- Email: [email protected]
Coping dispositions and the stress appraisal process: The impact of defensiveness on emotional response to threat
Person. indiuid. Difl Vol. 13, No. I I. pp. 1223-1231, Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
1992 Copyright
0191-8869/92 $5.00 + 0.00 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd
COPING DISPOSITIONS AND THE STRESS APPRAISAL PROCESS: THE IMPACT OF DEFENSIVENESS ON EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO THREAT CLARE Department
of Psychology,
N.
and
BUNTROCK
University
DIANE
M.
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, WI 53201, U.S.A.
(Received
I6 November
REDDY* P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee,
1991)
Summary-The purposes of this study were threefold: (I) to examine how a coping disposition which by definition is stable across time and situation, can nevertheless contribute to an understanding of the stress appraisal and coping process; (2) to clarify what situational factors are threatening enough to invoke the operation of dispositional defenses; and (3) to increase understanding of defensiveness as a personality construct with particular emphasis on the physiological concomitants of subjective response to threat. Subjective and physiological responses of 61 defensive or nondefensive subjects were studied across two time periods: an anticipatory coping period (before the threat) and an aftermath period (after the threat). Performance data were also collected. Interactions between defensiveness and time period were found on both subjective and physiological measures demonstrating that coping dispositions exert a comprehensive and dynamic influence on the stress appraisal and coping process.
The thesis of this paper is that coping dispositions, which by definition are stable across time and situation, exert a dynamic influence on stress appraisal and the coping process. It is argued that investigating how stress appraisals change over the course of a stressor is not incompatible with studying the influence of coping dispositions on that process. Lazarus (1966) proposed that appraisals of threats and resources change throughout a stressful encounter as a result of the bidirectional influence of the person and the environment. The environment or situation plays a critical role in initiating the stress appraisal process. Dispositional tendencies are important as well for they cause people to selectively filter information which will be used in evaluating a threat, and influence the use of intrapsychic mechanisms in coping with threat. That is to say, dispositions influence the ongoing appraisal of threats and resources that is central to the coping process. Observations of people coping with life events such as college examinations confirm that the manner in which people deal with a stressor changes as their appraisal of the stressor is modified by situational information and their own coping efforts (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Focusing on change does not, however, obviate investigating the influence of personality traits on stress appraisal and coping processes. Although dispositions are stable aspects of personality, their influence on coping is not static (Lazarus, 1983). Thus, it is not a contradiction to say that the effect of coping dispositions on behavior will vary with situational demands, even though the measurement of these personality traits themselves is highly stable across time and situation. Nonetheless, little research has examined the effect of coping dispositions on the stress appraisal process, and the present study was designed with this goal in mind. Defensiveness was the particular coping disposition chosen for this study because it represents a generalized style of approaching stress, that is increasingly well understood due to both theoretical and empirical attention (Paulhus, 1984). Defensiveness refers to the tendency to deny problems, while trying to maintain a semblance of adequacy, effectiveness, and control (Page & Markowitz, 1955). Historically, the term defensiveness has been used in two distinct ways (Houston, 1986) referring either to a coping style used to reduce stress, or the simple verbal denial of socially undesirable experience. However, a recent series of factor analytic and experimental studies have clarified the meaning of the construct, indicating that defensiveness is more appropriately conceptualized as a coping style. Specifically, Paulhus (1984) concluded that *To whom
correspondence
should
be addressed.
The order
of authorship
1223
is alphabetical.
1224
CLARE N. BUNTROCKand
DIANE M. REDDY
defensiveness represents an unconscious evaluative bias where the “self-deceiver is defending against thoughts and feelings representing fundamental threats to the psyche” (Paulhus, 1984, p, 607). This is in direct contrast to impression management which is better understood as conscious self-deception regarding socially desirable behaviors of an overt nature (Paulhus, 1984). One common measure of defensiveness is the K scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; McKinley, Hathaway & Meehl, 1948), an empirically derived validity scale designed to correct for defensiveness in test taking. A high score on the K scale reflects a reservation about admitting symptoms, while a low score on K suggests candor or self-criticality (McKinley et al., 1948). Beyond its function as a correction scale for “faking good” and “faking bad”, the K scale is a measure of certain personality characteristics as well; in addition to reflecting an inclination to disavow problems and insecurities, K scale items also suggest a “Pollyanna-like” tendency to view the world through rose-colored glasses (Marks, Seeman & Haller, 1974). Although some investigators have concluded that the K scale in a normal population measures healthy personality functioning rather than defensiveness (Greene, 1980), there is no definitive way to tell when increased K scale scores represent clinical defensiveness or ego strength (Graham, 1987). Paulhus (1984) regards the K scale as a good marker for defensiveness that is understood to be an unconscious, self-deceptive bias. There are several implications which follow directly from conceptualizing defensiveness as a coping strategy rather than simple verbal denial. Because coping by definition is an ongoing evaluative process, the impact of defensiveness on coping should be apparent through an assessment of the stress appraisal process. However, just as the differences between Repressors and Sensitizers are not manifest in neutral situations (Byrne, 1964) the impact of defensiveness on coping would not be expected to be uniformly apparent. Rather, defensiveness should be initiated by threat and mediated by the stress appraisal process. Thus, although the measurement of defensiveness is stable over time (like a trait), the subjective, behavioral, and physiological ramifications of defensiveness depend entirely on the relevant situation (or state). In addition, the successful use of defensiveness (and other defense mechanisms and other coping strategies) should theoretically attenuate subjective and physiological concomitants of the response to threat. In reality, empirical studies have found that Ss who use cognitive coping strategies such as defensiveness often have lower self-reports of distress and higher physiological reactions to threat than Ss who do not use such coping strategies (Pittner & Houston, 1980; Pittner, Houston & Spiridigliozzi, 1983; Weinberger, Schwartz & Davidson, 1979; Weinstein, Averill, Opton & Lazarus, 1968). That a coping strategy may be effective in only some domains (e.g. the subjective domain and not the physiological domain) is consistent with the current conception of a multimodal response to stress involving the possibility of biochemical, behavioral, physiological, and subjective changes (Baum, Grunberg & Singer, 1982). Complex dyssynchronies between different modalities of response to stress are often noted and may reflect different levels of subjective control (Janoff-Bulman & Timko, 1987). The impact of defensiveness on the stress appraisal process was the focus of this study. However, situational variables are critical to understanding the appraisal process, because traits do not operate in isolation to produce behavior (Epstein, 1980). Therefore, self-report and blood pressure measures were collected before and after a threat in order to clearly assess how situational changes affect subjective and physiological indices of coping. In addition, threat intensity was manipulated such that half of the Ss received instructions to heighten the threatening characteristics of the situation, while the other half of the Ss did not receive such instructions. There were three purposes to this research. First, this study was designed to investigate how a coping disposition which by definition is stable across time and situation, can nevertheless contribute to an understanding of the stress appraisal process. This study used an integrated approach which is theoretically superior to the common but artificial distinction drawn between coping as a “trait” and coping as a “process.” Furthermore, by looking at changes in the coping process before and after a threat, this study highlighted the importance of situational variables in order to clarify what exactly makes a situation threatening enough to invoke the operation of dispositional defenses. Finally, this study was designed to increase understanding of defensiveness as a personality construct with particular emphasis on the physiological concomitants of subjective responses. Paulhus (1984) has argued that more attention to behavioral and physiological correlates
Defensive
appraisal
1225
is necessary in order to fully understand the differences between the constructs of defensiveness and impression management. Theoretically, impression management should not lead to physiological ramifications while use of a dispositional defense such as defensiveness should. It was hypothesized that the impact of defensiveness on threat appraisals would vary with situational demands. Since defensiveness is viewed as an unconscious protective behavior used to cope with stress, differences between defensive and nondefensive Ss on subjective and physiological indices of stress would be expected to change with changes in threat. It was expected that during the period of anticipatory coping (before the threat) defensive Ss would report less symptomatic distress and greater competency than nondefensive Ss. However, these group differences in estimates of distress and competency would not be expected after the threat, since coping efforts by defensive Ss would no longer be necessary. Conversely, nondefensive Ss should report less distress after the threat compared to before the threat, accurately reflecting their arousal at both points in time. Thus, the significance of situational variables in the activation of dispositional coping strategies was expected to be apparent through an interaction between time period and defensiveness in determining subjective response to threat. In addition, an interaction between threat intensity and defensiveness was expected to further illustrate the importance of the situation in stress appraisal. The impact of defensiveness was expected to be more pronounced in the high threat intensity condition than the low threat intensity condition. Consistent with past research suggesting that defensive Ss cannot completely “defend” against stress, it was hypothesized that defensive Ss would exhibit greater physiological reactivity than nondefensive Ss. No hypotheses were advanced regarding group differences in performance since defensiveness would be expected to confer a cognitive advantage (less subjective distress) in conjunction with a physiological liability (greater autonomic arousal).
