DAVISCM SURI paper

Masculinity/Toughness Challenging Interview 1
Running head: CARDIOVASCULAR REACTIVIY TO A MASCULINITY/ TOUGHNESS
CHALLENGING INTERVIEW
The Relation of Content and Interpersonal Style Ratings During a Masculinity/Toughness
Challenging Interview to Cardiovascular Reactivity in Male Cadets
Cody M. Davis
Virginia Military Institute

Abstract
The present study introduced a new laboratory stressor, the Masculinity/Toughness Challenging
Interview (MTCI), to the cardiovascular reactivity literature. The primary purpose of the study
was to correlate interview ratings of content and interpersonal style with reactivity. Thirty male
cadets at a military college were asked to recall a time in their lives where there masculinity or
toughness was challenged, while being audiotaped and having cardiovascular measures recorded.
Task-involvement, self-involvement and self-disclosure were consistently related to greater
vascular reactivity during interview preparation or the actual interview. Findings suggest that
men who experience masculinity/toughness challenging stressors or are particularly susceptible
to this type of ego threat may be at increased risk for hypertension.

The Relation of Content and Interpersonal Style Ratings During a Masculinity/Toughness
Challenging Interview to Cardiovascular Reactivity in Male Cadets
Cardiovascular psychophysiology, the non-invasive study of cardiovascular reactions to
stress, has been studied by many researchers in recent years and is a rapidly growing field of
study. Particularly, cardiovascular reactivity can be defined as the degree or pattern of an
individual’s cardiovascular responses to behavioral stressors (Treiber, Kamarck, Schneiderman,
Sheffield, Kapuku, & Taylor, 1993). In the context of the laboratory, psychophysiological
reactivity, a physical response to a behavioral stressor, is usually seen as the change in heart rate
(HR), blood pressure (BP) and other physiological variables as a response from baseline to a
period during which the subject is exposed to a stressor (Manuck, Kamarck, Kasprowicz, &
Waldstein, 1993). Cardiovascular reactivity is usually studied by scientists for two main
reasons. First, laboratory stressors make differences known that are not clearly shown under
normal resting conditions. Second, particular cardiovascular responses may have serious health
implications (Saab, Kline, & McCalla, 2007). Ultimately, individuals displaying consistently
elevated cardiovascular responses to stressors may suffer from hypertension or heart disease
(Manuck et al.,1993).
There are two primary hemodynamic patterns of cardiovascular reactivity which are
associated with changes in blood flow related to two components of increased BP, cardiac output
(CO) and total peripheral resistance (TPR). Cardiac output can be defined as the amount of
blood ejected from the heart in liters per minute, while TPR can be defined as the degree of
resistance to blood flow in blood vessels (Saab et al., 2007). When BP is raised due to increased
CO it is known as a myocardial response, which is part of a “Pattern 1” response to stressors that

also encompasses dilation of blood vessels supplying the skeletal muscles, increased HR, and
decreased vagal tone. When BP is increased due to TPR it is usually regarded as a vascular
response, which is part of a “Pattern 2” response that also includes vasoconstriction in the
skeletal muscles, an increase or decrease in HR, and increased vagal tone. It is also possible for
a response to include a mix between “Pattern 1” and “Pattern 2” with regards to hemodynamic
patterns underlying BP. This “mixed response” takes place when CO and TPR simultaneously
increase BP in the cardiovascular system. There is some evidence that vascular responses may
have more serious health implications than myocardial responses (Goldberg et al., 1996;
Heponiemi et al., 2007; Kapuku et al., 1999; Sherwood et al.,1999; Treiber et al., 1993).
Studies have shown that cardiovascular variables can be related to psychological
variables including, but not limited to, thoughts, feelings and behaviors. The “Pattern 1”
cardiovascular response has usually been known to occur with active coping, mental work, or
blocking out extraneous sensory stimuli not associated with the task at hand, and “challenge
responses” (i.e., positive or adaptive appraisals, emotions and/or behaviors) (Kline, Saab, &
Llabre, 2005; Saab et al., 2007; Tomaka, Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993). “Pattern 2”
responses are commonly associated with subjects passively coping with a stressor, often because
they have little or no control over it. “Pattern 2” responses have also been known to accompany
threat responses and situations where participants have to inhibit their preferred responses, take
in sensory information, or show vigilance (Kline et al., 2005; Saab et al., 2007; Tomaka et al.,
1993). It is now obvious that several different variables have the capability to influence and
change hemodynamic response patterns. A few factors that can modify a particular pattern of
cardiovascular response, possibly resulting in mixed responses, would be task instructions,

