Associations among the Big Five, emotional responses, and coping with acute stress

Abstract

This study examined whether and how McCrae and Costa’s Big Five personality dimensions (N, E, O, A, and C) are associated with stress and coping processes, including cognitive appraisals, subjective reactions, use of coping strategies, and task performance. Participants were 97 male and female university undergraduates who completed an abbreviated version of the NEO-PI prior to preparing and presenting a speech to an audience. Immediately after their speeches, participants reported their emotional reactions and the coping strategies used during the task. Two independent coders rated participants’ speech task performances. Correlational analyses indicated reliable associations between the five personality dimensions and many of the study’s variables. Findings generally support previous research into the association between the Big Five and stress and coping, and provide new information about the association between the Big Five and both appraisal and performance variables.

Introduction

Personality variables have a long history of influencing stress, coping, and health. Specifically, research has linked personality variables such as Type A (e.g. Friedman, 1991), hostility (e.g. Suls & Wan, 1993), personal or perceived control (e.g. Lefcourt, 1992), optimism (e.g. Scheier & Carver, 1992), repressive coping (e.g. Baggett, Saab, & Carver, 1996), and belief in a just world (e.g. 21, 35) to stress- and health-related outcomes. Researchers have also found associations between personality and longevity. For example, several researchers have linked Type A behavior to death from coronary heart disease (e.g. 8, 11, 31).

Another personality variable that has predicted longevity is conscientiousness. Specifically, 6, 7 found that high-conscientious children, especially males, were approximately 30% less likely to die annually (all cause mortality) than low-conscientious children. Analyses of potential mediators of this effect revealed that injury risk, smoking, drinking, and obesity did not account for conscientiousness’ effect on longevity. The authors have suggested that other psychosocial factors (e.g. the individual’s ability to maintain social support networks), may account for conscientiousness’ effect on health and longevity. Surprisingly, the authors found cheerfulness (i.e. optimism), which shares many characteristics with both extraversion and agreeableness, to be inversely related to longevity in this sample.

Friedman et al.’s research represents a shift in research emphasis from narrow, unidimensional personality traits to broader, more comprehensive conceptualisations that frequently suggest five major personality dimensions (3, 13, 34, 40). A consequence of the traditional focus on narrower traits is that only a handful of studies have examined how the ‘Big Five’ relate to stress- and emotion-related reactions (Gallagher, 1990)—reactions that could help explain the association between these dimensions and health outcomes (Suls & Rittenhouse, 1990). Accordingly, the present study examined how McCrae and Costa’s (1986) Big Five personality dimensions relate to stress- and emotion-related reactions during an acute stressor.

McCrae and Costa conceptualise personality along five broad dimensions, including emotional stability or neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Neuroticism (N) refers to a tendency to experience anxiety, tension, self-pity, hostility, impulsivity, self-consciousness, irrational thinking, depression, and low self-esteem (16, 23, 24), whereas extraversion (E) refers to a tendency to be positive, assertive, energetic, social, talkative, and warm (16, 24, 39). Openness (O) refers to a tendency to be curious, artistic, insightful, flexible, intellectual, and original (16, 23, 24), whereas agreeableness (A) refers to the tendency to be forgiving, kind, generous, trusting, sympathetic, compliant, altruistic, and trustworthy (16, 24). Finally, conscientiousness (C) refers to a tendency to be organized, efficient, reliable, self-disciplined, achievement-oriented, rational, and deliberate (16, 24).

Investigations of the links between the Big Five and stress-related processes (e.g. 15, 22) have traditionally focused on how these dimensions relate to the use of various coping strategies. In general, coping refers to cognitive and behavioral efforts to prevent, manage, or alleviate stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Although it includes many activities, most coping strategies reflect efforts to improve a troubled situation, such as making a plan or taking action (i.e. problem-focused coping), or efforts to regulate emotional distress, such as seeking out others for emotional support or cognitively minimizing a situation’s severity (i.e. emotion-focused coping).