METHOD
Subjects
Sixty-one Ss were recruited for participation from a pool of 119 undergraduates who completed the Mini Mult and a health questionnaire several weeks before the experiment. Ss scoring in the extreme ends of the distribution of K Scale scores were contacted. Nondefensive Ss had K Scale scores ranging from T = 36 to T = 53 (8 = 47), while defensive Ss had K Scale scores ranging from T = 59 to T = 72 (8 = 67).* The experimenters were blind to the typology of Ss (defensive, nondefensive) during data collection. The average age of Ss was 21.7 years and all were male. Only men were sought for participation to avoid potential problems associated with menstrual cycle effects on physiological reactivity to stress (Hastrup & Light, 1984; Polefrone & Manuck, 1988). Ss received extra credit toward their course grade for participating. Overview
Multiple domains of emotional responding to threat were investigated including subjective reactions to stress, physiological measures of arousal, and performance data. The importance of situational variables in initiating the stress appraisal and coping process was highlighted by: (1) comparing changes in stress appraisals and physiological responding for defensive and nondefensive Ss across two time periods (before and after threat) and (2) comparing differences in stress appraisals and physiological responding between defensive and nondefensive Ss in the high and low threat intensity conditions. Materials
and apparatus
The Mini Mult (Kincannon, 1968), a self-administered personality inventory which reliably predicts standard scores from the MMPI clinical and validity scales, was used to measure defensiveness. The health questionnaire was administered to exclude from the S pool prehyper*The K Scale scores
for nondefensive
Ss are in the normal
range
and do not reflect unusual
self-criticality.
1226
CLARE N. BUNTROCK and DIANE M. REDDY
tensive and hypertensive individuals as well as anyone taking medications affecting blood pressure reactivity. The Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Karmarck & Mermelstein, 1983) a scale measuring perceptions of stress over the past month, was included to clarify the meaning of defensiveness as a personality trait. This trait-like measure allowed an examination of the impact of defensiveness on general perceptions of life stress. An important feature of this scale is that half the items require Ss to rate their disturbance from stressors, while the remaining half of the items require Ss to rate their competency in dealing with stressors. Thus, this scale allowed for the investigation of the general tendency among defensive individuals to engage in the dual defensive processes of denying stress and asserting competency.* The pre- and posttask questionnaires were administered to Ss to investigate the impact of defensiveness on stress appraisals specific to the changing demands of this study. The use of these questionnaires in conjunction with the Perceived Stress Scale allowed for a further clarification of defensiveness, through a comparison of the state and trait features of the construct. To measure the defensive process of denying stress, Ss were required on both the pre- and posttask questionnaires to rate on 7 point scales (1 = not at all bothersome, 7 = extremely bothersome) the severity of 17 symptoms they may have been experiencing.? To measure the defensive process of asserting competency, Ss were presented with the questions, “How successful do you expect to be on the upcoming task?“, and “How successful was your actual performance on the task?” The first question was presented on the pretask questionnaire, while the second question was presented on the posttask questionnaire. In each case, Ss responded on 7 point scales with 1 indicating “not at all” and 7 indicating “extremely.” To check on the adequacy of the threat intensity manipulation, Ss were asked, “How difficult do you expect the task/test to be?” Ss responded on 7 point scales with 1 indicating “not at all” and 7 indicating “extremely.” The physiological ramifications of defensiveness were explored by measuring systolic and diastolic blood pressure before and after the threat with a standard sphygmomanometer. The customary procedure of recording first and fifth Korotkoff sounds was used. Ss were seated and measurements were taken on the left arm. All experimenters were thoroughly trained in measuring blood pressure by medical personnel and were tested for measurement accuracy prior to the start of the study. The threatening event that Ss were confronted with was “serial 13s” a mental subtraction task which has been shown to reliably arouse Ss (Krantz, Manuck & Wing, 1986). The number of mental subtraction serials correctly completed, and the percentage correctly completed based on the number attempted were recorded to assess the impact of defensiveness on performance. These performance measures also allowed for a check on the possibility that differential threat appraisals were due to differences in performance rather than defensiveness or changes in situational demands. Procedure Upon arriving, informed consent was obtained. Demographic information was collected and Ss completed the Perceived Stress Scale. Ss were asked to relax for 10 min after which two measures of resting blood pressure were recorded and later averaged for use as an index of baseline blood pressure. Ss were informed about the upcoming mental subtraction task. Specifically, they were told that they were going to have to mentally subtract by 13s from a starting point of 1345, say this out loud, and sequentially repeat this procedure being as fast and accurate as possible. Ss completed the pretask questionnaire to measure threat appraisals. Immediately prior to performing *The seven trait-like items on the Perceived Stress Scale tapping stress denial were: upset because something happened unexpectedly, nervous and stressed, unable to control important things in life, could not cope with all the things had to do, angered by things outside of control, thinking of things had to accomplish, difficulties piling up so could not overcome them. The seven trait-like items on the Perceived Stress Scale tapping competency assertion were: dealt successfully with irritating life hassles, effectively coping with important life changes, confident about handling personal problems, able to control life irritations, felt on top of things, felt things going your way, able to control how time is spent. The standardized Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was 0.86 for the competency assertion items and 0.78 for the stress denial items. tThe 17 state measures of symptomatic distress tapping stress denial were: racing heart, short of breath, upset stomach, sweaty palms, flushed face, nervous inside, lump in throat, lower back pain, still muscles, chest pains, watery eyes, congested nose, ringing ears, itch, cold hands, headache, and dizzy.
Defensive
appraisal
1227
mental subtraction a threat intensity manipulation was initiated. S’s randomly assigned to the high threat intensity condition were told that the mental subtraction task was a test that had value in predicting overall grade point average at graduation. Ss in the low threat intensity condition were not given this information and the mental subtraction task was referred to as a task rather than test. In both conditions the timed aspect of the task was made salient and Ss were urged to perform as quickly and accurately as possible. The check on the adequacy of the threat intensity manipulation was completed at this point. Ss mentally subtracted numbers for 2 min when they were interrupted by the experimenter. Blood pressure was then recorded and the posttask questionnaire measuring threat appraisals was completed by Ss. A postexperimental inquiry then took place. Ss were probed to ascertain their perceptions of the major study purpose, whether they comprehended and believed the threat intensity manipulations, and most importantly whether they felt threatened upon learning the details of what was in store for them (performing difficult mental calculations in front of the experimenter under time pressure).