expectations, appraisals, the extent to which the subject has control, possible rewards, the
amount of effort put into the task, and individual differences (Saab et. al., 2007).
Researchers have discovered evidence that when a person speaks at a rapid rate with loud
volume, then that person is more prone to actually feel the emotion of anger (Siegman,
Anderson, & Berger, 1990). Conversely, lowering the voice and decelerating speech, may cause
a person to feel less angry (Siegman et al., 1990). Furthermore, there is evidence that people
who speak loudly and rapidly tend to have higher BP responses than softer and slower speakers.
However, a likely confound is that people who usually talk slow also speak soft, while people
that talk fast usually speak loud. Researchers have found it very hard to unconfound that
relationship between speech rate and volume (Siegman et al., 1990).
There is some evidence that certain specific emotions can be correlated with particular
cardiovascular responses. The most consistent results scientists have found with regards to
emotion and cardiovascular reactivity are that there are differential increases in BP when a
person is experiencing fear and anger (Sinha, Lovallo, & Parsons, 1992). Researchers have
described the well known “fight or flight” (i.e., essentially Pattern 1) response as similar to
arousal seen during isotonic exercise. Heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and blood flow
to the muscles increase, while TPR decreases, which keeps the diastolic blood pressure (DBP)
low (Sinha et al., 1992). This response is usually produced when a person is fearing a physical
object, but can also prove to be part of a more general reaction associated with anxiety. Anger
actually produces a mixed response defined by increases in HR, SBP and TPR, with the latter
resulting in elevated DBP (Sinha et al., 1992).

Task engagement and involvement have been major predictors of cardiovascular
reactivity for years (Singer, 1974). Studies have also shown that positive affect has been
correlated with SBP and DBP reactivity, as a result of task engagement (Warner & Strowman,
1994). A few studies have found that the frequency of a subject’s personal pronoun use (e.g., I,
me, my, mine, myself) may be an indicator of self-involvement and possibly indicates an
individual’s engagement in an interview (Singer, 1974). One particular study done by
Scherwitz, Bertona, and Leventhal (1978) discovered that coronary prone Type A behavior
subjects who used the most personal pronouns displayed extremely elevated SBP, slightly
elevated DBP, reduced HR and heightened peripheral vasoconstriction during an interview and
more emotional intensity as compared to Type A subjects who self-referenced less (Scherwitz et
al., 1978).
In a study done by Raskin and Shaw (1988), personal pronoun use and narcissism were
highly correlated. Furthermore, narcissism has recently been conceptualized as a type of
defensive (i.e., fragile or insecure) high self-esteem (Jordan. Spencer, Zanna, Hoshino-Browne,
Correll, 2003). Consistent with this is view is evidence that individuals scoring high in
narcissism react to negative feedback with more irritation and hostility compared to individuals
scoring low in narcissism [Kernis & Sun (1994) and Rhodewalt & Morf’s (1998) studies as cited
in Raskin & Shaw (1988)]. Therefore, to the extent that high self-referencing measures
narcissism, one might expect high self-referencers to be particularly vulnerable to the ego-
challenging stressor used in this study.
The amount of self-disclosure given by participants has been identified as a good
predictor of cardiovascular reactivity. A study done by Christensen and Smith (1993) showed

