- Email: [email protected]
Self-reported emotional disturbance and its relation to electrodermal reactivity, defensiveness and trait anxiety
SELF-REPORTED EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE AND ITS RELATION TO ELECTRODERMAL REACTIVITY, DEFENSIVENESS AND TRAIT ANXIETY GISLI H. GUDJONSSON Department of Psychology, (Rewired
Institute
of Psychiatry,
London
I June 1980)
Summary - The discordance
between an electrodermal and a subjective measure of disturbance was studied in 36 males. Electrodermal responses to emotionally loaded questions were recorded and subjects were requested to rate on visual analogue scales how disturbing they found the questions. The subjects were divided into three groups according to their ‘accuracy’ of selfperception and it was hypothesised that those who reported low subjective disturbance but reacted relatively strongly electrodermally (‘repressors’). would have a high defensiveness score but low trait anxiety. Conversely. subjects who amplify their disturbance (‘sensitisers’) were expected to have a low defensiveness score and high trait anxiety. The hypotheses were confirmed suggesting that both under and over reporting of subjective disturbance are related to defensiveness and trait anxiety. Another finding was that ‘sensitisers’ were significantly younger than ‘repressors’.
A common phenomenon in stress research is that individuals’ self-reports of anxiety and disturbance are frequently inconsistent with behavioural and physiological measures (Hodges. 1976; Weinberger et ul.. 1979). This does not necessarily imply that verbal reports are unreliable and invalid since the concordance between measures is to some extent related to the nature of the physiological response system employed. For example, cardiovascular changes have been found to correlate more strongly with verbal signs of disturbance than skin conductance (Hodgson and Rachman, 1974; Mandler et ul., 1961). However, regardless of the physiological measure employed there appear to be some individuals who are highly inaccurate in their self-perception (Sackeim and Gur, 1978). There is some evidence that the discrepancy between self-reported and physiological measures is related to how people cope with stress. For example, Weinstein et al. (1968) found a significant relationship between measures of denial and physiological and selfreported discrepancies. Deniers reported less change in anxiety as a function of threat than was evident from their physiological reactions. Burish and Houston (1976) found that a high lie score on the MMPI predicted a disposition to employ defensive manoeuvre against the threat of an electric shock. It was found that defensive strategies used by high lie scorers facilitated performance at the expense of increased physiological arousal. The authors concluded that “possibly the greater physiological arousal was due to the psychic cost of coping with stress”. Recently Weinberger er al. (1979) demonstrated that self-perceptions are particularly inaccurate in people who score high on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. They found that among subjects showing low trait anxiety on the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, the MarloweeCrowne Scale predicted a repressive coping style involving an avoidance of disturbing cognitions accompanied by relatively high physiological arousal. This suggests that ‘repressors’ tend to underestimate their physiological arousal which may have implications for pscyhosomatic research (Schwartz. 1977). When ‘repressors’ were asked to describe their most important characteristics it appeared that they were preoccupied with rigorously controlling their emotions. clearly taking a rational, nonemotional approach to life. Weinberger et al. (1979) were also able to identify three
other coping styles on the basis of a different combination of defensiveness and trait anxiety scores. One group they labelled ‘sensitisers’ on the basis of high trait anxiety and low defensiveness scores. It was noted that ‘sensitisers’ tended to amplify their views of themselves as anxious. Weinberger rt al. (1979) found that both ‘repressors’ and ‘sensitisers’ coped ineffectively with stress relative to truly low-anxious people. On the basis of the literature it is reasonable to assume that inaccurate self-perception involves both under- and over-reporting of cognitive disturbance. Both modes of reporting would be expected to be directly related to measures of defensiveness and trait anxiety. Rather than basing classification of coping styles on defensiveness and trait anxiety scores one can directly study the discordance between physiological and sclfreported measures and form hypotheses about personality and defensiveness traits. The purpose of this paper is to investigate ‘inaccuracy’ in the self-reporting of experimental (situational) disturbance and its relation to trait anxiety and defensiveness. It is hypothesised that subjects who report low disturbance during a ‘general question task’ L\here they are asked emotionally loaded questions, but who display high electrodermal reactivity (labelled ‘repressors’) will score high on defensiveness and low on trait anxiet). Conversely. subjects reporting high subjective disturbance but displaying low electrodermal reactivity (labelled ‘scnsitisers’) are expected to be high on trait anxiety and lot\ on defensiveness.
METHOD
The subjects comprised 36 males, the mean age being subjects were Caucasian and were drwan from a variety professional. They had no psychi‘itric problems.
