Psychology; Iowa State University; Ames, IA 50011-3180

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The State Hostility Scale materials are generally available for academic and research purposes free of charge, provided that appropriate citation credit is given to the author and the original publications (Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995). The earliest published use of this scale format was in 1995. The latest revision date provided by the author for the instrument materials is August 31, 2007. The author provides access to the materials via his institutional website: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/Scales/Scales.html.

Reference’s

• Anderson, C.A, Deuser, W.E., DeNeve, K. (1995). Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 434-448.
• Anderson, C.A., & Morrow, M. (1995). Competitive aggression without interaction: Effects of competitive versus cooperative instructions on aggressive behavior in video games. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1020-1030.
• Anderson, C.A., Anderson, K.B., & Deuser, W.E. (1996). Examining an affective aggression framework: Weapon and temperature effects on aggressive thoughts, affect, and attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 366-376.
• Anderson, C.A. (1997). Effects of violent movies and trait irritability on hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 161-178.
• Anderson, K.B., Anderson, C.A., Dill, K.E., & Deuser, W.E. (1998). The interactive relations between trait hostility, pain, and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 161-171.
• Anderson, C.A., & Anderson, K.B. (1998). Temperature and aggression: Paradox, controversy, and a (Fairly) clear picture. Chapter in R. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.) Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy. (pp. 247-298). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Lindsay, J.J., & Anderson, C.A. (2000). From Antecedent Conditions to Violent Actions: A General Affective Aggression Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 533-547.
• Anderson, C.A., Anderson, K.B., Dorr, N., DeNeve, K.M., & Flanagan, M. (2000). Temperature and aggression. Chapter in M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 63-133. New York: Academic Press.
• Anderson, C.A., & Dill, K.E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790.
• Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The state-trait anger scale. In J. Butcher & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 159-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Zuckerman, M., Lubin, B., Vogel, L., & Valerius, E. (1964). Measurement of experimentally induced affects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 28, 418-425.

Items of the State Hostility Scale – SHOS

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Current Mood

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following mood statements. Use the following 5 point rating scale. Write the number corresponding to your rating on the blank line in front of each statement.

           Strongly                                    Neither Agree                                    Strongly
           Disagree             Disagree          Nor Disagree            Agree                 Agree
                 1                         2                         3                         4                         5

____ I feel furious.                                          ____ I feel like I’m about to explode.
____ I feel willful.                                           ____ I feel friendly.*
____ I feel aggravated.                                    ____ I feel understanding.*
____ I feel tender.*                                         ____ I feel amiable.*
____ I feel stormy.                                          ____ I feel mad.
____ I feel polite.*                                          ____ I feel mean.
____ I feel discontented.                                 ____ I feel bitter.
____ I feel like banging on a table.                 ____ I feel burned up.
____ I feel irritated.                                         ____ I feel like yelling at somebody.
____ I feel frustrated.                                      ____ I feel cooperative.*
____ I feel kindly.*                                         ____ I feel like swearing.
____ I feel unsociable.                                    ____ I feel cruel.
____ I feel outraged.                                       ____ I feel good-natured.*
____ I feel agreeable.*                                    ____ I feel disagreeable.
____ I feel angry.                                            ____ I feel enraged.
____ I feel offended.                                       ____ I feel sympathetic.*
____ I feel disgusted.                                      ____ I feel vexed.
____ I feel tame.*

*Item needs to be reverse scored. The asterisks are not present in the scale when presented to research participants.