4.4 Article

Personality and physiological reactions to acute psychological stress

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.10.018

关键词

Acute stress; Agreeableness; Cardiovascular activity; Cortisol; Neuroticism; Openness

资金

  1. European Union Seventh Framework Programme [279281]
  2. Netherlands Heart Foundation [NHS2007B083]
  3. European Science Foundation (Eurostress)
  4. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
  5. European Union [279281]
  6. BRAINAGE
  7. Doctoral Award from the Economic and Social Research Council, UK
  8. Economic and Social Research Council [1070006] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stable personality traits have long been presumed to have biological substrates, although the evidence relating personality to biological stress reactivity is inconclusive. The present study examined, in a large middle aged cohort (N=352), the relationship between key personality traits and both cortisol and cardiovascular reactions to acute psychological stress. Salivary cortisol and cardiovascular activity were measured at rest and in response to a psychological stress protocol comprising 5 min each of a Stroop task, mirror tracing, and a speech task. Participants subsequently completed the Big Five Inventory to assess neuroticism, agreeableness, openness to experience, extraversion, and conscientiousness. Those with higher neuroticism scores exhibited smaller cortisol and cardiovascular stress reactions, whereas participants who were less agreeable and less open had smaller cortisol and cardiac reactions to stress. These associations remained statistically significant following adjustment for a range of potential confounding variables. Thus, a negative personality disposition would appear to be linked to diminished stress reactivity. These findings further support a growing body of evidence which suggests that blunted stress reactivity may be maladaptive. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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