32 years (S.D. = X.26). All of occupations but largely
Skin resistance was recorded using a Devices four-channel polygraph. Silver silver chloride electrodes were placed on the medial phalanges of the index and middle fingers of the non-dominant hand. The Devices amplifier incorporated a constant current sour-cl’ (8 PA) with a sensitivity of 10~~500 kR for full scale deflection. All scores were subsequently transformed into conductance (@-I) units. The subjects were tested in a research laboratory where the temperature was maintained between 19 and 21 C. The stimuli consisted of the following seven questions typed on 7.5 x 12.5 cm cards in uppercase letters: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Do Arc Do Are Do Arc Do
have brown eye
Questions been sholvn
3 and 5 are similar to those used in most ‘lie’ scales and to give highlq significant differential reactivity (Gudjonsson.
have previously 1979a).
The Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI: Eysenck and Eysenck. 1964) was used to measure trait anxiety (neuroticism) and defensiveness. The EPI neuroticism score has been found to correlate significantly (1. = 0.78) with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Bull and Strongman. 1971). The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne and Marlowe. 1960) was used as an additional defensiveness score in view of the small
Self-reported
emotional
disturbance
49
number of ‘Lie’ score items on the EPI. The Marlowe-Crowne Scale was found to be a very good measure of defensiveness in Weinberger’s et al., (1979) study. Visual analogue scales (cf. Bond and Lader, 1974) were used to rate subjective feelings of disturbance during the task. After the task the subject was requested to estimate on horizontal 100 mm scales how disturbing he found each question. The end points of each scale were denoted ‘Very disturbing’ and ‘Not at all disturbing’, respectively. Average disturbance score for each subject was obtained by taking the mean for the seven questions. Procrdurr
Each subject was seated in a comfortable chair and asked to answer the questions as truthfully as possible by replying ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The subject was shown the questions beforehand but he was not aware of the sequence of presentations. Each stimulus question was placed about 14 in. in front of the subject and presented at 13 s intervals. The subject had to read the questions to himself and answer them aloud. Two trials were administered, starting alternatively with question 1 and 7. Any response occurring between 1 and 5 s of stimulus presentation and exceeding 0.005 @‘Z-l was recorded. Spontaneous fluctuations in skin conductance were counted as any change free of artifact (movements, coughing etc.) exceeding 0.02 a-‘, scored in intervals of 8 s preceding each question. The subjects were divided into three groups according to their ‘accuracy’ of selfperception. The first group are those who gave disturbance analogue score below the median but displayed electrodermal reactivity above the median. These are labelled ‘repressors’. The second group are those who gave a disturbance score above the median but displayed electrodermal responses below the median. These were the ‘sensitisers’. The remaining subjects (labelled ‘concomitants’) are those who gave concomitant analogue and electrodermal scores. Electrodermal reactivity was scored separately for skin conductance amplitude responses and spontaneous activity. Both have been used as measures of arousal (Nielsen and Petersen, 1976). RESULTS
The mean EPI scores were as follows: neuroticism (N) = 8.79 (S.D. = 4.37), extraversion (E) = 1 1.24 (S.D. = 5.32), Lie (L) = 1.85 (S.D. = 1.37). The mean score obtained on the Marlowe-Crowne Scale was 13,35 (S.D. = 5.18). The Marlowe-Crowne and the EPI L scores were significantly correlated, Y = 0.71 (34), p < 0.001. The mean disturbance score as measured by the analogue scales was 22 mm (S.D. = 1.26). The greatest disturbance score was reported for questions 3 (55 mm) and 5 (37 mm). The mean skin conductance amplitude for the seven questions was 0.36 fl-’ (S.D. = 0.32). The mean number of spontaneous fluctuations was 7.38 (S.D. = 6.99). The analogue disturbance score did not correlate significantly with the two electrodermal measures. There was a positive correlation between skin conductance responses and spontaneous fluctuations, r = 0.51 (34), p < 0.005. Tables 1 and 2 show the difference in personality scores between ‘repressors’, ‘concomitants’ and ‘sensitisers’ when classification is based on skin conductance responses and spontaneous activity, respectively. One-way Analysis of Variance was performed on the scores and the outcome is similar for the two electrodermal measures. The three groups differed significantly in both neuroticism and defensiveness, but not in extraversion. As predicted, ‘repressors’ had the highest defensiveness scores and lowest neuroticism score. ‘Sensitisers’, on the other hand, had the highest neuroticism score and lowest defensiveness scores. ‘Repressors’ also tended to be older than ‘sensitisers’. The mean age of ‘repressors’ was 34.7 (S.D. = 9.02) and 38 years (S.D. = 9.28) when the classification was based on skin conductance responses and spontaneous fluctuations, respectively. The corresponding ages were 28.7 (SD. = 5.85) and 28 yr (S.D. = 5.75) for ‘sensitisers’. The difference in the age between ‘repressors’ and ‘sensitisers’ was significant when the classification was based on spontaneous activity, f = 2.99 (19), p < 0.01. two-tailed, and there
50
GISLI
Table
H. GL’DJONSSON
1. Mean and standard deviation scores for the three groups based on skin conductance responses
Personality measures
‘Repressors’ (.V = 1I) S. D. Mean
‘Concomitants’
when classification
Mean
SD.
‘Sensitisers’ (IV = 12) Mean SD.
7.64 Il.91 I .37 12.27
3.96 5.24 0.8 I 3.44
II.55 IO.45 1.36 10.36
(N = 13)
is
F value
p
3.79 0. I9 4.89 6.73
0.034 n.s. 0.014 0.004
EPI N E L Marlowe-Crowne
Table
2. Mean
Personality variables
7.33 II.33 2.75 17.08
and standard
4.60 4.10 1.37 3.50
deviation scores for the three groups based on spontaneous activity
‘Repressors’ (N = II) Mean SD.
‘Concomitants’ (IV = 15) S.D. Mean
3.88 3.78 1.43 7.95
when classificatton
‘Sensitisers’ (Iv = IO) S. D. Mean
is
F value
p
6.91 0.31 3.46 5.08
0.003 ns. 0.043 0.012
EPI N E L Marlowe-Crowne
5.36 II.09 2.64 16.90
3.91 3.83 I .43 3.59
IO.20 11.77 I .69 17.31
4.37 5.07 0.98 4. I3
IO.62 II.70 1.20 IO.80
3.04 7.21 I .40 6.08
was a ‘trend’ when the classification was based on skin conductance responses. t = 1.9I (21) p < 0.10. two-tailed. For the group as a whole. the two defensiveness scores correlated positively with both the electrodermal measures. The EPI L score correlated significantly with both spontaneous activity, r = 0.48 (34), p < 0.01. and mean skin conductance responses, r = 0.37 (34). p < 0.05. The Pearson correlations with the MarloweeCrowne scores were 0.49 (34). p < 0.01 and 0.42 (34). p < 0.01 for spontaneous fluctuations and skin conductance responses. respectively. Mean skin conductance responses correlated significantly with introversion. r = 0.29 (34). p < 0.05. which is consistent with Eysenck’s hypothesis that introverts are characterized by higher levels of cortical arousal than extraverts. For spontaneous fluctuations. however. the correlation was low and not significant (Y = 0.19). No significant relationship was found between neuroticism and spontaneous fluctuations (r = -0.20) and in regard to skin conductance responses the correlation was contradictory (r = -0.39, p < 0.05. two-tailed test) to Eysenck’s hypothesis linking neuroticism with emotional activation. DISCUSSION The findings of this study support the hypothesis formulated in the introduction. Subjects who reported low subjective disturbance to emotionally loaded questions but reacted relatively strongly electrodermally, tended to have high defensiveness score and low trait anxiety score. On the other hand, subjects who had high trait anxiety and low defensiveness score tended to amplify their disturbance. In general, subjects were highly inaccurate in judging their disturbance. as is evident from the non-significant relationship observed between electrodermal reactivity and self-reported disturbance. Electrodermal measures are generally considered to be one of the most sensitive physiological measures available (Podlesny and Raskin. 1977) and may even tap information that people are unaware of (Adams. 1957; Gudjonsson, 1979b). For this reason it is perhaps not surprising to find a discrepancy between self-reported disturbance and electrodermal reactivity. especially at low levels of emotional arousal. Hodgson and Rachman (1974) have suggested that the concordance between physiological and subjective measures is affected by the intensity or level of emotional arousal. In other words, the more stressful the stimuli the greater the concordance between response systems. One would also expect people to adopt a more defensive coping strategy in experiments that employ a threatening context than in those which do not. The present experimental context was probably fairly non-
Self-reported
emotional
51
disturbance
threatening to the majority of subjects which suggests that both repressive and overendorsing coping styles can be noted at relatively low levels of stress. The fact that there was no significant relationship in the present study between selfreported disturbance and two electrodermal measures of arousal, points to the difficulty of relying on just one measure of physiological arousal. In fact, Thayer (1970) states on the basis of his work that self-reported data may be an integrative variable more representative of general arousal than any psychophysiological measure. He suggests a method of combining physiological variables for correlation with self-reported data. It is interesting that Thayer found that a combination of skin conductance and heart rate is the best physiological composite measure, although the two measures rarely correlate among themselves. The finding that the neuroticism and defensiveness scores tenc.ed to move in the opposite directions is not surprising since trait anxiety (e.g. the EPI N score) is in itself affected by defensiveness and socially desirable response set (Rump and Court, 1971). In the present study the N score correlated negatively with both the L score, r = 0.34 (34). p < 0.05, and the MarloweeCrowne score, r = 0.47 (34), p < 0.01. The EPI N and L scores have also been reported to be affected by age; N decreases with age whereas L increases (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1964). This is consistent with the finding in the present study that ‘repressors’ were older than ‘sensitisers’. The effect of age on the accuracy of self-reported disturbance is interesting and points to the danger of assuming that the discordance between response systems is necessarily a permanent coping strategy. Finally, the present study suggests that inaccuracy of self-reported emotional disturbance is significantly related to defensiveness and trait anxiety. The significant relationship found between defensiveness scores and electrodermal arousal may have implications for psychosomatic research, as it suggests that high ‘lie’ scorers cope with stress at the expense of increased physiological arousal. A~l\JloM’/edyemPttr~The manuscript.
