Why the study?
Does high extraversion improve physiological adaptation to recurrent social stressors compared to low extraversion in college students?
Does high extraversion improve physiological adaptation to recurrent social stressors compared to low extraversion in college students?
Extraverts exhibit more adaptive physiological reactivity to recurrent social stressors, which may confer long-term cardiovascular health benefits.
High extraversion may support adaptive cardiovascular responses to repeated stress in students; leaves open effects on long-term clinical outcomes.
The present studies examined the influence of extraversion on physiological reactivity, recovery, and physiological habituation-sensitization to repeated social stressors. In Study 1, subjective and physiological data were collected from 97 college students who were categorized as high (n = 51) and low (n = 46) on extraversion (NEO-FFI) across five laboratory stages: baseline, stress 1, poststress 1, stress 2, and poststress 2. Results indicated high extraversion (HE) participants exhibited relative lesser heart rate (HR) reactivity and respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) withdrawals to, and more complete HR and RSA recovery after the first social stress, and also exhibited relative lesser HR reactivity to the second social stress. When repeatedly exposed to a social stressor, HE participants showed pronounced systolic blood pressure (SBP) adaptation, low extraversion (LE) participants displayed diastolic blood pressure (DBP) sensitization. In Study 2, data were collected from another 78 participants (HE: n = 40, LE: n = 38) across the same laboratory stages with speech performance videotaped. After controlling for the speech styles, Study 2 found the same HR response and SBP/DBP adaptation pattern across extraversion groups to social stress as Study 1 but not RSA reactivity. These findings suggest extraverts exhibit more adaptive physiological reactivity to recurrent social stressors, which thus might benefit their health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lü et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: