Personality and physiological reactions to acute psychological stress in a large cohort

of middle aged men and women

Adam Bibbey, BSc1 Douglas Carroll1, Tessa J. Roseboom2, Anna C. Phillips1, Susanne R. de Rooij2

1 University of Birmingham, United Kingdom 2 University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Stable personality traits: - biological substrates

- affect stress perception

Previous evidence inconclusive

This may reflect a range of methodological problems:

small sample sizes

predominance of young student samples

restricted range of trait scores

dichotomized trait variables

failure to adjust statistically for a range of possible confounding variables

Background

Revisit the issue of personality and biological stress reactivity in a substantial cohort who had undergone stress testing and in whom personality traits were measured using the Big Five Inventory.

Present Aims

Sample size and age

Cortisol and cardiovascular

measures

Control confounders

Subjective ratings of

stress

1) Neuroticism: tendency toward negative affectivity and an inclination toward impulsive behavior.

2) Agreeableness: willingness to be helpful and trusting, and to possess a pro-social orientation.

3) Openness : imaginative, creative, attentive to inner feelings, prefer variety, and are flexible in their thinking

4) Extraversion : energetic, sociable, and assertive.

5) Conscientiousness : organization, self-discipline, and determination.

Big Five Trait Taxonomy

(McCrae and Costa, 1987)

Methods

Overarching aim: Examine effects of intrauterine famine exposure in the winter of 1944-45 on health in later adulthood.

Dutch Famine Birth Cohort Study

2002-04

Stress testing

N = 725

2008-09

Big Five Inventory

N = 601

Combined sample

N = 389

Removal of participants exposed to famine in early

gestation

N=37

Final sample

N= 352

M/N SD/%

Age (years) 58.23 0.95

Sex (female) 190 52.5

Socio-economic status (ISEI-92) 51.29 13.64

Body mass index (kg/m2) 28.76 4.90

Alcohol (units of per week) 9.83 15.01

Current smoker 74 20.5

Anti-hypertensive medication 96 26.5

Anti-depressant or anxiolytic 45 12.4

Characteristics of final sample

Stress Testing Protocol

de Rooij et al, 2006

Baseline Average post task

Sa

livary

co

rtis

ol

(nm

ol/

L)

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

Stress significantly perturbed biological activity Results

Time

Baseline Average task

Heart

rate

(b

pm

)

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

Time

Baseline Average task

Sys

tolic

blo

od

pre

ss

ure

(m

mH

g)

120

130

140

150

160

170

Time

Baseline Average task

Dia

sto

lic b

loo

d p

res

su

re (

mm

Hg

)

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

F (1,266) = 41.64, p < .001, η2 = .135 F (1,350) = 110.56, p < .001, η2 = .240

F (1,351) = 314.62, p < .001, η2 = .473 F (1,351) = 1302.48, p < .001, η2 = .788

β t p R2

Neuroticism and cortisol reactivity

Unadjusted Model -.19 3.20 .002 .035

Adjusted 1 -.14 2.30 .02 .018

Adjusted 2 -.14 2.27 .02 .016

Agreeableness and cortisol reactivity

Unadjusted Model .15 2.49 .01 .021

Adjusted 1 .16 2.75 .006 .025

Adjusted 2 .16 2.73 .007 .023

Openness and cortisol reactivity

Unadjusted Model .19 3.31 .001 .037

Adjusted 1 .15 2.51 .01 .021

Adjusted 2 .13 2.21 .03 .015

Adjusted 1: sex, age, SES

Adjusted 2: alcohol consumption, smoking, BMI, use of anti -hypertensive medication, use of anti-depressant or anxiolytic medication, perceived commitment to the stress task, and baseline cortisol.

Personality and cortisol Regression models for neuroticism, agreeableness, openness and cortisol reactivity

Individuals high on neuroticism, and low on agreeableness and openness demonstrated blunted cortisol responses

Personality and heart rate

β t p R2

Neuroticism and heart rate reactivity

Unadjusted Model -.20 3.89 <.001 .042

Adjusted 1 -.19 3.55 <.001 .034

Adjusted 2 -.15 2.65 .008 .019

Agreeableness and heart rate reactivity

Unadjusted Model .12 2.21 .03 .014

Adjusted 1 .12 2.15 .03 .013

Adjusted 2 .11 2.05 .04 .012

Openness and heart rate reactivity

Unadjusted Model .17 3.15 .002 .028

Adjusted 1 .14 2.63 .01 .020

Adjusted 2 .11 2.00 .05 .011

Adjusted 1: sex, age, SES

Adjusted 2: alcohol consumption, smoking, BMI, use of anti -hypertensive medication, use of anti-depressant or anxiolytic medication, perceived commitment to the stress task, and baseline heart rate