RESULTS Checks on procedural adequacy
Findings from the postexperimental inquiries indicated that the anticipation of having to perform mental subtraction was threatening to all Ss. Thus, the experimental instructions were successful in creating two phenomenologically different study periods: an anticipatory coping period (prior to the threat) and an aftermath period (after the threat). One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on perceptions of task difficulty showed that threat intensity was not adequately manipulated, F(l,59) = 0.34, P = 0.57. The high threat intensity Ss did not differ from the low threat intensity Ss in their perceptions of the task. Consistent with the apparent problem in the threat intensity manipulation, no interactions between defensiveness and threat intensity were found on any stress appraisal measure. Consequently, the main body of the results section will concentrate on the time period by defensiveness interaction to illustrate the importance of the situation in the stress appraisal process. Trait-like effects of defensiveness: general stress appraisals
Hotelling’s T2 was used to analyze stress denial and competency assertion items on the Perceived Stress Scale. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the impact of defensiveness on general stress appraisals, and to examine the dual defensive processes of denying stress and asserting competency beyond this particular threatening event. The results showed that both Ss’ perceptions of threat and their perceived ability to deal with threat were markedly influenced by defensiveness. As hypothesized, defensive Ss reported less stress [Hotelling’s Approx. F(7,53) = 2.15, P = 0.051 and more competency [Hotelling’s Approx. F(7,53) = 2.63, P = 0.021 than nondefensive Ss. These findings are completely consistent with results from the state measures of stress appraisal which are discussed in the next sections. State-like ejGects of defensiveness: speciJic stress appraisals and physiological reactions The anticipatory period: before the threat. A repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed on all pre- and posttask symptoms with defensiveness as the independent variable to examine the defensive process of denying stress. It was found that the overall difference in presymptom ratings between defensive and nondefensive Ss approached significance [Hotelling’s Approx. F(l7,41) = 1.50, P = 0.141. It appeared that the restricted range of symptom reporting could have contributed to the lack of reliable differences. For all Ss, the mean rating per symptom was 1.73 on a scale of 1 (not at all bothersome) to 7 (extremely bothersome). Nonetheless, consistent with expectations, the defensive Ss had lower (although not necessarily statistically significant) symptom ratings on 15 of 17 symptoms. To quantify the significance of this pattern of findings (i.e. 15 of 17 symptoms in the theoretically expected direction) a Sign Test was performed. The analysis showed that it is highly unlikely that 15 of 17 means would line up in the theoretically expected direction by chance (Sign Test, P = 0.002).
1228
CLARE N. BUNTROCKand DIANEM.
REDDY
One way ANOVA was performed on the state measure of competency assertion to examine this defensive process. The analysis showed that defensive Ss had higher expectations of success on the task (B = 5.10) than nondefensive Ss [8 =4.61, F(1,59) = 3.55, P = 0.061. This finding is completely consistent with the findings reported earlier that defensive Ss are more likely to assert competence in general than nondefensive Ss. One way ANOVA was performed on Ss’ baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressures to verify the initial equivalence of the defensive and nondefensive groups. The analyses revealed no differences in either baseline systolic or diastolic blood pressure. Thus, in the before threat period, the defensive Ss reported less symptomatic distress and more competency than nondefensive Ss, but there were no group differences in physiological response. The aftermath: after the threat. Repeated measures MANOVA was performed to examine the hypothesis that group differences in stress appraisal that were present prior to the threat would disappear after the threat since coping would no longer be necessary at this point. The results provided extensive support for this hypothesis. After the threat, there were no longer any differences between defensive and nondefensive Ss in symptomatic distress [Hotelling’s Approx. F(17,41) = 0.89, P = 0.591 or Ss’ perceptions of success on the task [B = 3.74 defensive Ss vs 2 = 3.67 nondefensive Ss, F(1,59) = 0.60, P = 0.441. The performance data were analyzed to investigate the alternative explanation that the group differences in threat appraisals were due to actual differences in competence rather than defensiveness. One way ANOVA was performed and the analysis revealed no differences between defensive and nondefensive Ss in mental subtraction performance whatsoever. Thus, the group differences in stress appraisal cannot be attributed to differences in ability. To examine the hypothesis that defensive Ss would exhibit greater physiological reactivity than nondefensive Ss repeated measures MANOVA was performed on Ss’ systolic and diastolic blood pressure using the appropriate baseline measure as the covariate. As hypothesized, defensive Ss had significantly higher systolic blood pressure after the threat than nondefensive Ss [x= 125.2 vs R= 122.2, F(1,56) = 3.83, P = 0.051. No main effect was found for diastolic blood pressure consistent with the less reactive nature of this measure. Dispositional influences on stress appraisal and the coping process: interactions between defensiveness and time period
Because this study sought to examine the impact of coping dispositions on stress appraisal and the coping process, the interaction between defensiveness and time period was of principal interest. Interactions between defensiveness and time period would show that the impact of defensiveness depends on the situational demands within each phase of the threat. That is, coping is a process and traits have an important influence on that process. Interactions between defensiveness and time period were found on both subjective and physiological measures strongly supporting this hypothesis [symptomatic distress, Hotelling’s Approx. F(17,41) = 5.53, P < 0.001; systolic blood pressure reactivity, Hotelling’s Approx. F(1,56) = 3.57, P = 0.061.
The statistically significant interaction between defensiveness and time period for symptom ratings shows that defensiveness differentially influenced reports of symptomatic distress across the two time periods. Nondefensive Ss had lower reports of symptomatic distress after the threat compared to before the threat, while defensive Ss reported higher symptomatic distress after the threat compared to before the threat. A shift in both groups eliminated the group difference. The interaction between defensiveness and time period on systolic blood pressure indicates that defensiveness also had a differential impact on physiological arousal across time. While both defensive and nondefensive Ss increased in systolic blood pressure from before to after the threat, the defensive Ss showed a greater increase (X = 8.81 vs 8= 5.90 mmHg). Finally, although the interaction between defensiveness and time period on the state measure of competency assertion did not reach an acceptable level of significance [Hotelling’s Approx. F( 1,59) = 1.91, P = 0.171 the direction of means across time also shows that defensiveness differentially influenced Ss’ estimates of task success depending on the salience of the threat. The impact of defensiveness on appraisal was only apparent before threat when defensive Ss expected to be more successful on the task than nondefensive Ss.
Defensive
appraisal
1229
Taken together these findings confirm the understanding of coping as a process subject to modification by changing situational demands and changing coping efforts. Moreover, the interactions found clearly demonstrate that a coping disposition can have a powerful and dynamic influence on this process. In particular, while the trait of defensiveness is associated with the general tendency to deny stress and assert competency, the manifestation of these processes (i.e. the state of defensiveness) is unequivocally dependent on the salience of a particular threat. DISCUSSION
An important contribution of this study is the finding that a stable coping disposition will nevertheless exert a dynamic influence on the stress appraisal process. The cognitive theory of emotion explicitly states the importance of both the person and environment to the process of stress appraisal (Coyne & Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus, 1975, 1981; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). However, the recent demonstration that active coping efforts change over time (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetler, Delongis & Gruen, 1986) has obscured the idea that coping dispositions also influence the stress appraisal process. This research demonstrates that focusing on change during the coping process is not incompatible with investigating the influence of coping dispositions. From the moment that Ss were informed that they would be required to perform mental arithmetic, the situation was one of threat. During this period of anticipatory coping, threat was denied and estimations of personal resources were inflated; specifically, the defensive Ss denied symptomatic arousal, and they expected to be more successful on the task than nondefensive Ss. After threat, the pattern of responding changed, reflecting a reappraisal of both threats and resources after threat, defensive Ss no longer evaluated their performance so positively. One would suspect that nondefensive Ss were accurately reporting their arousal at both points in time, heightened before the threat and diminished after the threat. Conversely, it appears that the lower self-reports of defensive Ss after threat reflect changes in appraisal when it is no longer defensively motivated, as if the diminished threat eliminated the need to deny somatic arousal and inflate personal resources. The interactions found between defensiveness and time period on both subjective and physiological measures clearly demonstrate that the trait affects the process. Group differences in state measures of threats and resources emerged at some points but not at others as a function of changing situational demands. Similarly, the defensiveness by time period interaction in blood pressure responding also shows the impact of the trait on the process, and underscores the importance of examining multiple domains of emotional responding over the course of a stressful encounter. Consistent with predictions and other research (Lazarus & Alfert, 1964; Tecce, Friedman & Mason, 1966; Weinberger et al., 1979; Weinstein et al., 1968), the defensive Ss were less subjectively aroused and more physiologically aroused than nondefensive Ss. However, an important clarification emerging from this study is the demonstration that defensive Ss were not unz~ormly more reactive than nondefensive Ss; the group differences in blood pressure responding appeared only after the threat, despite evidence of cognitive coping efforts before the threat. Thus, while defensive Ss were able to reduce their subjective response while anticipating the threat, they were unable to reduce their physiological reaction to the introduction of the threat itself. Consequently, defensive Ss were only able to partially “defend” against stress. It may be that the cost of effectively reducing stress in one realm is paid subsequently in terms of heightened reactivity in another domain of responding. Along this line, the discharge model of emotion (Notarius, Wemple, Ingraham, Burns & Kollar, 1982) actually predicts that physiological reactivity would follow the use of cognitive defense, based on the postulate that if emotion is not displayed directly it must then be discharged through internal pathways. That the defensive Ss in this study were less reactive cognitively, more reactive physiologically, and equivalent behaviorally to the nondefensive Ss (i.e. they showed no performance differences on the mental subtraction) highlights of the necessity of evaluating all domains of emotional responding to gauge the overall adaptiveness of different coping dispositions. This study emphasized that the interaction between disposition and situation is critical to fully understanding the coping process. Not only does this approach avoid the artificial distinction between coping as a trait and coping as a process, but it allows for the investigation of a very
1230
CLARE N. BUNTROCK and
DIANE M. REDDY
important theoretical question: What types of situations are likely to invoke the operation of dispositional defenses? The strong empirical relationship demonstrated in this study between defensiveness, the denial of stress, and the assertion of competency, on both the state and trait measure (i.e. task specific questionnaire and Perceived Stress Scale), implies that defensiveness is characterized by a need for cognitive control. In addition, the pattern of observed changes over time on the task-specific questionnaires also suggests a relationship between control and defensiveness. Specifically, the evaluative bias of defensive Ss was prominent during anticipatory coping, when the lack of control over subsequent events was most pronounced. After threat, when control was restored, the evaluative bias disappeared. Thus, the state and trait self-report findings are complementary; defensiveness, in general, is characterized by a need for control, and lack of control is a situational factor which stimulates the operation of defensiveness. These results are consistent with self-descriptions of repressors reported by Weinberger er al. (1979). They concluded that the statements endorsed by repressors reflected a high priority on cognitive self-control and “preoccupation with mastering negative emotion” (p. 378). Furthermore, the link between defensiveness and control is also consistent with Paulhus’ (1984) findings from factor analytic studies that items loading on the defensiveness factor were characterized by “fundamental threats to the psyche” (p. 607). However, although the item content from the factor analysis suggested that these threats were related to sexual or parental conflicts, it appears that lack of control may be the more relevant or encompassing feature. It is well known that lack of control is considered to be a fundamental threat to the psyche (Glass & Singer, 1972). In addition to identifying the importance of situational factors (lack of cognitive control) in eliciting defensiveness, there are several other ways in which this study contributed to the understanding of defensiveness as a personality construct. First of all, the findings validate the established understanding of defensiveness as an unconscious evaluative bias that serves to defend against threat (Paulhus, 1984). In fact, the definitive feature of any coping strategy is the ongoing reappraisal of threats and resources (Lazarus, 1975) and the results clearly support Paulhus’ (1984) conclusion that defensiveness extends beyond simple denial or socially desirable responding. Furthermore, the fact that defensiveness was uniformly manifested through both denial of threat and inflated estimates of coping resources corroborates Paulhus’ (1984) conclusion that denial of undesirable traits and self-ascription of competence are equivalent aspects of the same construct. These results confirm established understandings regarding the cognitive impact of defensiveness, and strongly validate the use of the K scale to measure it even in a nonclinical population. In conclusion, the present findings suggest that coping dispositions influence cognitive appraisal and emotional responding in complex ways that change over time. Thus, the investigation of stable dispositions is not incompatible with the focus on coping as a process; in fact, coping dispositions exert a dynamic impact on the stress appraisal process. Specifically, defensiveness has implications for multiple domains of emotional responding, and changes in emotional responding over time. Acknowledgements--We thank Raymond for his help in data collection.
Fleming
for his comments
on an earlier version of the manuscript
and Dave Fiegel
REFERENCES Baum, A., Grunberg, N. & Singer, J. (1982). The use of psychological and neuroendocrinological measurements in the study of stress. Health Psychology, f (3), 217.-236. Byrne, D. (1964). Repression-sensitization as a dimension of personality. In Maher, B. A. (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research. New York: Academic Press. Byrne, D. & Sheffield, J. (1965). Response to sexually arousing stimuli as a function of repressing and sensitizing defenses. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 70(2), 114-l 18. Cohen, S., Karmarck, T. & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396. Coyne, J. C. & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). Cognitive style, stress perception, and coping. In Kutash, 1. L. & Schlesinger, L. B. (Eds), Handbook on stress and anxiety: Contemporary knowledge, theory, and treatment (pp. 144158). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychology research, American Psychologisl, 35. 790-805. Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 150-170. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Delongis, A. & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.
Defensive
appraisal
1231
Glass, D. C. & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban Stress: Experiments on noise and social stressors. New York: Academic Press. Graham, J. (1987). The MMPI: A practical guide. New York: Oxford University Press. Greene, R. (1980). The MMPZ: An interpretive manual. New York: Greene & Stratton. Hastrup, J. L. & Light, K. C. (1984). Sex differences in cardiovascular stress responses: Modulations as a function of menstrual cycle phases. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 28, 175-183. Houston, B. K. (1986). Psychological variables and cardiovascular and neuroendocrine reactivity. In Matthews, K. A., Weiss, S. M., Detre, T., Dembroski, T. M., Falkner, B., Manuck, S. B. & Williams, R. B. Jr (Eds), Handbook of stress, reactivity, & cardiovascular disease (pp. 207-230). New York: John Wiley. Janoff-Bulman, R. & Timko, C. (1987). Coping with traumatic events: The role of denial in light of people’s assumptive worlds. In Snyder, C. R. & Ford, C. E. (Eds), Coping with negative hfe events: Clinical and social psychological perspectives (pp. 1355155). New York: Plenum. Kincannon, J. C. (1968). Prediction of the standard MMPI scale scores from 71 items: The Mini-M&. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 319-325. Krantz, D. S., Manuck, S. B. & Wing, R. R. (1986). Psychological stressors and task variables as elicitors of reactivity. In Matthews, K. A., Weiss, S. M., Detre, T., Dembroski, T. M., Falkner, B., Manuck, S. B. &Williams, R. B. Jr (Eds), Handbook of stress, reactivity, & cardiovascular disease. New York: John Wiley. Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lazarus, R. S. (1975). The self-regulation of emotion. In Leci, L. (Ed.), Emotions-their parameters and measurement. New York: Raven Press. Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The stress and coping paradigm. In Eisdorfer, C., Cohen, D., Kleinman, A. & Maxim, P. (Eds), Conceptual models for psychopathology. New York: Spectrum. Lazarus, R. S. (1983). The costs and benefits of denial. In Breznitz, S. (Ed.), The denial of stress. New York: International University Press. Lazarus, R. & Alfert, E. (1964). Short-circuiting of threat by experimentally altering cognitive appraisal. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(2), 195-205. Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In Gentry, W. D. (Ed.), The handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 282-325). New York: Guilford. Marks, P., Seeman, W. & Haller, D. (1974). The actuarial use of the MMPI with adolescents and adults. New York: Oxford University Press. McKinley, J. C., Hathaway, S. R. & Meehl, P. (1948). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: VI. The K Scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 12, 20-31. Notarius, C. I., Wemple, C., Ingraham, L. J., Burns, R. J. & Koliar, E. (1982). Multichannel responses to an interpersonal stressor: Interrelationships among facial display, heart rate, self-report of emotion, and threat appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2), 400408. Page, H. A. & Markowitz, G. (1955). The relation of defensiveness to rating scale bias. Journal of Psychology, 40.431435. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598609. Pittner, M. S. & Houston, B. K. (1980). Response to stress, cognitive coping strategies and the Type A Behavior Pattern. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 147-I 57. Pittner, M. S., Houston, B. K. & Spiridigliozzi (1983). Control over stress, Type-A behavior pattern, and response to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 627637. Polefrone, J. M. & Manuck, S. B. (1988). Effects of menstrual phase and parental history of hypertension on cardiovascular response to cognitive challenge. Psychosomatic Medicine, 50, 23-36. Tecce, J., Friedman, S. & Mason, J. (1966). Anxiety, defensiveness, and l7-hydroxycorticosteroid excretion. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 141(5), 5499554. Weinberger, D. A., Schwartz, G. E. & Davidson, R. J. (1979). Low-anxious, high-anxious, and repressive coping styles: Psychometric patterns and behavioral and physiological responses to stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Sg, 369-380. Weinstein, J., Averill, J. R., Opton, E. M. & Lazarus, R. (1968). Defensive style and discrepancy between self-report and physiological indices of stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(4), 406413.
1992 Copyright
0191-8869/92 $5.00 + 0.00 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd
COPING DISPOSITIONS AND THE STRESS APPRAISAL PROCESS: THE IMPACT OF DEFENSIVENESS ON EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO THREAT CLARE Department
of Psychology,
N.
and
BUNTROCK
University
DIANE
M.
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, WI 53201, U.S.A.
(Received
I6 November
REDDY* P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee,
1991)
Summary-The purposes of this study were threefold: (I) to examine how a coping disposition which by definition is stable across time and situation, can nevertheless contribute to an understanding of the stress appraisal and coping process; (2) to clarify what situational factors are threatening enough to invoke the operation of dispositional defenses; and (3) to increase understanding of defensiveness as a personality construct with particular emphasis on the physiological concomitants of subjective response to threat. Subjective and physiological responses of 61 defensive or nondefensive subjects were studied across two time periods: an anticipatory coping period (before the threat) and an aftermath period (after the threat). Performance data were also collected. Interactions between defensiveness and time period were found on both subjective and physiological measures demonstrating that coping dispositions exert a comprehensive and dynamic influence on the stress appraisal and coping process.
The thesis of this paper is that coping dispositions, which by definition are stable across time and situation, exert a dynamic influence on stress appraisal and the coping process. It is argued that investigating how stress appraisals change over the course of a stressor is not incompatible with studying the influence of coping dispositions on that process. Lazarus (1966) proposed that appraisals of threats and resources change throughout a stressful encounter as a result of the bidirectional influence of the person and the environment. The environment or situation plays a critical role in initiating the stress appraisal process. Dispositional tendencies are important as well for they cause people to selectively filter information which will be used in evaluating a threat, and influence the use of intrapsychic mechanisms in coping with threat. That is to say, dispositions influence the ongoing appraisal of threats and resources that is central to the coping process. Observations of people coping with life events such as college examinations confirm that the manner in which people deal with a stressor changes as their appraisal of the stressor is modified by situational information and their own coping efforts (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Focusing on change does not, however, obviate investigating the influence of personality traits on stress appraisal and coping processes. Although dispositions are stable aspects of personality, their influence on coping is not static (Lazarus, 1983). Thus, it is not a contradiction to say that the effect of coping dispositions on behavior will vary with situational demands, even though the measurement of these personality traits themselves is highly stable across time and situation. Nonetheless, little research has examined the effect of coping dispositions on the stress appraisal process, and the present study was designed with this goal in mind. Defensiveness was the particular coping disposition chosen for this study because it represents a generalized style of approaching stress, that is increasingly well understood due to both theoretical and empirical attention (Paulhus, 1984). Defensiveness refers to the tendency to deny problems, while trying to maintain a semblance of adequacy, effectiveness, and control (Page & Markowitz, 1955). Historically, the term defensiveness has been used in two distinct ways (Houston, 1986) referring either to a coping style used to reduce stress, or the simple verbal denial of socially undesirable experience. However, a recent series of factor analytic and experimental studies have clarified the meaning of the construct, indicating that defensiveness is more appropriately conceptualized as a coping style. Specifically, Paulhus (1984) concluded that *To whom
correspondence
should
be addressed.
The order
of authorship
1223
is alphabetical.
1224
CLARE N. BUNTROCKand
DIANE M. REDDY
defensiveness represents an unconscious evaluative bias where the “self-deceiver is defending against thoughts and feelings representing fundamental threats to the psyche” (Paulhus, 1984, p, 607). This is in direct contrast to impression management which is better understood as conscious self-deception regarding socially desirable behaviors of an overt nature (Paulhus, 1984). One common measure of defensiveness is the K scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; McKinley, Hathaway & Meehl, 1948), an empirically derived validity scale designed to correct for defensiveness in test taking. A high score on the K scale reflects a reservation about admitting symptoms, while a low score on K suggests candor or self-criticality (McKinley et al., 1948). Beyond its function as a correction scale for “faking good” and “faking bad”, the K scale is a measure of certain personality characteristics as well; in addition to reflecting an inclination to disavow problems and insecurities, K scale items also suggest a “Pollyanna-like” tendency to view the world through rose-colored glasses (Marks, Seeman & Haller, 1974). Although some investigators have concluded that the K scale in a normal population measures healthy personality functioning rather than defensiveness (Greene, 1980), there is no definitive way to tell when increased K scale scores represent clinical defensiveness or ego strength (Graham, 1987). Paulhus (1984) regards the K scale as a good marker for defensiveness that is understood to be an unconscious, self-deceptive bias. There are several implications which follow directly from conceptualizing defensiveness as a coping strategy rather than simple verbal denial. Because coping by definition is an ongoing evaluative process, the impact of defensiveness on coping should be apparent through an assessment of the stress appraisal process. However, just as the differences between Repressors and Sensitizers are not manifest in neutral situations (Byrne, 1964) the impact of defensiveness on coping would not be expected to be uniformly apparent. Rather, defensiveness should be initiated by threat and mediated by the stress appraisal process. Thus, although the measurement of defensiveness is stable over time (like a trait), the subjective, behavioral, and physiological ramifications of defensiveness depend entirely on the relevant situation (or state). In addition, the successful use of defensiveness (and other defense mechanisms and other coping strategies) should theoretically attenuate subjective and physiological concomitants of the response to threat. In reality, empirical studies have found that Ss who use cognitive coping strategies such as defensiveness often have lower self-reports of distress and higher physiological reactions to threat than Ss who do not use such coping strategies (Pittner & Houston, 1980; Pittner, Houston & Spiridigliozzi, 1983; Weinberger, Schwartz & Davidson, 1979; Weinstein, Averill, Opton & Lazarus, 1968). That a coping strategy may be effective in only some domains (e.g. the subjective domain and not the physiological domain) is consistent with the current conception of a multimodal response to stress involving the possibility of biochemical, behavioral, physiological, and subjective changes (Baum, Grunberg & Singer, 1982). Complex dyssynchronies between different modalities of response to stress are often noted and may reflect different levels of subjective control (Janoff-Bulman & Timko, 1987). The impact of defensiveness on the stress appraisal process was the focus of this study. However, situational variables are critical to understanding the appraisal process, because traits do not operate in isolation to produce behavior (Epstein, 1980). Therefore, self-report and blood pressure measures were collected before and after a threat in order to clearly assess how situational changes affect subjective and physiological indices of coping. In addition, threat intensity was manipulated such that half of the Ss received instructions to heighten the threatening characteristics of the situation, while the other half of the Ss did not receive such instructions. There were three purposes to this research. First, this study was designed to investigate how a coping disposition which by definition is stable across time and situation, can nevertheless contribute to an understanding of the stress appraisal process. This study used an integrated approach which is theoretically superior to the common but artificial distinction drawn between coping as a “trait” and coping as a “process.” Furthermore, by looking at changes in the coping process before and after a threat, this study highlighted the importance of situational variables in order to clarify what exactly makes a situation threatening enough to invoke the operation of dispositional defenses. Finally, this study was designed to increase understanding of defensiveness as a personality construct with particular emphasis on the physiological concomitants of subjective responses. Paulhus (1984) has argued that more attention to behavioral and physiological correlates
Defensive
appraisal
1225
is necessary in order to fully understand the differences between the constructs of defensiveness and impression management. Theoretically, impression management should not lead to physiological ramifications while use of a dispositional defense such as defensiveness should. It was hypothesized that the impact of defensiveness on threat appraisals would vary with situational demands. Since defensiveness is viewed as an unconscious protective behavior used to cope with stress, differences between defensive and nondefensive Ss on subjective and physiological indices of stress would be expected to change with changes in threat. It was expected that during the period of anticipatory coping (before the threat) defensive Ss would report less symptomatic distress and greater competency than nondefensive Ss. However, these group differences in estimates of distress and competency would not be expected after the threat, since coping efforts by defensive Ss would no longer be necessary. Conversely, nondefensive Ss should report less distress after the threat compared to before the threat, accurately reflecting their arousal at both points in time. Thus, the significance of situational variables in the activation of dispositional coping strategies was expected to be apparent through an interaction between time period and defensiveness in determining subjective response to threat. In addition, an interaction between threat intensity and defensiveness was expected to further illustrate the importance of the situation in stress appraisal. The impact of defensiveness was expected to be more pronounced in the high threat intensity condition than the low threat intensity condition. Consistent with past research suggesting that defensive Ss cannot completely “defend” against stress, it was hypothesized that defensive Ss would exhibit greater physiological reactivity than nondefensive Ss. No hypotheses were advanced regarding group differences in performance since defensiveness would be expected to confer a cognitive advantage (less subjective distress) in conjunction with a physiological liability (greater autonomic arousal).