that self-disclosure was positively correlated with exaggerated cardiovascular reactivity in
cynically hostile people. There were no differences in reactivity between high and low hostile
subjects participating in a similar task that did not include having to disclose personal
information. Christensen and Smith (1993) proposed that daily situations that require trust,
reliance, or openness may have physiological consequences for cynical/hostile individuals.
Furthermore, this may not necessarily be true of only hostile people.
One aspect of cardiovascular reactivity that is highly understudied is its relationship to
self-esteem. This is surprising in light of Lazarus’ (1991) theory of stress, which focuses on the
ego and involves a specific appraisal process encompassing a certain set of decision making
components. The primary appraisals consist of goal significance (e.g., “Is this relevant to my
ego?”), goal symmetry or non-symmetry, and type of ego-involvement. Secondary appraisals
(i.e., coping) also play a significant part in the personal importance (i.e., ego-relevance) of the
potential stressor, regarding the person’s relationship with the environment and how it influences
the appraisal process. With regard to reactivity, in a study performed by Anderson and Lawler
(1994), subjects were given a chance to describe an angry incident in their lives and were coded
by the raters by type of anger arousal. The subject’s content could be coded into frustration of
autonomy, association, or self-esteem needs. It turns out that half of the Type A subjects
described an anger inducing situation that threatened their self-esteem. It was interpreted that
Type A behavior patterns are conceptualized as a coping mechanism to inner insecurities. The
study also showed that Type A personalities respond to threats to their self-esteem with a more
extreme degree of cardiovascular reactivity (Anderson & Lawler, 1994).

The present study introduced a new self-esteem or ego salient stressor to the
cardiovascular reactivity literature. Given the nature of our sample (male VMI cadets),
situations that challenge masculinity or toughness were viewed as salient to the self-esteem of
these participants. Thus, we developed the Masculinity/Toughness Challenging Interview
(MTCI) for this purpose. While no such task has ever been employed in the reactivity literature,
Lash, Eisler, and Schulman (1990) found that men performing a cold pressor task with
masculinity challenging instructions showed greater BP reactivity than men in a control cold
pressor condition.
The type of stressor we have chosen to focus on for the current study is a stress
interview. Compared to other more standardized tasks, the stress interview has been consistently
shown to induce a more extreme increase in BP when examined in many different studies that
used various stressor types (Dimsdale, Stern, & Dillon, 1988). Interview tasks vary in a number
of ways, including the extent to which they are standardized. In the present study, the MTCI is
regarded as an interview with a high degree of structure (e.g., time limit and fairly rigid
interviewer guidelines).
Purpose
In addition to introducing a new stressor, the MTCI, the primary purpose of the present
study was to correlate cardiovascular reactivity with interview ratings of different dimensions of
the content of the interview as well as the interpersonal style with which the participant
described his masculinity/toughness challenging event and the thoughts and feelings
experienced. Due to this study’s exploratory nature, no specific hypotheses were made a priori.

Method
Participants
In this study, there were 30 normotensive, male VMI cadets. The mean age of the
participants was 20.8 with an age range of 18-23 years. The ethnicities of the participants were
the following: 26 Caucasians, 3 African-Americans and 1 Caucasian-Latino. The participants
were offered course credit or extra credit in Psychology, Philosophy or Physical Education
courses at VMI.
Procedure
Screening procedures. Participants were told to refrain from the use of caffeine, alcohol,
nicotine and participating in strenuous exercise 3 hours prior to that particular subject’s time-slot.
The participants prescribed to use cardioactive medicines were asked to abstain, if possible, from
using these medicines. Participants with a resting BP ≥ 140 mmHg/90 mmHg as a result of two
averaged readings taken in the laboratory, received course credit/extra credit, but were excluded
from participation.
Stress reactivity session. Each participant was tested individually by a male
experimenter. Upon the arrival of the participant, compliance with restrictions was verified and
he was asked to complete preliminary questionnaires, including informed consent, demographic
and medical information and psychosocial questionnaires. After the participant completed the
questionnaires, he was escorted into the laboratory, specifically to the back of a long room into a
cubicle. Inside the cubicle, his height and weight were recorded. Then, the participant’s skin
was prepared for the experiment with alcohol and mildly abrasive pads and the experimenter