Regression models for neuroticism, agreeableness, openness and heart rate reactivity

Individuals high on neuroticism, and low on agreeableness and openness also had blunted heart rate responses

Personality and blood pressure

β t p R2

Neuroticism and SBP reactivity

Unadjusted Model -.20 3.89 <.001 .042

Adjusted 1 -.19 3.55 <.001 .034

Adjusted 2 -.15 2.65 .008 .019

Neuroticism and DBP reactivity

Unadjusted Model -.12 2.21 .03 .014

Adjusted 1 -.12 2.15 .03 .013

Adjusted 2 -.11 2.05 .04 .012

Adjusted 1: sex, age, SES

Adjusted 2: alcohol consumption, smoking, BMI, use of anti -hypertensive medication, use of anti-depressant or anxiolytic medication, perceived commitment to the stress task, and baseline SBP/DBP

SBP= systolic blood pressure, DBP= diastolic blood pressure

Regression models for neuroticism, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure

Individuals high on neuroticism demonstrated blunted blood pressure reactivity

Personality and stress task ratings

In contrast, high neuroticism and low openness were associated with higher reported stress, and lower reported control following exposure to stress tasks

Self-report task ratings

Stressfulness Control

r p r p

Neuroticism .27 <.001 -.30 <.001

Openness -.14 .01 .25 <.001

Results Overview

Cortisol

+ HR reactivity

Neuroticism

Agreeableness Openness

SBP + DBP reactivity Neuroticism

Self reported

stressfulness

Self reported control

Neuroticism

Openness

Discussion

Negative constellation of personality traits associated with diminished stress reactions of both of the HPA axis and cardiovascular system.

Blunted Stress Reactivity

Worth noting that the adverse health and behavioural corollaries identified with blunted reactivity are also for the most part, associated with this negative personality profile and, in particular, neuroticism.

Carroll et al, 2011 Lovallo, 2011

Depression- Bienvenu et al, 2004: Obesity- Sutin et al, 2011: Addiction- Terraccino et al, 2008: Disordered eating- Bamber et al, 2000

Hypothesis:

peripheral marker of dysregulation in the brain systems that support emotion and motivation.

Paradox: Self-report and biological responses

Neuroticism: Repeated adverse

perceptions Chronic stress

Allostasis

Openness: Emotional

suppression Task variety preference

Suggest drivers of subjective stress reactions are different from those that drive physiological stress reactivity.

University of Birmingham

Prof. Doug Carroll

Dr Anna Phillips

University of Amsterdam

Prof. Tessa Roseboom

Dr Susanne de Rooij

Acknowledgements

Funding

Thank you for listening

Adam Bibbey ESRC-funded Doctoral Researcher

University of Birmingham

Tel: +44 (0) 121 415 8785

Email: axb790@bham.ac.uk

References

Bamber, D., Cockerill, I.M., Carroll, D., 2000. The pathological status of exercise dependence. Br. J. Sports Med. 34, 125-132.

Bienvenu, O.J., Samuels, J.F., Costa, P.T., Reti, I.M., Eaton, W.W., Nestadt, G., 2004. Anxiety and depressive disorders and the five-factor model of personality: A higher- and lower-order personality trait investigation in a community sample. Depress. Anxiety 20, 92-97.

Carroll, D., Phillips, A.C., Lovallo, W.R., 2011b. The behavioural and health corollaries of blunted physiological reactions to acute psychological stress: Revising the reactivity hypothesis. In: Wright, R.A., Gendolla, G.H.E. (Eds.), How Motivation Affects Cardiovascular Response: Mechanisms and Applications. APA Press, Washington, DC.

de Rooij, S.R., Painter, R.C., Phillips, D.I., Osmond, C., Tanck, M.W., Bossuyt, P.M., Roseboom, T.J., 2006. Cortisol responses to psychological stress in adults after prenatal exposure to the Dutch famine. Psychoneuroendocrinology 31, 1257-1265.

Lovallo, W.R., 2011. Do low levels of stress reactivity signal poor states of health? Biol. Psychol. 86, 121-128.

McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., 1987. Validation of a five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52, 81-90.

Sutin, A.R., Ferrucci, L., Zonderman, A.B., Terracciano, A., 2011. Personality and obesity across the adult life span. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 579-592.

Terracciano, A., Lockenhoff, C.E., Crum, R.M., Bienvenu, O.J., Costa, P.T., Jr., 2008. Five-Factor Model personality profiles of drug users. BMC Psychiatry 8, 22.