The Big Five have predicted differential use of problem- and emotion-focused coping strategies. Neuroticism, for example, has positively predicted emotion-focused strategies such as escape-avoidance, hostile reactions, and emotional venting, and has negatively predicted problem-focused coping such as planning (15, 22, 26, 41). Conversely, extraversion has positively predicted problem-focused strategies such as rational action (22, 41), and negatively predicted emotion-focused coping such as accepting responsibility (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996). Finally, openness has positively predicted emotion-focused strategies such as hostile reaction, sedation, and reappraisal (22, 26). Fewer studies have examined how agreeableness and conscientiousness relate to coping, but agreeableness has been positively linked to both emotion-focused coping such as social support seeking and positive reappraisal, and problem-focused coping such as planning (26, 41). In contrast, conscientiousness has negatively predicted emotion-focused coping, particularly avoidance and substance use, and has positively predicted problem-focused coping such as direct action and planning (26, 41).

Regrettably, many studies have limitations that preclude firm conclusions about the role of the Big Five in coping. For example, most studies have focused on N, E, and O to the detriment of A and C—an unfortunate situation considering the relation of these two variables to longevity (Friedman et al., 1995b). Furthermore, retrospective and self-selection biases plague many coping studies. Retrospective biases may include differential memory for types of stressful events, the methods used to cope with them, or both. Such biases may emerge because many coping studies ask participants to think about or describe a past stressful event, and then recall how they coped with the event. Self-selection biases, in contrast, refer to objective differences in the types of stressful situations people tend to experience (Scarr & McCartney, 1983). Thus, apparent coping differences in such studies might reflect differential experiences rather than a direct association between personality and coping. For example, retrospective bias, self-selection bias, or both may cause an individual high in N to report greater emotion-focused coping and less problem-focused coping than he or she actually used.

In general, cognitive appraisal processes refer to situational evaluations in terms of their significance for one’s well-being (Lazarus, 1991a). For example, many believe that stress results when situational demands are perceived as exceeding coping resources or abilities (14, 19, 25). Furthermore, appraisal researchers believe that patterns of appraisals across multiple dimensions produce specific emotional responses to stress, such as anger, guilt, or pride (9, 30).

Research has shown that cognitive appraisal processes predict subjective, physiological, and behavioral responses to stress. Using a model based on primary appraisals of situational demand and secondary appraisals of coping ability, Tomaka et al. (36, 37) have identified two distinct stress-related appraisal and response patterns. Threat appraisals occur when an individual appraises high situational demands relative to his or her appraised coping ability; threat responses include high subjective stress, poor task performance, and greater use of emotion-focused coping. In contrast, challenge appraisals occur when an individual appraises his or her coping abilities exceed situational demands; challenge responses include low subjective stress, successful task performance, and greater use of problem-focused coping (36, 37).

Several studies suggest that the Big Five may be associated with threat and challenge appraisals and responses. For example, Hemenover and Dienstbier (1996) examined whether and how N, E, and general appraisal tendencies were associated with stress and emotion-related cognitive appraisal processes for a college exam. They found that general appraisal tendencies mediated associations between N and perceived stress, as well as associations between E and emotion-focused coping. Similarly, Gallagher (1990) assessed N and E’s associations with emotional reactions to college-related stressors (e.g. exams). Although measured indirectly, Gallagher suggested that threat appraisals mediated the associations between N and negative affective reactions (e.g. low confidence and hope, high worry and fear), whereas challenge appraisals mediated associations between E and positive affective reactions (e.g. high confidence and hope).

As with the studies of coping and personality, the above studies of appraisals and personality have certain limitations. Specifically, these studies have typically measured personality’s effects on appraisals indirectly and have examined only N and E, excluding O, A, and C. Therefore, in addition to examining associations among the Big Five, appraisal, and coping generally, we examined associations among the Big Five and threat and challenge appraisals and responding.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate associations between personality and stress-related appraisals and responses. Specifically, we examined whether and how the Big Five were associated with appraisals, emotional reactions, subjective and observer-rated behavioral performance, and coping with an acute laboratory stressor. After completing a short version of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), participants appraised and then performed a speech task in front of an audience. Following their speeches, participants reported their emotional reactions to the speech task, and the coping behaviors they used during the task.