PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETINSeta et al. / REDUCING
THE STRESS
Strategies for Reducing the Stressof Negative Life Experiences:
AnAveraging/Summation Analysis
John J. SetaUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro
Catherine E. SetaWake Forest University
Todd McElroyUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro
Experiments 1 through 4 investigated how different
orientationsto stimulus events influenced whether the addition of a
mildlynegative stressor to a highly negative one did or did not
decreasestress. In Experiment 1, reductions in stress levels were
obtainedwhen perceivers concentrated on the negative implications
ofeach stressor but not when they concentrated on the
implicationsassociated with the entire situation. In Experiments 2
and 3,reductions in stress were obtained when participants were
askedto think about a mildly negative event in addition to a
highlynegative one, but this effect was reduced when
participantsovertly appraised each stressor before reporting their
overall stressreaction. In Experiment 4, stress reductions were
obtained whenparticipants were induced to think about either two or
four of thenegative implications associated with a single stressor
but notwhen they thought about six negative implications.
Early conceptions of stress were concerned with physi-ological
responses to environmental stressors and not onhow individuals
appraised the meaning of these events(e.g., Seyle, 1956). It was
not until the work of Lazarusand his associates (e.g., Lazarus,
1966; Lazarus,Delongis, Folkman, & Gruen, 1985; Lazarus &
Folkman,1984) that the central role of appraisal in the
productionof stress reactions was recognized. Lazarus et al.
(1985),for example, argued that a full understanding of
stressreactions involves how a person and environmental ante-cedent
variables interact to produce divergent appraisalsthat reflect
whether the encounter is irrelevant, benign,or stressful, and if
stressful, what might be done to cope(pp. 776-777). Although the
importance of the appraisalprocess is now well recognized,
important aspects of this
process, such as how individuals integrate componentsof life
events, have been largely neglected. This article isconcerned with
this topic.
Research by Seta, Seta, and colleagues has exploredfactors that
influence the way individuals integrate lifestressors (e.g., C. E.
Seta & Seta, 1992, 1996; J. J. Seta,Crisson, Seta, & Wang,
1989; J. J. Seta, Seta, & Wang,1991; J. J. Seta, Wang, Crisson,
& Seta, 1989). Specifically,they were concerned with whether
experiencing a highlynegative event coupled with a less negative
one wouldproduce increasingly negative reactions. Or could
expe-riencing a less negative event instead attenuate the effectof
the highly negative one? Their research demonstratedthat both
effects are possible and developed an averag-ing/summation (AS)
model of stress integration thatdescribes the integration
strategies leading to bothoutcomes.
According to the AS model (e.g., C. E. Seta & Seta,1992,
1996; J. J. Seta et al., 1989), people are sensitiveboth to central
tendencies and to the frequency andoverall intensity of life
events. Averaging is conceptual-ized as a process that establishes
a central tendency
Authors Note: We thank Dale Dagenbach, Stephen Fischer,
JimSchirillo, Will Fleeson, and the reviewers at Personality and
Social Psychol-ogy Bulletin for their helpful feedback. We also
thank Teresa Hill for herskillful efforts in the preparation of
this article. Please direct corre-spondence to John J. Seta,
Psychology Department, University ofNorth Carolina at Greensboro,
Greensboro, NC 27402; e-mail: [email protected], or Catherine E. Seta,
Psychology Department, Wake ForestUniversity, Winston-Salem, NC
27109; e-mail: [email protected].
PSPB, Vol. 28 No. 11, November 2002 1574-1585DOI:
10.1177/014616702237584 2002 by the Society for Personality and
Social Psychology, Inc.
1574
among (between) stimuli. In an audience setting, eachaudience
member can be a distinct source of conse-quences to performers in,
for example, influencing theirpublic and private self-image.
Because of this, the overallconsequences that can be administered
by each audi-ence member are typically a critical concern for
per-formers. Therefore, in addition to seeking a central ten-dency
between (among) the implications associatedwith each audience
member (expressed, e.g., as the aver-age status of the audience),
the implications associatedwith each audience member also can be
summed andexpressed as the total impact of all audience
members.Because people are sensitive to both of these dimen-sions,
the addition of an evaluative event can lower orraise the level of
stress associated with the situation. Forexample, the addition of a
relatively low-status audiencemember to an audience of two
high-status members canlower impact and stress levels because it
lowers the over-all status of the audience. In this situation,
overall statusis an average or central tendency impression of
groupmembers. Thus, the low-status member reduces the im-pact and
stress associated with the audience (C. E. Seta &Seta, 1996).
(See the General Discussion for other waysin which the addition of
a low-level stimulus can reduceimpact from our model.) The addition
of a relatively low-status member, however, can also raise impact
and stressin that the audience member can raise the total amountof
consequences that the audience can deliver andthereby increases the
performers stress level.
In general, the model states that a persons overallresponse
represents the outcome of how he or she inte-grates events. Two
integration strategies are specified:One strategy is a simple
summation process in whichthe events are integrated in an additive
manner and theother is a strategy of event averaging that results
in theformulation of a central tendency value representingthe
average level of the events present in the context.The model
specifies that persons utilize both integrationstrategies, although
each strategy may be differentiallyweighted in different contexts.
The resulting responseexperienced by a person is an outcome of his
or her sen-sitivity to these processes.
The AS model can be expressed more precisely asfollows:
R
V W S W S W SW W W
V W S W S
=
+ +
+ + ++
+ + +1
0 0 1 1 2 2
0 1 22 0 0 1 1
KK [ W S
V V
t
2 2
1 2
1
+
+