METHOD
Subjects
Sixty-one Ss were recruited for participation from a pool of 119 undergraduates who completed the Mini Mult and a health questionnaire several weeks before the experiment. Ss scoring in the extreme ends of the distribution of K Scale scores were contacted. Nondefensive Ss had K Scale scores ranging from T = 36 to T = 53 (8 = 47), while defensive Ss had K Scale scores ranging from T = 59 to T = 72 (8 = 67).* The experimenters were blind to the typology of Ss (defensive, nondefensive) during data collection. The average age of Ss was 21.7 years and all were male. Only men were sought for participation to avoid potential problems associated with menstrual cycle effects on physiological reactivity to stress (Hastrup & Light, 1984; Polefrone & Manuck, 1988). Ss received extra credit toward their course grade for participating. Overview
Multiple domains of emotional responding to threat were investigated including subjective reactions to stress, physiological measures of arousal, and performance data. The importance of situational variables in initiating the stress appraisal and coping process was highlighted by: (1) comparing changes in stress appraisals and physiological responding for defensive and nondefensive Ss across two time periods (before and after threat) and (2) comparing differences in stress appraisals and physiological responding between defensive and nondefensive Ss in the high and low threat intensity conditions. Materials
and apparatus
The Mini Mult (Kincannon, 1968), a self-administered personality inventory which reliably predicts standard scores from the MMPI clinical and validity scales, was used to measure defensiveness. The health questionnaire was administered to exclude from the S pool prehyper*The K Scale scores
for nondefensive
Ss are in the normal
range
and do not reflect unusual
self-criticality.
1226
CLARE N. BUNTROCK and DIANE M. REDDY
tensive and hypertensive individuals as well as anyone taking medications affecting blood pressure reactivity. The Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Karmarck & Mermelstein, 1983) a scale measuring perceptions of stress over the past month, was included to clarify the meaning of defensiveness as a personality trait. This trait-like measure allowed an examination of the impact of defensiveness on general perceptions of life stress. An important feature of this scale is that half the items require Ss to rate their disturbance from stressors, while the remaining half of the items require Ss to rate their competency in dealing with stressors. Thus, this scale allowed for the investigation of the general tendency among defensive individuals to engage in the dual defensive processes of denying stress and asserting competency.* The pre- and posttask questionnaires were administered to Ss to investigate the impact of defensiveness on stress appraisals specific to the changing demands of this study. The use of these questionnaires in conjunction with the Perceived Stress Scale allowed for a further clarification of defensiveness, through a comparison of the state and trait features of the construct. To measure the defensive process of denying stress, Ss were required on both the pre- and posttask questionnaires to rate on 7 point scales (1 = not at all bothersome, 7 = extremely bothersome) the severity of 17 symptoms they may have been experiencing.? To measure the defensive process of asserting competency, Ss were presented with the questions, “How successful do you expect to be on the upcoming task?“, and “How successful was your actual performance on the task?” The first question was presented on the pretask questionnaire, while the second question was presented on the posttask questionnaire. In each case, Ss responded on 7 point scales with 1 indicating “not at all” and 7 indicating “extremely.” To check on the adequacy of the threat intensity manipulation, Ss were asked, “How difficult do you expect the task/test to be?” Ss responded on 7 point scales with 1 indicating “not at all” and 7 indicating “extremely.” The physiological ramifications of defensiveness were explored by measuring systolic and diastolic blood pressure before and after the threat with a standard sphygmomanometer. The customary procedure of recording first and fifth Korotkoff sounds was used. Ss were seated and measurements were taken on the left arm. All experimenters were thoroughly trained in measuring blood pressure by medical personnel and were tested for measurement accuracy prior to the start of the study. The threatening event that Ss were confronted with was “serial 13s” a mental subtraction task which has been shown to reliably arouse Ss (Krantz, Manuck & Wing, 1986). The number of mental subtraction serials correctly completed, and the percentage correctly completed based on the number attempted were recorded to assess the impact of defensiveness on performance. These performance measures also allowed for a check on the possibility that differential threat appraisals were due to differences in performance rather than defensiveness or changes in situational demands. Procedure Upon arriving, informed consent was obtained. Demographic information was collected and Ss completed the Perceived Stress Scale. Ss were asked to relax for 10 min after which two measures of resting blood pressure were recorded and later averaged for use as an index of baseline blood pressure. Ss were informed about the upcoming mental subtraction task. Specifically, they were told that they were going to have to mentally subtract by 13s from a starting point of 1345, say this out loud, and sequentially repeat this procedure being as fast and accurate as possible. Ss completed the pretask questionnaire to measure threat appraisals. Immediately prior to performing *The seven trait-like items on the Perceived Stress Scale tapping stress denial were: upset because something happened unexpectedly, nervous and stressed, unable to control important things in life, could not cope with all the things had to do, angered by things outside of control, thinking of things had to accomplish, difficulties piling up so could not overcome them. The seven trait-like items on the Perceived Stress Scale tapping competency assertion were: dealt successfully with irritating life hassles, effectively coping with important life changes, confident about handling personal problems, able to control life irritations, felt on top of things, felt things going your way, able to control how time is spent. The standardized Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was 0.86 for the competency assertion items and 0.78 for the stress denial items. tThe 17 state measures of symptomatic distress tapping stress denial were: racing heart, short of breath, upset stomach, sweaty palms, flushed face, nervous inside, lump in throat, lower back pain, still muscles, chest pains, watery eyes, congested nose, ringing ears, itch, cold hands, headache, and dizzy.
Defensive
appraisal
1227
mental subtraction a threat intensity manipulation was initiated. S’s randomly assigned to the high threat intensity condition were told that the mental subtraction task was a test that had value in predicting overall grade point average at graduation. Ss in the low threat intensity condition were not given this information and the mental subtraction task was referred to as a task rather than test. In both conditions the timed aspect of the task was made salient and Ss were urged to perform as quickly and accurately as possible. The check on the adequacy of the threat intensity manipulation was completed at this point. Ss mentally subtracted numbers for 2 min when they were interrupted by the experimenter. Blood pressure was then recorded and the posttask questionnaire measuring threat appraisals was completed by Ss. A postexperimental inquiry then took place. Ss were probed to ascertain their perceptions of the major study purpose, whether they comprehended and believed the threat intensity manipulations, and most importantly whether they felt threatened upon learning the details of what was in store for them (performing difficult mental calculations in front of the experimenter under time pressure).