author
is grateful
to Professor
H. J. Eysenck
for valuable
comments
concerning
the
REFERENCES AOAMS J. K. (1957) Laboratory studies of behaviour without awareness. Psychol. Bull. 54, 383405. BONII A. and LAUER M. (1974) The use of analogue scales in rating subjective feelings. Br. J. med. P.sycho/. 47, 21 I-218. BULL R. H. and STROXGMAN K. T. (1971) Anxiety, neuroticism and extraversion. Psychol. Rep. 29. I lOI--I 102. BURISH T. G. and HOUSTON B. K. (1976) Construct validity of the lie scale as a measure of defensiveness. J. c/in. P.s+~ol. 32, 3 I o-3 14. CROWNE D. P. and MARLOWE D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J. consulr. Ps~~chol. 24. 349-354. E~S~NCK H. J. and EYSENCK S. B. G. (1964) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Hodder and Stoughton. London. GLIIIJONSSON G. H. (1979a) Electrodermal responsivity in Icelandic criminals, clergymen and policemen. Br. J. sot. clip. Ps~chol. 18. 35 I-353. GUDJONSSON G. H. (1979b) The use of electrodermal responses in a case of amnesia (a case report). Med. SC!. Luw 19. I38 140. HODCXS W. F. (1976) The psychophysiology of anxiety. In Emotions and anriety: New conceprs. methods. and applicatiom. (Edited by M. ZVCKERMAN and C. D. SPIELFIERCER)Halsted, New York. HOXSOF; R. and RACHMAN S. (1974) Desynchrony in measures of fear. B&t;. RL’s. Ther. 12, 319-326. MANDLER G. M.. MANDLER J. M.. KREMEN 1. and SHOLITON R. D. (1961). The response to threat: relations among verbal and physiological indices. Psycho/. Monogr. 75, NIELSEN T. C. and PETERSEN K. E. (1976) Electrodermal correlates of extraversion, trait anxiety and schizophrenism. Scund. J. Psychol. 17. 73-80. POULESUY J. A. and RASKIN D. C. (1977) Physiological measures and the detection of deception. Ps~chol. Bull. 84, 782 799. RUMP E. E. and COURT J. (1971) The Eysenck Personality Inventory and social desirability response set with student and clinical groups. Br. J. xx. Clrn. Psycho/. 10, 42-54. SACKEIM H. A. and CUR R. C. (1978) Self-deception. self-confrontation and consciousness. In Consciou.sness and .sr+regulution. adcances ;,I research and theory. (Edited by G. E. SCHWARTZ and D. SHAPIRO), Vol. 2. Plenum Press. New York. SCHWARTZ G. E. (1977) Psychosomatic disorders and biofeedback: A psycho-biological model of disregulation. In Psychopathology: E\-prrimental models. (Edited by J. D. MASER and M. E. P. SELIGMAN) Freeman Press, San Francisco.
THA~~K R. E. (1970) Activation states as assessed by verbal report and four psychophysiological variables. P\~.c~ho~/i~~aiol. 7. X6-94. WFIUHIXG~R D. A.. SCHWARTZ G. E. and DAVIIXON R. J. (1979) Low-anxious. high-anxious. and repressive coping styles: psychometric patterns and behavioural and physiological responses to stress. J. aAnorr~ P,sJThol. 88. 369-380. WLINSTEIN J.. AV~RILL J. R.. OPTON E. M. and LAZAKCJSR. S. (1968) Defensive styles and discrepancy between self-report and physiological indices of stress. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 10. 406413.