placed surface electrodes on the participant’s skin to enable the recording of impedance
cardiographic (ICG) data. Two electrodes were placed on each side of the participant’s neck and
abdomen. The participant was then asked to sit in the armchair with his right arm elevated on a
small table, where a blood pressure cuff was applied to the arm. The experimenter then took an
initial test reading of basic cardiovascular measures and asked the participant to rest alone for 5
minutes. Baseline positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) were then assessed. Following
the resting baseline period, the experimenter entered the room, sat down in a rolling chair located
in front of the participant, and read the initial instructions for the interview task. After the
instructions were read, the experimenter exited the room and allowed the participant one minute
to think of a topic to discuss during the interview. After one minute, the experimenter reentered
the room to administer the interview, while audiotaping the participant’s responses. When the
interview was finished, the experimenter thanked the participant, stopped the recording of the
tape, and gave instructions for another rest period. After the rest period was completed, the
experimenter reentered the room, administered measures of PA and NA experienced during the
interview, and stored the equipment away. The experimental protocol consisted of 5 minutes of
a resting baseline period, 1 minute of interview preparation, 3 minutes of the actual MTCI,
followed by a final 8 minute resting period.
MTCI. The MTCI was administered in two different parts, the preparation stage and the
actual interview. The preparation stage involved the subject telling the participant to recall a
time in his life when his masculinity or toughness was challenged or when he felt weak. The
experimenter then provided the participant with a few examples to choose from, but the
participant was not limited to the options the experimenter gave him. The participant was given
1 minute to think of a stressor, as the experimenter left the room.

In the actual interview, after the participant explained his experience, the experimenter
than asked “How did that make you feel about yourself?” The participant then answered the
question and the experimenter said “Tell me a little bit about how that experience made you
feel.” When the participant finished responding to that statement, the experimenter said “Tell me
a little bit more about what you were thinking in that situation.” Finally, the last question the
participant was asked to answer was “Could you please describe, in a little more detail, what
happened in that situation?” The participant was then thanked and told to stop if the full 3
minutes of the interview had passed and was then told to sit quietly and avoid moving for
another rest period lasting 8 minutes.
Self-report measures. Positive and negative state affect were assessed using the Positive
and Negative Affect Schedules (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1998). This is a reliable
and widely used measure of state affect. State affect reactivity, like cardiovascular reactivity,
was measured as the change between mean level of baseline state affect and the mean level of
state affect during the interview.
Physiological Recording. A BioZ ICG and noninvasive blood pressure monitor
(Cardiodynamics, San Diego, CA) was used to record SBP, DBP, and the cardiovascular
parameters from which HR, CO, and TPR are automatically derived.
Cardiovascular reactivity was calculated as the mean level of a given cardiovascular
measure during the preparation or interview period minus the level at baseline. In the resting
baseline period, BP was taken at 0 seconds, 2 minutes and 4 minutes. During the interview
preparation period, BP was taken only once at 0 seconds. In the actual interview, BP was taken
at 0 sec, 1 minute, and 2 minutes. In the second resting period (the 8 minute recovery period) BP

was taken at 1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, and 7 minutes. Heart rate and CO were derived
from cardiovascular measures that were sampled continuously, while TPR was computed from
CO and from the BP occurring the closest in time (TPR = mean arterial BP divided by CO).
Interview Coding Scale and Reliability. An MTCI coding sheet was used to rate both the
content of participants’ audiotaped interviews and the interpersonal style with which they
expressed themselves. Ten practice interviews were used to train the two raters. Then 6
interviews were used to obtain interrater reliability, but inadequate reliability was found on two
items, state self-esteem and self-disclosure, so the raters listened to interviews for an additional
four participants. Adequate reliability was obtained for self-disclosure, but not for state self-
esteem.
Variables assessed via the MTCI coding sheet
Self-references. An item that played a role in determining the degree of self-involvement
in the interview was how frequently the subject used personal pronouns. Based on literature
(Scherwitz et al., 1978), it was assumed that the higher the use of personal pronouns, the more
self-involved the participant was in the task. The interrater reliabilities (Pearson’s r) obtained for
each of the personal pronouns used (i.e., I, me, my, and myself) were the following: I, .95, me,
.93, my .97, myself, .99.
Task-engagement. Several different items on the MTCI coding sheet gauged variables
related to the degree to which the participant was engaged in the task. One item required the
rater to explicitly rate the degree to which the participant seemed engaged in the interview. The
interrater reliability for this measure (Pearson’s r) was .94. It was also interpreted that the longer