RESULTS Checks on procedural adequacy
Findings from the postexperimental inquiries indicated that the anticipation of having to perform mental subtraction was threatening to all Ss. Thus, the experimental instructions were successful in creating two phenomenologically different study periods: an anticipatory coping period (prior to the threat) and an aftermath period (after the threat). One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on perceptions of task difficulty showed that threat intensity was not adequately manipulated, F(l,59) = 0.34, P = 0.57. The high threat intensity Ss did not differ from the low threat intensity Ss in their perceptions of the task. Consistent with the apparent problem in the threat intensity manipulation, no interactions between defensiveness and threat intensity were found on any stress appraisal measure. Consequently, the main body of the results section will concentrate on the time period by defensiveness interaction to illustrate the importance of the situation in the stress appraisal process. Trait-like effects of defensiveness: general stress appraisals
Hotelling’s T2 was used to analyze stress denial and competency assertion items on the Perceived Stress Scale. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the impact of defensiveness on general stress appraisals, and to examine the dual defensive processes of denying stress and asserting competency beyond this particular threatening event. The results showed that both Ss’ perceptions of threat and their perceived ability to deal with threat were markedly influenced by defensiveness. As hypothesized, defensive Ss reported less stress [Hotelling’s Approx. F(7,53) = 2.15, P = 0.051 and more competency [Hotelling’s Approx. F(7,53) = 2.63, P = 0.021 than nondefensive Ss. These findings are completely consistent with results from the state measures of stress appraisal which are discussed in the next sections. State-like ejGects of defensiveness: speciJic stress appraisals and physiological reactions The anticipatory period: before the threat. A repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed on all pre- and posttask symptoms with defensiveness as the independent variable to examine the defensive process of denying stress. It was found that the overall difference in presymptom ratings between defensive and nondefensive Ss approached significance [Hotelling’s Approx. F(l7,41) = 1.50, P = 0.141. It appeared that the restricted range of symptom reporting could have contributed to the lack of reliable differences. For all Ss, the mean rating per symptom was 1.73 on a scale of 1 (not at all bothersome) to 7 (extremely bothersome). Nonetheless, consistent with expectations, the defensive Ss had lower (although not necessarily statistically significant) symptom ratings on 15 of 17 symptoms. To quantify the significance of this pattern of findings (i.e. 15 of 17 symptoms in the theoretically expected direction) a Sign Test was performed. The analysis showed that it is highly unlikely that 15 of 17 means would line up in the theoretically expected direction by chance (Sign Test, P = 0.002).
1228
CLARE N. BUNTROCKand DIANEM.
REDDY
One way ANOVA was performed on the state measure of competency assertion to examine this defensive process. The analysis showed that defensive Ss had higher expectations of success on the task (B = 5.10) than nondefensive Ss [8 =4.61, F(1,59) = 3.55, P = 0.061. This finding is completely consistent with the findings reported earlier that defensive Ss are more likely to assert competence in general than nondefensive Ss. One way ANOVA was performed on Ss’ baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressures to verify the initial equivalence of the defensive and nondefensive groups. The analyses revealed no differences in either baseline systolic or diastolic blood pressure. Thus, in the before threat period, the defensive Ss reported less symptomatic distress and more competency than nondefensive Ss, but there were no group differences in physiological response. The aftermath: after the threat. Repeated measures MANOVA was performed to examine the hypothesis that group differences in stress appraisal that were present prior to the threat would disappear after the threat since coping would no longer be necessary at this point. The results provided extensive support for this hypothesis. After the threat, there were no longer any differences between defensive and nondefensive Ss in symptomatic distress [Hotelling’s Approx. F(17,41) = 0.89, P = 0.591 or Ss’ perceptions of success on the task [B = 3.74 defensive Ss vs 2 = 3.67 nondefensive Ss, F(1,59) = 0.60, P = 0.441. The performance data were analyzed to investigate the alternative explanation that the group differences in threat appraisals were due to actual differences in competence rather than defensiveness. One way ANOVA was performed and the analysis revealed no differences between defensive and nondefensive Ss in mental subtraction performance whatsoever. Thus, the group differences in stress appraisal cannot be attributed to differences in ability. To examine the hypothesis that defensive Ss would exhibit greater physiological reactivity than nondefensive Ss repeated measures MANOVA was performed on Ss’ systolic and diastolic blood pressure using the appropriate baseline measure as the covariate. As hypothesized, defensive Ss had significantly higher systolic blood pressure after the threat than nondefensive Ss [x= 125.2 vs R= 122.2, F(1,56) = 3.83, P = 0.051. No main effect was found for diastolic blood pressure consistent with the less reactive nature of this measure. Dispositional influences on stress appraisal and the coping process: interactions between defensiveness and time period
Because this study sought to examine the impact of coping dispositions on stress appraisal and the coping process, the interaction between defensiveness and time period was of principal interest. Interactions between defensiveness and time period would show that the impact of defensiveness depends on the situational demands within each phase of the threat. That is, coping is a process and traits have an important influence on that process. Interactions between defensiveness and time period were found on both subjective and physiological measures strongly supporting this hypothesis [symptomatic distress, Hotelling’s Approx. F(17,41) = 5.53, P < 0.001; systolic blood pressure reactivity, Hotelling’s Approx. F(1,56) = 3.57, P = 0.061.
The statistically significant interaction between defensiveness and time period for symptom ratings shows that defensiveness differentially influenced reports of symptomatic distress across the two time periods. Nondefensive Ss had lower reports of symptomatic distress after the threat compared to before the threat, while defensive Ss reported higher symptomatic distress after the threat compared to before the threat. A shift in both groups eliminated the group difference. The interaction between defensiveness and time period on systolic blood pressure indicates that defensiveness also had a differential impact on physiological arousal across time. While both defensive and nondefensive Ss increased in systolic blood pressure from before to after the threat, the defensive Ss showed a greater increase (X = 8.81 vs 8= 5.90 mmHg). Finally, although the interaction between defensiveness and time period on the state measure of competency assertion did not reach an acceptable level of significance [Hotelling’s Approx. F( 1,59) = 1.91, P = 0.171 the direction of means across time also shows that defensiveness differentially influenced Ss’ estimates of task success depending on the salience of the threat. The impact of defensiveness on appraisal was only apparent before threat when defensive Ss expected to be more successful on the task than nondefensive Ss.
Defensive
appraisal
1229
Taken together these findings confirm the understanding of coping as a process subject to modification by changing situational demands and changing coping efforts. Moreover, the interactions found clearly demonstrate that a coping disposition can have a powerful and dynamic influence on this process. In particular, while the trait of defensiveness is associated with the general tendency to deny stress and assert competency, the manifestation of these processes (i.e. the state of defensiveness) is unequivocally dependent on the salience of a particular threat. DISCUSSION
An important contribution of this study is the finding that a stable coping disposition will nevertheless exert a dynamic influence on the stress appraisal process. The cognitive theory of emotion explicitly states the importance of both the person and environment to the process of stress appraisal (Coyne & Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus, 1975, 1981; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). However, the recent demonstration that active coping efforts change over time (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetler, Delongis & Gruen, 1986) has obscured the idea that coping dispositions also influence the stress appraisal process. This research demonstrates that focusing on change during the coping process is not incompatible with investigating the influence of coping dispositions. From the moment that Ss were informed that they would be required to perform mental arithmetic, the situation was one of threat. During this period of anticipatory coping, threat was denied and estimations of personal resources were inflated; specifically, the defensive Ss denied symptomatic arousal, and they expected to be more successful on the task than nondefensive Ss. After threat, the pattern of responding changed, reflecting a reappraisal of both threats and resources after threat, defensive Ss no longer evaluated their performance so positively. One would suspect that nondefensive Ss were accurately reporting their arousal at both points in time, heightened before the threat and diminished after the threat. Conversely, it appears that the lower self-reports of defensive Ss after threat reflect changes in appraisal when it is no longer defensively motivated, as if the diminished threat eliminated the need to deny somatic arousal and inflate personal resources. The interactions found between defensiveness and time period on both subjective and physiological measures clearly demonstrate that the trait affects the process. Group differences in state measures of threats and resources emerged at some points but not at others as a function of changing situational demands. Similarly, the defensiveness by time period interaction in blood pressure responding also shows the impact of the trait on the process, and underscores the importance of examining multiple domains of emotional responding over the course of a stressful encounter. Consistent with predictions and other research (Lazarus & Alfert, 1964; Tecce, Friedman & Mason, 1966; Weinberger et al., 1979; Weinstein et al., 1968), the defensive Ss were less subjectively aroused and more physiologically aroused than nondefensive