Institute
of Psychiatry,
London
I June 1980)
Summary - The discordance
between an electrodermal and a subjective measure of disturbance was studied in 36 males. Electrodermal responses to emotionally loaded questions were recorded and subjects were requested to rate on visual analogue scales how disturbing they found the questions. The subjects were divided into three groups according to their ‘accuracy’ of selfperception and it was hypothesised that those who reported low subjective disturbance but reacted relatively strongly electrodermally (‘repressors’). would have a high defensiveness score but low trait anxiety. Conversely. subjects who amplify their disturbance (‘sensitisers’) were expected to have a low defensiveness score and high trait anxiety. The hypotheses were confirmed suggesting that both under and over reporting of subjective disturbance are related to defensiveness and trait anxiety. Another finding was that ‘sensitisers’ were significantly younger than ‘repressors’.
A common phenomenon in stress research is that individuals’ self-reports of anxiety and disturbance are frequently inconsistent with behavioural and physiological measures (Hodges. 1976; Weinberger et ul.. 1979). This does not necessarily imply that verbal reports are unreliable and invalid since the concordance between measures is to some extent related to the nature of the physiological response system employed. For example, cardiovascular changes have been found to correlate more strongly with verbal signs of disturbance than skin conductance (Hodgson and Rachman, 1974; Mandler et ul., 1961). However, regardless of the physiological measure employed there appear to be some individuals who are highly inaccurate in their self-perception (Sackeim and Gur, 1978). There is some evidence that the discrepancy between self-reported and physiological measures is related to how people cope with stress. For example, Weinstein et al. (1968) found a significant relationship between measures of denial and physiological and selfreported discrepancies. Deniers reported less change in anxiety as a function of threat than was evident from their physiological reactions. Burish and Houston (1976) found that a high lie score on the MMPI predicted a disposition to employ defensive manoeuvre against the threat of an electric shock. It was found that defensive strategies used by high lie scorers facilitated performance at the expense of increased physiological arousal. The authors concluded that “possibly the greater physiological arousal was due to the psychic cost of coping with stress”. Recently Weinberger er al. (1979) demonstrated that self-perceptions are particularly inaccurate in people who score high on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. They found that among subjects showing low trait anxiety on the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, the MarloweeCrowne Scale predicted a repressive coping style involving an avoidance of disturbing cognitions accompanied by relatively high physiological arousal. This suggests that ‘repressors’ tend to underestimate their physiological arousal which may have implications for pscyhosomatic research (Schwartz. 1977). When ‘repressors’ were asked to describe their most important characteristics it appeared that they were preoccupied with rigorously controlling their emotions. clearly taking a rational, nonemotional approach to life. Weinberger et al. (1979) were also able to identify three
other coping styles on the basis of a different combination of defensiveness and trait anxiety scores. One group they labelled ‘sensitisers’ on the basis of high trait anxiety and low defensiveness scores. It was noted that ‘sensitisers’ tended to amplify their views of themselves as anxious. Weinberger rt al. (1979) found that both ‘repressors’ and ‘sensitisers’ coped ineffectively with stress relative to truly low-anxious people. On the basis of the literature it is reasonable to assume that inaccurate self-perception involves both under- and over-reporting of cognitive disturbance. Both modes of reporting would be expected to be directly related to measures of defensiveness and trait anxiety. Rather than basing classification of coping styles on defensiveness and trait anxiety scores one can directly study the discordance between physiological and sclfreported measures and form hypotheses about personality and defensiveness traits. The purpose of this paper is to investigate ‘inaccuracy’ in the self-reporting of experimental (situational) disturbance and its relation to trait anxiety and defensiveness. It is hypothesised that subjects who report low disturbance during a ‘general question task’ L\here they are asked emotionally loaded questions, but who display high electrodermal reactivity (labelled ‘repressors’) will score high on defensiveness and low on trait anxiet). Conversely. subjects reporting high subjective disturbance but displaying low electrodermal reactivity (labelled ‘scnsitisers’) are expected to be high on trait anxiety and lot\ on defensiveness.
METHOD
The subjects comprised 36 males, the mean age being subjects were Caucasian and were drwan from a variety professional. They had no psychi‘itric problems.
