Veridicality of cognitive mapping of stressor effects: Sex differences1

Abstract

In order to examine the veracity of judgment-questionnaire data regarding the effects of confronting a stressor in various contexts, judgments based on the imagined consequences of these encounters were scaled for both male and female subjects using individual-differences multidimensional scaling analyses. A parallel experiment was then carried out where a second group of subjects were directly exposed to the spectrum of stressor-context combinations previously judged. The two experiments substantially differed with respect to the inferences suggested by their results: while there were no apparent sex differences in the configuration of judgment responses, there were appreciable sex differences in response to the direct stress; other effects were predicted according to the judgment-scaling results but were not obtained upon direct stressor exposure. The study extended past results of equivocal veracity of conclusions drawn from personality questionnaires, ratings and inventories to the domain of stress reactions. The role of antecedent cognitive structuring of threatening situations along stress-relevant dimensions in determining response to direct threat was discussed. Discussion also focused on the configuration of sex differences over the several measures of response to the direct stressor. It was suggested that the stressor was more potent for females leading to increased cognitive coping efforts on their part. The effect of these efforts was the eventual reduction of their subjective stress to the level of that displayed by males.

Sources of differential stress response associated with psychometrically designated anxiety proneness.

“…With regard to indices whose sensitivity to stress response was more apparent than that of other indices, it is noteworthy that measures of cardiac reactivity significantly distinguished anxiety proneness groups in line with earlier findings of the relative sensitivity of this index for males (Hodges & Spielberger, 1966;Lefave & Neufeld, 1980). Cardiac reactivity contrasts the physiological index of frontalis muscle tension in that, among females, the latter measure has been shown to be relatively more sensitive to the effects of stressing stimulation Neufeld, 1978; and to anxiety proneness differences in these effects (Neufeld, 1976). As expected on the basis of earlier findings for physical danger anxiety proneness among male and mixed-sex samples (Lefave & Neufeld, 1980;Neufeld, 1975), skin conductance was similarly sensitive to stimulus properties (graded task difficulty) for each anxiety proneness group.…”

“…The present results resemble those of other studies directed to other sources of individual differences in stress response, specifically sex differences. 6 Male-female differences in stress response have been consistently obtained over several studies (Hare, Wood, Britain, & Frazelle, 1971;Kimmel & Hill, 1961;Neufeld, 1978; 7 despite similar male-female configurations from unidimensional and multidimensional scaling analyses of cognitive mapping of stressing situations (Neufeld, 1978;. On the other hand, when scaled appraisal was devoted specifically to the effects of direct stress encounter, systematic sex differences accordant with differences in actual responses were obtained (Hodges & Felling, 1970;.…”

“…One of the more important sets of relations from research on stress-relevant variables involves the congruence between psychometrically measured dimensions of anxiety proneness and dimensions of stressing situations. Among those identified, two dimensions that have appeared reliably and prominently in questionnaire analyses (Ekehammar, Schalling, & Magnusson, 1975;Endler & Okada, 1975;Hodges & Felling, 1970;Neufeld, 1978) and whose congruence with "situation dimensions" has been shown to be important in studies of direct stress (Endler & Magnusson, 1977;Hodges & Spielberger, 1966) have been labeled "physical danger" and "interpersonal ego threat" (cf. Endler & Okada, 1975).…”

A formal analysis of stressor and stress‐proneness effects on simple information processing

“…Only males served as subjects because of documented sex differences in stress response (e.g. Neufeld, 1978;Neufeld & Davidson, 1974), possibly impinging on cognitive functioning as measured here. Practical constraints made infeasible subject division on the basis of gender, additional to that of psychometrically designated stress susceptibility.…”

Differences in stress levels, stressors, and stress responses between managerial and professional males and females on the stress vector analysis‐research edition

“…This suicidal behavior may be a reflection of their greater tendency to respond to environmental Stressors with higher cognitive threat and intropunitiveness. Neufeld (9) found that female undergraduate students responded more than their male counterparts on several psychophysiological indices when confronted with actual Stressors.…”