amount of time the participant spoke, the more engaged he was in the task. The interrater
reliability for the coding of the actual amount of time the participant spoke throughout the whole
interview (Pearson’s r) was .94. Finally, it was interpreted that the more vividly the participant
explained his past situation, the more engaged he was in the task. The interrater reliability for
vividness was found to be (Pearson’s r) .90.
Stressor category. Each participant’s recalled situation was initially categorized into one
of twelve different stressor types. The interrater reliability for stressor category turned out to be
K = 1.0.
Duration. Based on the measure used by Matthews et al. (1996), stressor duration was
rated based on raters’ perceptions of the situation being recalled in the interview as resolved,
ongoing (less then once a week), or frequent (more than once a week). The interrater reliability
for duration was found to be (Spearman’s ρ) 1.0.
Specific (Core) Emotion. Raters’ perceptions of the core emotion experienced by the
subject at the time the recalled event actually occurred were also coded. Seven core emotions
were used, anger, sadness, anxiety/fear, disgust, guilt, envy/jealousy, shame/embarrassment, and
pride (e.g, if someone’s masculinity or toughness was challenged but the subject was not actually
challenged; instead his ego was enhanced). The interater reliability found regarding core
emotions was (K) .78.
Control. The raters indicated the extent to which they perceived that the participant had
control over the situation that he explained to the interviewer. The interrater reliability found for
the level of control the participant had at the time the situation occurred was (Pearson’s r) .93.

Self-disclosure. The raters coded how much personal information the participant
disclosed about the situation, based on content (i.e., what the participant said) as a way to gauge
how they were feeling during the interview. The interrater reliability found for self-disclosure
was (Pearson’s r) .82.
Voice stylistics (Volume). The raters indicated the volume of the participant during the
experiment by judging how loud they thought the participant was speaking. The interrater
reliability found for volume during the interview was (Pearson’s r) .74.
Methods of data analysis
Preliminary correlational analyses were performed examining associations of
cardiovascular reactivity, interview ratings, and state affect reactivity with potential control
variables. Potential control variables examined were: baseline levels of cardiovascular variables
or state affect, body mass index (BMI), age, and parental history of hypertension (PH).
Correlations of interview ratings with cardiovascular reactivity to interview preparation
and the interview were computed. In instances where interview ratings and/or reactivity
variables had shown significant or near-significant associations with the above control variables,
then partial correlations were also performed. Analyses of variance were performed to examine
relationships of core emotion and stressor category with cardiovascular reactivity. Correlational
analyses were also performed to find information regarding interview ratings and state affect
reactivity. Once again in some cases, it was necessary to partial out the effects of the control
variables. Analyses of variance were also performed to examine associations of core emotion
and stressor category with state affect reactivity. Finally, correlations were also computed for

relationships between state affect reactivity and cardiovascular reactivity, where it was also
necessary to control for variables in some instances, using partial correlations.
Results
Inter-correlations among interview ratings. Correlations were found between different
dimensions of interview codings of the MTCI. Dimensions found to be correlated with one
another were: frequency of personal pronoun use, engagement, loudness, time, degree of control,
disclosure, and vividness. All correlations between MTCI dimensions were found using
Pearson’s r. Frequency of personal pronoun use was found to be significantly correlated with
engagement [r (27) = .70, p < .001], loudness [r (27) = .53, p < .01], and time [r (27) = .58, p <
.01]. Level of engagement turned out to be correlated with vividness [r (28) = .60, p < .001],
loudness [r ( 28) = .50, p < .01], and the amount of time the participant spoke [r (28) = .65, p <
.001]. Vividness and time were also correlated [r (28) = .48, p < .01]. Two non-significant
trends were found regarding disclosure with engagement [r (28) = .34, p <.10] and time [r (28) =
.36, p < .10].
Main Analyses
Correlations of interview ratings with cardiovascular reactivity to interview preparation.
Each of the cardiovascular measures was reviewed for correlations between interview ratings and
reactivity to the interview preparation period. It was found that the frequency with which the
participant used personal pronouns was positively correlated with DBP reactivity to interview
preparation [r (27) = .32, p < .10], but after partialling out the effects of baseline DBP, this trend
disappeared [r (26) = .30, p >.10]. The degree of control the subject was judged to have had over