32 years (S.D. = X.26). All of occupations but largely
Skin resistance was recorded using a Devices four-channel polygraph. Silver silver chloride electrodes were placed on the medial phalanges of the index and middle fingers of the non-dominant hand. The Devices amplifier incorporated a constant current sour-cl’ (8 PA) with a sensitivity of 10~~500 kR for full scale deflection. All scores were subsequently transformed into conductance (@-I) units. The subjects were tested in a research laboratory where the temperature was maintained between 19 and 21 C. The stimuli consisted of the following seven questions typed on 7.5 x 12.5 cm cards in uppercase letters: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Do Arc Do Are Do Arc Do
have brown eye
Questions been sholvn
3 and 5 are similar to those used in most ‘lie’ scales and to give highlq significant differential reactivity (Gudjonsson.
have previously 1979a).
The Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI: Eysenck and Eysenck. 1964) was used to measure trait anxiety (neuroticism) and defensiveness. The EPI neuroticism score has been found to correlate significantly (1. = 0.78) with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Bull and Strongman. 1971). The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne and Marlowe. 1960) was used as an additional defensiveness score in view of the small
Self-reported
emotional
disturbance
49
number of ‘Lie’ score items on the EPI. The Marlowe-Crowne Scale was found to be a very good measure of defensiveness in Weinberger’s et al., (1979) study. Visual analogue scales (cf. Bond and Lader, 1974) were used to rate subjective feelings of disturbance during the task. After the task the subject was requested to estimate on horizontal 100 mm scales how disturbing he found each question. The end points of each scale were denoted ‘Very disturbing’ and ‘Not at all disturbing’, respectively. Average disturbance score for each subject was obtained by taking the mean for the seven questions. Procrdurr
Each subject was seated in a comfortable chair and asked to answer the questions as truthfully as possible by replying ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The subject was shown the questions beforehand but he was not aware of the sequence of presentations. Each stimulus question was placed about 14 in. in front of the subject and presented at 13 s intervals. The subject had to read the questions to himself and answer them aloud. Two trials were administered, starting alternatively with question 1 and 7. Any response occurring between 1 and 5 s of stimulus presentation and exceeding 0.005 @‘Z-l was recorded. Spontaneous fluctuations in skin conductance were counted as any change free of artifact (movements, coughing etc.) exceeding 0.02 a-‘, scored in intervals of 8 s preceding each question. The subjects were divided into three groups according to their ‘accuracy’ of selfperception. The first group are those who gave disturbance analogue score below the median but displayed electrodermal reactivity above the median. These are labelled ‘repressors’. The second group are those who gave a disturbance score above the median but displayed electrodermal responses below the median. These were the ‘sensitisers’. The remaining subjects (labelled ‘concomitants’) are those who gave concomitant analogue and electrodermal scores. Electrodermal reactivity was scored separately for skin conductance amplitude responses and spontaneous activity. Both have been used as measures of arousal (Nielsen and Petersen, 1976). RESULTS
The mean EPI scores were as follows: neuroticism (N) = 8.79 (S.D. = 4.37), extraversion (E) = 1 1.24 (S.D. = 5.32), Lie (L) = 1.85 (S.D. = 1.37). The mean score obtained on the Marlowe-Crowne Scale was 13,35 (S.D. = 5.18). The Marlowe-Crowne and the EPI L scores were significantly correlated, Y = 0.71 (34), p < 0.001. The mean disturbance score as measured by the analogue scales was 22 mm (S.D. = 1.26). The greatest disturbance score was reported for questions 3 (55 mm) and 5 (37 mm). The mean skin conductance amplitude for the seven questions was 0.36 fl-’ (S.D. = 0.32). The mean number of spontaneous fluctuations was 7.38 (S.D. = 6.99). The analogue disturbance score did not correlate significantly with the two electrodermal measures. There was a positive correlation between skin conductance responses and spontaneous fluctuations, r = 0.51 (34), p < 0.005. Tables 1 and 2 show the difference in personality scores between ‘repressors’, ‘concomitants’ and ‘sensitisers’ when classification is based on skin conductance responses and spontaneous activity, respectively. One-way Analysis of Variance was performed on the scores and the outcome is similar for the two electrodermal measures. The three groups differed significantly in both neuroticism and defensiveness, but not in extraversion. As predicted, ‘repressors’ had the highest defensiveness scores and lowest neuroticism score. ‘Sensitisers’, on the other hand, had the highest neuroticism score and lowest defensiveness scores. ‘Repressors’ also tended to be older than ‘sensitisers’. The mean age of ‘repressors’ was 34.7 (S.D. = 9.02) and 38 years (S.D. = 9.28) when the classification was based on skin conductance responses and spontaneous fluctuations, respectively. The corresponding ages were 28.7 (SD. = 5.85) and 28 yr (S.D. = 5.75) for ‘sensitisers’. The difference in the age between ‘repressors’ and ‘sensitisers’ was significant when the classification was based on spontaneous activity, f = 2.99 (19), p < 0.01. two-tailed, and there
50
GISLI
Table
H. GL’DJONSSON
1. Mean and standard deviation scores for the three groups based on skin conductance responses
Personality measures
‘Repressors’ (.V = 1I) S. D. Mean
‘Concomitants’
when classification
Mean
SD.
