Relation of cognitive appraisal to cardiovascular reactivity, affect, and task engagement
The relation of primary cognitive appraisals to cardiovascular reactivity, affect, task engagement, and perceived stress was examined in 56 men (ages 18–29). Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate, preejection period, stroke index, cardiac index, and total peripheral resistance were assessed at rest and during performance of a computerized mental arithmetic task. Extending on prior investigations, threat and challenge appraisals were assessed independently from one another and from secondary appraisals. Positive and negative affect, task engagement, and levels of perceived stress were also assessed. Results indicated that threat (R2 = .08, p = .01), challenge (R2 = .14, p = .003), and their interaction (R2 = .11, p = .006) independently predicted DBP reactivity; DBP responses were greatest among participants with a high threat/low challenge pattern of appraisal. Threat appraisals predicted greater negative affect (R2 = .32) and perceived stress (R2 = .48), whereas challenge appraisals were related to greater positive affect (R2 = .44) and task engagement (R2 = .40, ps < .0001). Greater positive affect was correlated with increased SBP and DBP reactivity, and greater levels of task engagement with increased DBP response (ps ≤ .002). Results suggest that primary cognitive appraisals are more potent predictors of affect and task engagement than cardiovascular reactivity.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- (3).Frijda NH:The Emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
- (4).Lazarus RS, Folkman S:Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer, 1984.Google Scholar
- (5).Houston BK: Personality characteristics, reactivity, and cardiovascular disease. In Turner JR, Sherwood A, Light K (eds),Individual Differences in Cardiovascular Response to Stress. New York: Plenum, 1992, 103–123.Google Scholar
- (6).Manuck SB, Kasprowicz AL, Monroe SB, Larkin KT, Kaplan JR: Psychophysiological reactivity as a dimension of individual differences. In Schneiderman N, Weiss SB, Kaufmann P (eds),Handbook of Methods and Measurements in Cardiovascular Behavioral Medicine. New York: Plenum, 1989, 365.Google Scholar
- (21).Krantz DS, Manuck SB, Wing RR: Psychological stressors and task variables as elicitors of reactivity. In Matthews KA, Weiss SM, Detre T, et al. (eds),Handbook of Stress, Reactivity, and Cardiovascular Disease. New York: Wiley, 1986, 85–107.Google Scholar
- (22).Manuck SB, Morrison RL, Bellack AS, Poleferone JM: Behavioral factors in hypertension: Cardiovascular responsivity, anger, and social competence. In Chesney MA, Rosenman RH (eds),Anger and Hostility in Cardiovascular and Behavioral Disorders. Washington: Hemisphere, 1985, 149–172.Google Scholar
- (25).Stone AA, Neale JM, Shiffman S: Daily assessments of stress and coping and their association with mood.Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 1993,15:8–16.Google Scholar
- (27).Monroe SM, Kelley JM: Measurement of stress appraisal. In Cohen S, Kessler RC, Underwood-Gordon L (eds),Measuring Stress: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, 122–147.Google Scholar
- (28).Metropolitan Life Insurance Company:Statistical Bulletin. 1983,64:2–9.Google Scholar
- (35).Aiken LS, West SG:Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991.Google Scholar
- (40).Smith TW, Christensen AJ: Cardiovascular reactivity and interpersonal relations: Psychosomatic processes in social context.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1992,11:279–301.Google Scholar