the situation at the time that it occurred was negatively correlated with DBP reactivity [r (28) = -
.37, p <.05], but the results after partialling out the effects of baseline and BMI [r (26) = -.13, p
>.10] were no longer significant. There was a trend toward a positive correlation between
engagement and SBP reactivity [r (28) = .31, p <.10] even after controlling for BMI and PH [r
(21) = .36, p <.10]. Disclosure was positively correlated with DBP reactivity [r (28) = .42, p
<.05], but after partialling out the effects of baseline DBP, this became a nonsignificant trend [r
(27) = .37, p <.10]. Disclosure and TPR were positively correlated [r (28) = .40, p <.05] with no
controlling necessary. Engagement and DBP reactivity were positively correlated [r (28) = .49,
p <.01] initially, and the results, after partialling out for baseline DBP, BMI, and PH, were still
significant[r (20) = .48, p <.05]. Time and DBP were positively correlated [r (28) = .49, p <.01],
and after controlling for baseline DBP and BMI this correlation remained significant [r (26) =
.46, p <.05]. The amount of time the participant spoke showed to have a positive correlation
with TPR initially [r (28) = .35, p <.10], but after partialling out the effects of BMI, this trend
was not significant [r (27) = .30, p >.10].
Correlations of interview ratings with cardiovascular reactivity to the interview. Many
correlations were found regarding cardiovascular reactivity to the actual interview and interview
ratings. Pronoun use was positively correlated with DBP [r (27) = .41, p <.05] and TPR
reactivity [r (27) = .37, p <.05]. After controlling for PH, the correlation for DBP was still
significant [r (21) = .43, p < .05]. For TPR, no partialling was necessary. There was a
nonsignificant trend toward a positive correlation between engagement and SBP [r (28) = .32, p
< .10], but after partialling out the effects of BMI and PH, the correlation was nonsignificant [r =
.28, p >.10]. Engagement was also found to be correlated with increased DBP [r (28) = .45, p
<.05] and, after controlling for BMI and PH, the correlation remained significant [r (21) = .44, p

<.05]. The amount of time the participant spoke was found to be positively correlated with DBP
[r (28) = .44, p <.05] even after partialling out the effects of BMI and PH [r (21) = .49, p <.05].
Time also was found to be correlated initially with increased TPR [r (28) = .33, p <.10], but after
controlling for BMI, this relationship was no longer even a trend [r (27) = .31, p >.10].
One-way ANOVAs were performed to examine differences in cardiovascular reactivity
among core emotion groups and stressor category groups. Three core emotion groups were
formed: anger/envy/jealousy; anxiety/fear; shame/embarrassment. Like core emotion, there were
three stressor category groups, athletic challenge; slighting by, or competition over romantic
interest; other. The “other” category included such diverse stressors as being made fun of
because of a learning disability and getting lost and having to ask for directions. No significant
core emotion group or stressor category group differences in reactivity emerged from these
analyses.
Correlations of interview ratings with state affect reactivity. Correlational analyses
examining relationships between interview ratings and state affect reactivity revealed that the
amount of time the participant spoke was positively correlated with negative affect reactivity to
the interview [r (28) = .45, p <.05] and, after controlling for baseline NA and BMI, the final
correlation was found to be significant [r (26) = .47, p <.05]. Time showed to be negatively
correlated with PA [r (28) = -.40, p <.05], even after controlling for BMI [r (27) = -.49, p <.01].
Disclosure was found to be inversely correlated with PA reactivity [r (28) = -.32, p <.10] and
positively associated with NA reactivity [r (28) = .41, p <.05], with the former being a
nonsignificant trend. Engagement showed a nonsignificant trend toward being positively
correlated with NA [r (28) = .35, p <.10], but after partialling out the effects of BMI and PH [r

(21) = .32, p >.10], this finding did not hold. The degree of control the participant had over the
situation and PA were positively correlated [r (28) = .35, p <.10]; after controlling for BMI, this
finding became significant [r (27) = .41, p <.05].
One-way ANOVAs were performed to examine state affect reactivity differences among
core emotion and the stressor category groups. No significant differences were observed.
Correlations of state affect reactivity with cardiovascular reactivity. Two correlations
were found regarding state affect and cardiovascular reactivity during the interview. Negative
affect reactivity to the interview was correlated with SBP reactivity [r (28) = .42, p <.05].
Negative affect reactivity to the interview was also found to be correlated with DBP reactivity [r
(28) = .43, p <.05] but, after controlling for PH, the correlation was no longer significant [r (28)
= .34, p <.10].
Discussion
Summary and Interpretation of Findings
This study found several correlations between interview ratings and cardiovascular
reactivity to the interview preparation period and the actual interview. With regards to interview
preparation, a high degree of engagement was correlated with increased SBP and DBP; this held
true even when controlling for with baseline BP levels, BMI, and/or PH, although the finding for
SBP was just a trend. The amount of disclosure was positively correlated with both DBP and
TPR, although the finding for DBP reactivity became a nonsignificant trend after controlling for
baseline DBP. Another positive correlation was observed between the amount of time the