‘Sensitisers’ (IV = 12) Mean SD.
7.64 Il.91 I .37 12.27
3.96 5.24 0.8 I 3.44
II.55 IO.45 1.36 10.36
(N = 13)
is
F value
p
3.79 0. I9 4.89 6.73
0.034 n.s. 0.014 0.004
EPI N E L Marlowe-Crowne
Table
2. Mean
Personality variables
7.33 II.33 2.75 17.08
and standard
4.60 4.10 1.37 3.50
deviation scores for the three groups based on spontaneous activity
‘Repressors’ (N = II) Mean SD.
‘Concomitants’ (IV = 15) S.D. Mean
3.88 3.78 1.43 7.95
when classificatton
‘Sensitisers’ (Iv = IO) S. D. Mean
is
F value
p
6.91 0.31 3.46 5.08
0.003 ns. 0.043 0.012
EPI N E L Marlowe-Crowne
5.36 II.09 2.64 16.90
3.91 3.83 I .43 3.59
IO.20 11.77 I .69 17.31
4.37 5.07 0.98 4. I3
IO.62 II.70 1.20 IO.80
3.04 7.21 I .40 6.08
was a ‘trend’ when the classification was based on skin conductance responses. t = 1.9I (21) p < 0.10. two-tailed. For the group as a whole. the two defensiveness scores correlated positively with both the electrodermal measures. The EPI L score correlated significantly with both spontaneous activity, r = 0.48 (34), p < 0.01. and mean skin conductance responses, r = 0.37 (34). p < 0.05. The Pearson correlations with the MarloweeCrowne scores were 0.49 (34). p < 0.01 and 0.42 (34). p < 0.01 for spontaneous fluctuations and skin conductance responses. respectively. Mean skin conductance responses correlated significantly with introversion. r = 0.29 (34). p < 0.05. which is consistent with Eysenck’s hypothesis that introverts are characterized by higher levels of cortical arousal than extraverts. For spontaneous fluctuations. however. the correlation was low and not significant (Y = 0.19). No significant relationship was found between neuroticism and spontaneous fluctuations (r = -0.20) and in regard to skin conductance responses the correlation was contradictory (r = -0.39, p < 0.05. two-tailed test) to Eysenck’s hypothesis linking neuroticism with emotional activation. DISCUSSION The findings of this study support the hypothesis formulated in the introduction. Subjects who reported low subjective disturbance to emotionally loaded questions but reacted relatively strongly electrodermally, tended to have high defensiveness score and low trait anxiety score. On the other hand, subjects who had high trait anxiety and low defensiveness score tended to amplify their disturbance. In general, subjects were highly inaccurate in judging their disturbance. as is evident from the non-significant relationship observed between electrodermal reactivity and self-reported disturbance. Electrodermal measures are generally considered to be one of the most sensitive physiological measures available (Podlesny and Raskin. 1977) and may even tap information that people are unaware of (Adams. 1957; Gudjonsson, 1979b). For this reason it is perhaps not surprising to find a discrepancy between self-reported disturbance and electrodermal reactivity. especially at low levels of emotional arousal. Hodgson and Rachman (1974) have suggested that the concordance between physiological and subjective measures is affected by the intensity or level of emotional arousal. In other words, the more stressful the stimuli the greater the concordance between response systems. One would also expect people to adopt a more defensive coping strategy in experiments that employ a threatening context than in those which do not. The present experimental context was probably fairly non-
Self-reported
emotional
51
disturbance
threatening to the majority of subjects which suggests that both repressive and overendorsing coping styles can be noted at relatively low levels of stress. The fact that there was no significant relationship in the present study between selfreported disturbance and two electrodermal measures of arousal, points to the difficulty of relying on just one measure of physiological arousal. In fact, Thayer (1970) states on the basis of his work that self-reported data may be an integrative variable more representative of general arousal than any psychophysiological measure. He suggests a method of combining physiological variables for correlation with self-reported data. It is interesting that Thayer found that a combination of skin conductance and heart rate is the best physiological composite measure, although the two measures rarely correlate among themselves. The finding that the neuroticism and defensiveness scores tenc.ed to move in the opposite directions is not surprising since trait anxiety (e.g. the EPI N score) is in itself affected by defensiveness and socially desirable response set (Rump and Court, 1971). In the present study the N score correlated negatively with both the L score, r = 0.34 (34). p < 0.05, and the MarloweeCrowne score, r = 0.47 (34), p < 0.01. The EPI N and L scores have also been reported to be affected by age; N decreases with age whereas L increases (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1964). This is consistent with the finding in the present study that ‘repressors’ were older than ‘sensitisers’. The effect of age on the accuracy of self-reported disturbance is interesting and points to the danger of assuming that the discordance between response systems is necessarily a permanent coping strategy. Finally, the present study suggests that inaccuracy of self-reported emotional disturbance is significantly related to defensiveness and trait anxiety. The significant relationship found between defensiveness scores and electrodermal arousal may have implications for psychosomatic research, as it suggests that high ‘lie’ scorers cope with stress at the expense of increased physiological arousal. A~l\JloM’/edyemPttr~The manuscript.
