Is stress always bad? Telic versus paratelic dominance as a stress-moderating variable.

Abstract

Four studies examined the stress-moderating effects of telic versus paratelic dominance, a personality construct derived from reversal theory. Telic-dominatH individuals are described as serious minded, goal oriented, and arousal avoidant; paratelic-dominant people are playful, spontaneous, and arousal seeking. The first two studies found that telic-dominant subjects displayed significantly higher levels of dysphoria and salivary cortisol when stressful events remained unresolved. Paratelic subjects revealed significantly higher levels of dysphoria and salivary cortisol when moderately stressful events were resolved. Additional support for the stress-moderating effects of telic versus paratelic dominance was obtained in Study 3, which used task performance, self-report, and psychophysiological measures relating to a video task performed under low or moderate levels of social evaluative stress. Study 4 broadened the range of stressful events examined and again found a positive linear relation between stressful event levels and mood disturbance for telic-dominant subjects. For paratelic subjects, this relation was curvilinear. Paratelic subjects showed an initial decrease in mood disturbance as the level of stressful events increased from low to moderate. At more extreme levels of stress, however, paratelic subjects showed a significant increase in mood disturbance.A decade ago Rabkin and Struening (1976) reviewed the literature on stressful life events and illness and concluded that the consistently low correlations obtained in this research might be improved by taking into account variables that moderate the stress-illness relation. Since that time, numerous researchers have examined a wide variety of personality variables that were hypothesized to exert a stress-moderating effect. In general, this research has assumed that because of fairly enduring differences in cognitive style, coping strategies, social skills, and so on, individuals will differ in the degree to which they are adversely affected by negative life experiences. As one specific illustration, Kobasa and her colleagues (Kobasa, 1979;Kobasa, Maddi, & Courington, 1981) have conceptualized a personality dimension termed hardiness. This concept refers to an amalgamation of perceptions of control, challenge, and commitment to goals, and has been extensively examined as a stress-buffering factor. Further examples of moderator variables that have been identified in this literature include locus of control (Lefcourt,

Playful and rebellious states vs. negative affect in explaining the occurrence of temptations and lapses during smoking cessation

“…Reversal theory (Apter, 1982(Apter, , 1989(Apter, , 2001 posits that individuals reverse back and forth between opposing metamotivational states, defined as ''phenomenological states characterized by a certain way of interpreting some aspects of one's own motivation'' (Apter, Kerr, & Cowles, 1988, p. 378). Reversal theory has been applied in a variety of areas, including sport psychology (Kerr, 1987), back pain (Svebak, Ursin, Endresen, Hjelmen, & Apter, 1991), gambling (Brown, 1991), brain wave activity (Cook et al, 1995a), and stress (Martin, Kuiper, Olinger, & Dobbin, 1987). Four pairs of opposing states have been identified: Telic/ paratelic, negativistic/conformist, mastery/sympathy, and autocentric/allocentric.…”

Investigating the Pleasures of Sin: The Contingent Role of Arousal‐Seeking Disposition in Consumers' Evaluations of Vice and Virtue Product Offerings

“…In general, consumers alternate between two states-an arousal-seeking state and an arousalavoidant state; however, consumers may be predisposed to spend more time in one state over the other (Martin, Kuiper, Olinger, & Dobbin, 1987). Those consumers who are predisposed to spend more time in an arousal-seeking state are termed as paratelics (Brengman, Willems, & Joye, 2012); those who are more likely to be arousal-avoidant are termed as telic-dominant.…”

Effects of daily workload on subsequent behavior during marital interaction: The roles of social withdrawal and spouse support.

“…Individual variability in the extent to which people are arousal avoidant and in the intensity of their responses to minor daily events may influence the extent to which withdrawal occurs after a hard day at work (Larsen, Diener, & Emmons, 1986;Martin, Kuiper, Olinger, & Dobbin, 1987). The family responsibilities and level of support in the home environment of employed wives may not allow them to withdraw as easily as the men in this study did when they return home from a hard day at work.…”