participant spoke and DBP reactivity, and this relationship was still significant after controlling
for baseline DBP and BMI.
The actual interview showed correlations of frequency of pronoun use, time, engagement,
and disclosure with reactivity. High pronoun use was associated with increased DBP reactivity
and TPR reactivity, with the finding for DBP holding even after controlling for PH. High
engagement was positively correlated with DBP and this relationship stayed significant even
after controlling for BMI and PH. The amount of time the participant spoke was positively
associated with DBP, and this finding held even after controlling for BMI and PH. Disclosure
was positively correlated with TPR, but this finding was just a trend.
There were several high intercorrelations found between some interview ratings on the
MTCI coding sheet. Pronoun use tended to be highly correlated with engagement, loudness and
time. Engagement also showed to be highly correlated with time and vividness. This suggests
that some dimensions of the MTCI may be drawing from the same underlying construct. For
example, the literature implies that the more a subject uses personal pronouns, the more engaged
that subject is in the task (Scherwitz et al., 1978). Similarly, in the present study, it seems quite
possible that the amount of time the subject spoke, the degree to which he was vivid in his recall
of the situation, and, possibly, the volume of his speech, were all indirect measures of how
engaged the subject was in the task. However, these high intercorrelations among MTCI
dimensions were not unexpected. The reason this initial version of the MTCI coding sheet used
multiple measures of the subject’s content and style that are similar was to make sure this critical
variable, engagement (Singer, 1978), was assessed to the fullest. In addition, according to
Scherwitz et al. (1978), “It is important to distinguish involvement in a task (e.g. interest,

curiosity) from self-involvement… the frequent self-referencer [i.e., high personal pronoun user]
is identifying his attitudes, actions, feelings, and imagery. He has, by definition, attached
himself to the content of his answers… [which means] he is not simply interested in the task for
its own right” (pp. 605-606). Furthermore, relevant to the use of the MTCI in the present study,
Scherwitz et al. (1978) note that their “… results do suggest that self involved individuals
experience past situations of threat and anger more vividly and more realistically bring to bear
past memories” (p. 605-606), which suggests the possibility of exaggerated cardiovascular
responses. Furthermore, as stated previously, high self-referencing may be related to narcissism,
which could make one vulnerable to the type of stressor used in the present study (Jordan et al.,
2003).
Literature suggests that task engagement has often been regarded as being closely
associated with myocardial reactivity, as opposed to vascular reactivity (Blascovich et al., 2001;
Obrist, 1981). This view is based upon the evidence that reactivity may be founded not only
upon task engagement, but the way the subject must cope with the stressor. Obrist (1981) found
that active coping tasks are usually associated with myocardial reactivity with regards to task
engagement. When a subject is engaged in an active coping task, the subject is more likely to
appraise the task as a challenge, which is more likely to be accompanied by positive emotion
(Tomaka et al., 1993).
In our view, the MTCI is a passive coping task, meaning the subject has little control over
the stressor itself. It was considered a passive coping task because it was interpreted that the
subject was replaying a time where they felt weak or when there toughness was challenged. The

experimenters found this similar to aversive film watching, also regarded as a passive coping
task.
The engagement involved in passive coping tasks is usually associated with negative
emotion, as in the subject would rather not be participating in the task. Passively coping with a
task would still be considered a type of engagement and usually brings with it a vascular
response (Obrist, 1981), consistent with the association between measures of engagement and
vascular reactivity in the present study. One reason that vascular reactivity may be commonly
associated with engagement in passive coping tasks would be that passive coping tasks may only
follow threat appraisals, which are more likely to be followed by negative emotion (Tomaka et
al., 1993). Consistent with this view is the fact that, in the present study, interview ratings,
including one measure of engagement (i.e., time), and state affect reactivity were found to have
several significant and near-significant correlations. The more time the subject spoke the greater
the increase in NA the subject felt, which was still true when controlling for baseline NA and
BMI. Time also was correlated with change in PA; the more time the subject spoke, the less
positive emotion was reported. Also in support of the notion that engagement in a passive
coping task increases the likelihood of negative emotion are findings regarding associations of
control and self-disclosure with state affect. Control was associated with PA reactivity;
specifically the less control the subject had over the situation (i.e., the more passively he coped
with the situation) when it occurred, the less positive emotion he felt, and this finding was
significant after controlling for BMI. Finally, the more personal information the subject
disclosed, the more negative emotion and the less positive emotion he felt during the interview,
although the latter finding was just a trend. One limitation that is seen is that state affect was
weakly associated to cardiovascular reactivity. There were only two findings of correlations