author
is grateful
to Professor
H. J. Eysenck
for valuable
comments
concerning
the
REFERENCES AOAMS J. K. (1957) Laboratory studies of behaviour without awareness. Psychol. Bull. 54, 383405. BONII A. and LAUER M. (1974) The use of analogue scales in rating subjective feelings. Br. J. med. P.sycho/. 47, 21 I-218. BULL R. H. and STROXGMAN K. T. (1971) Anxiety, neuroticism and extraversion. Psychol. Rep. 29. I lOI--I 102. BURISH T. G. and HOUSTON B. K. (1976) Construct validity of the lie scale as a measure of defensiveness. J. c/in. P.s+~ol. 32, 3 I o-3 14. CROWNE D. P. and MARLOWE D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J. consulr. Ps~~chol. 24. 349-354. E~S~NCK H. J. and EYSENCK S. B. G. (1964) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Hodder and Stoughton. London. GLIIIJONSSON G. H. (1979a) Electrodermal responsivity in Icelandic criminals, clergymen and policemen. Br. J. sot. clip. Ps~chol. 18. 35 I-353. GUDJONSSON G. H. (1979b) The use of electrodermal responses in a case of amnesia (a case report). Med. SC!. Luw 19. I38 140. HODCXS W. F. (1976) The psychophysiology of anxiety. In Emotions and anriety: New conceprs. methods. and applicatiom. (Edited by M. ZVCKERMAN and C. D. SPIELFIERCER)Halsted, New York. HOXSOF; R. and RACHMAN S. (1974) Desynchrony in measures of fear. B&t;. RL’s. Ther. 12, 319-326. MANDLER G. M.. MANDLER J. M.. KREMEN 1. and SHOLITON R. D. (1961). The response to threat: relations among verbal and physiological indices. Psycho/. Monogr. 75, NIELSEN T. C. and PETERSEN K. E. (1976) Electrodermal correlates of extraversion, trait anxiety and schizophrenism. Scund. J. Psychol. 17. 73-80. POULESUY J. A. and RASKIN D. C. (1977) Physiological measures and the detection of deception. Ps~chol. Bull. 84, 782 799. RUMP E. E. and COURT J. (1971) The Eysenck Personality Inventory and social desirability response set with student and clinical groups. Br. J. xx. Clrn. Psycho/. 10, 42-54. SACKEIM H. A. and CUR R. C. (1978) Self-deception. self-confrontation and consciousness. In Consciou.sness and .sr+regulution. adcances ;,I research and theory. (Edited by G. E. SCHWARTZ and D. SHAPIRO), Vol. 2. Plenum Press. New York. SCHWARTZ G. E. (1977) Psychosomatic disorders and biofeedback: A psycho-biological model of disregulation. In Psychopathology: E\-prrimental models. (Edited by J. D. MASER and M. E. P. SELIGMAN) Freeman Press, San Francisco.
THA~~K R. E. (1970) Activation states as assessed by verbal report and four psychophysiological variables. P\~.c~ho~/i~~aiol. 7. X6-94. WFIUHIXG~R D. A.. SCHWARTZ G. E. and DAVIIXON R. J. (1979) Low-anxious. high-anxious. and repressive coping styles: psychometric patterns and behavioural and physiological responses to stress. J. aAnorr~ P,sJThol. 88. 369-380. WLINSTEIN J.. AV~RILL J. R.. OPTON E. M. and LAZAKCJSR. S. (1968) Defensive styles and discrepancy between self-report and physiological indices of stress. J. Person. sot. Psychol. 10. 406413.