Ss. However, an important clarification emerging from this study is the demonstration that defensive Ss were not unz~ormly more reactive than nondefensive Ss; the group differences in blood pressure responding appeared only after the threat, despite evidence of cognitive coping efforts before the threat. Thus, while defensive Ss were able to reduce their subjective response while anticipating the threat, they were unable to reduce their physiological reaction to the introduction of the threat itself. Consequently, defensive Ss were only able to partially “defend” against stress. It may be that the cost of effectively reducing stress in one realm is paid subsequently in terms of heightened reactivity in another domain of responding. Along this line, the discharge model of emotion (Notarius, Wemple, Ingraham, Burns & Kollar, 1982) actually predicts that physiological reactivity would follow the use of cognitive defense, based on the postulate that if emotion is not displayed directly it must then be discharged through internal pathways. That the defensive Ss in this study were less reactive cognitively, more reactive physiologically, and equivalent behaviorally to the nondefensive Ss (i.e. they showed no performance differences on the mental subtraction) highlights of the necessity of evaluating all domains of emotional responding to gauge the overall adaptiveness of different coping dispositions. This study emphasized that the interaction between disposition and situation is critical to fully understanding the coping process. Not only does this approach avoid the artificial distinction between coping as a trait and coping as a process, but it allows for the investigation of a very
1230
CLARE N. BUNTROCK and
DIANE M. REDDY
important theoretical question: What types of situations are likely to invoke the operation of dispositional defenses? The strong empirical relationship demonstrated in this study between defensiveness, the denial of stress, and the assertion of competency, on both the state and trait measure (i.e. task specific questionnaire and Perceived Stress Scale), implies that defensiveness is characterized by a need for cognitive control. In addition, the pattern of observed changes over time on the task-specific questionnaires also suggests a relationship between control and defensiveness. Specifically, the evaluative bias of defensive Ss was prominent during anticipatory coping, when the lack of control over subsequent events was most pronounced. After threat, when control was restored, the evaluative bias disappeared. Thus, the state and trait self-report findings are complementary; defensiveness, in general, is characterized by a need for control, and lack of control is a situational factor which stimulates the operation of defensiveness. These results are consistent with self-descriptions of repressors reported by Weinberger er al. (1979). They concluded that the statements endorsed by repressors reflected a high priority on cognitive self-control and “preoccupation with mastering negative emotion” (p. 378). Furthermore, the link between defensiveness and control is also consistent with Paulhus’ (1984) findings from factor analytic studies that items loading on the defensiveness factor were characterized by “fundamental threats to the psyche” (p. 607). However, although the item content from the factor analysis suggested that these threats were related to sexual or parental conflicts, it appears that lack of control may be the more relevant or encompassing feature. It is well known that lack of control is considered to be a fundamental threat to the psyche (Glass & Singer, 1972). In addition to identifying the importance of situational factors (lack of cognitive control) in eliciting defensiveness, there are several other ways in which this study contributed to the understanding of defensiveness as a personality construct. First of all, the findings validate the established understanding of defensiveness as an unconscious evaluative bias that serves to defend against threat (Paulhus, 1984). In fact, the definitive feature of any coping strategy is the ongoing reappraisal of threats and resources (Lazarus, 1975) and the results clearly support Paulhus’ (1984) conclusion that defensiveness extends beyond simple denial or socially desirable responding. Furthermore, the fact that defensiveness was uniformly manifested through both denial of threat and inflated estimates of coping resources corroborates Paulhus’ (1984) conclusion that denial of undesirable traits and self-ascription of competence are equivalent aspects of the same construct. These results confirm established understandings regarding the cognitive impact of defensiveness, and strongly validate the use of the K scale to measure it even in a nonclinical population. In conclusion, the present findings suggest that coping dispositions influence cognitive appraisal and emotional responding in complex ways that change over time. Thus, the investigation of stable dispositions is not incompatible with the focus on coping as a process; in fact, coping dispositions exert a dynamic impact on the stress appraisal process. Specifically, defensiveness has implications for multiple domains of emotional responding, and changes in emotional responding over time. Acknowledgements--We thank Raymond for his help in data collection.
Fleming
for his comments
on an earlier version of the manuscript
and Dave Fiegel
REFERENCES Baum, A., Grunberg, N. & Singer, J. (1982). The use of psychological and neuroendocrinological measurements in the study of stress. Health Psychology, f (3), 217.-236. Byrne, D. (1964). Repression-sensitization as a dimension of personality. In Maher, B. A. (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research. New York: Academic Press. Byrne, D. & Sheffield, J. (1965). Response to sexually arousing stimuli as a function of repressing and sensitizing defenses. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 70(2), 114-l 18. Cohen, S., Karmarck, T. & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396. Coyne, J. C. & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). Cognitive style, stress perception, and coping. In Kutash, 1. L. & Schlesinger, L. B. (Eds), Handbook on stress and anxiety: Contemporary knowledge, theory, and treatment (pp. 144158). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychology research, American Psychologisl, 35. 790-805. Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 150-170. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Delongis, A. & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.
Defensive
appraisal
1231
Glass, D. C. & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban Stress: Experiments on noise and social stressors. New York: Academic Press. Graham, J. (1987). The MMPI: A practical guide. New York: Oxford University Press. Greene, R. (1980). The MMPZ: An interpretive manual. New York: Greene & Stratton. Hastrup, J. L. & Light, K. C. (1984). Sex differences in cardiovascular stress responses: Modulations as a function of menstrual cycle phases. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 28, 175-183. Houston, B. K. (1986). Psychological variables and cardiovascular and neuroendocrine reactivity. In Matthews, K. A., Weiss, S. M., Detre, T., Dembroski, T. M., Falkner, B., Manuck, S. B. & Williams, R. B. Jr (Eds), Handbook of stress, reactivity, & cardiovascular disease (pp. 207-230). New York: John Wiley. Janoff-Bulman, R. & Timko, C. (1987). Coping with traumatic events: The role of denial in light of people’s assumptive worlds. In Snyder, C. R. & Ford, C. E. (Eds), Coping with negative hfe events: Clinical and social psychological perspectives (pp. 1355155). New York: Plenum. Kincannon, J. C. (1968). Prediction of the standard MMPI scale scores from 71 items: The Mini-M&. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 319-325. Krantz, D. S., Manuck, S. B. & Wing, R. R. (1986). Psychological stressors and task variables as elicitors of reactivity. In Matthews, K. A., Weiss, S. M., Detre, T., Dembroski, T. M., Falkner, B., Manuck, S. B. &Williams, R. B. Jr (Eds), Handbook of stress, reactivity, & cardiovascular disease. New York: John Wiley. Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lazarus, R. S. (1975). The self-regulation of emotion. In Leci, L. (Ed.), Emotions-their parameters and measurement. New York: Raven Press. Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The stress and coping paradigm. In Eisdorfer, C., Cohen, D., Kleinman, A. & Maxim, P. (Eds), Conceptual models for psychopathology. New York: Spectrum. Lazarus, R. S. (1983). The costs and benefits of denial. In Breznitz, S. (Ed.), The denial of stress. New York: International University Press. Lazarus, R. & Alfert, E. (1964). Short-circuiting of threat by experimentally altering cognitive appraisal. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(2), 195-205. Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In Gentry, W. D. (Ed.), The handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 282-325). New York: Guilford. Marks, P., Seeman, W. & Haller, D. (1974). The actuarial use of the MMPI with adolescents and adults. New York: Oxford University Press. McKinley, J. C., Hathaway, S. R. & Meehl, P. (1948). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: VI. The K Scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 12, 20-31. Notarius, C. I., Wemple, C., Ingraham, L. J., Burns, R. J. & Koliar, E. (1982). Multichannel responses to an interpersonal stressor: Interrelationships among facial display, heart rate, self-report of emotion, and threat appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2), 400408. Page, H. A. & Markowitz, G. (1955). The relation of defensiveness to rating scale bias. Journal of Psychology, 40.431435. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598609. Pittner, M. S. & Houston, B. K. (1980). Response to stress, cognitive coping strategies and the Type A Behavior Pattern. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 147-I 57. Pittner, M. S., Houston, B. K. & Spiridigliozzi (1983). Control over stress, Type-A behavior pattern, and response to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 627637. Polefrone, J. M. & Manuck, S. B. (1988). Effects of menstrual phase and parental history of hypertension on cardiovascular response to cognitive challenge. Psychosomatic Medicine, 50, 23-36. Tecce, J., Friedman, S. & Mason, J. (1966). Anxiety, defensiveness, and l7-hydroxycorticosteroid excretion. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 141(5), 5499554. Weinberger, D. A., Schwartz, G. E. & Davidson, R. J. (1979). Low-anxious, high-anxious, and repressive coping styles: Psychometric patterns and behavioral and physiological responses to stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Sg, 369-380. Weinstein, J., Averill, J. R., Opton, E. M. & Lazarus, R. (1968). Defensive style and discrepancy between self-report and physiological indices of stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(4), 406413.