between state affect reactivity and cardiovascular reactivity. Negative affect reactivity was
correlated with SBP and DBP, but the finding for DBP was no longer significant after controlling
for PH.
The findings in this study seemed to be consistent with the literature. Scherwitz et al.
(1978) found that Type A’s who self-referenced more than average showed elevated
cardiovascular reactivity. The current study specifically showed that people who self-referenced
more had increased DBP reactivity and TPR reactivity to the interview. This may reflect greater
personal investment in a threatening task (Scherwitz et al., 1978) and/or greater vulnerability to
ego threat, particularly if high self-referencers are narcissistic. Disclosure was also found to be
related to increased TPR reactivity during the interview and elevated DBP during interview prep.
These findings are consistent with Christensen and Smith’s (1993) study which provided
evidence, in hostile individuals, that the more personal information people reveal, the more
exaggerated their cardiovascular responses will be.
Surprisingly, next to no findings were present in this study regarding speech volume and
cardiovascular reactivity. The literature suggests that people that speak at a louder volume will
show exaggerated BP, but no such results were apparent in the current study (Siegman et al.,
1990). This could possibly be explained by the confounded relationship between speech rate and
volume, as suggested by Siegman et al. (1990).
A limitation of this study would be that it may not have high external validity, meaning it
cannot be generalized outside of certain conditions. First, this study was conducted in a
laboratory, although the comparability of this laboratory investigation to a real life situation
would seem to be enhanced by the use of a stressor requiring the participant to discuss an event

from his personal life. Second, the sample for this experiment consisted of primarily Caucasian
male VMI cadets. Another limitation of this study was the relatively small sample size. The fact
that relationships were observed between interview ratings and reactivity speaks to the
robustness of these findings.
As stated previously, the MTCI is a unique contribution of our study to the rest of the
field. While stress interviews have been utilized many times prior to this study, the MTCI is the
first to challenge the masculinity or toughness of the subject. Since self/task involvement and
self-disclosure during this masculinity/toughness challenging task elicited a “Pattern 2” response
associated with vascular reactivity, and given increasing evidence that vascular reactivity may be
particularly harmful (e.g., Kapuku et al., 1999), these findings suggest that men who frequently
experience stressors that challenge their masculinity or toughness or who are otherwise
vulnerable to this type of ego-threat may be at increased risk for hypertension and/or coronary
heart disease.

References
Anderson, S. F., & Lawler, K. A. (1994). The Anger Recall Interview and cardiovascular
reactivity in women: An examination of context and experience. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 39(3), 335-343.
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001). Perceiver
threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(2), 253-267.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It's all about me: Narcisstic chief executive officers
and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,
52, 351-386.
Christensen, A. J., & Smith, T. W. (1993). Cynical hostility and cardiovascular reactivity during
self-disclosure. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 193-202.
Dimsdale, J. E., Stern, M. J., & Dillon, E. (1988). The stress interview as a tool for examining
physiological reactivity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 50, 64-71.
Goldberg, A. D., Becker, L. C., & Bonsall, R., et al. (1996). Ischemic, hemodynamic, and
neurohormonal responses to mental exercise stress: Experience from the
Psychophysiological Investigations of Myocardial Ischemia Study (PIMI). Circulation, 94,
2402-2409.

Heponiemi, T., Elovaino, M., Pulkki, L., Puttonen, S., Raitakari, O., & Keltikangas-Jarvinem, L.
(2007). Cardiac autonomic reactivity and recovery in predicting carotid atherosclerosis: The
Cardiovascular Risk In Young Finns Study. Health Psychology, 26, 13-21.
Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Correll, J. (2003). Secure and
defensive self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 969-978.
Kapuku, G. K., Treiber, F. A., Davis, H. C., Harshfield, G. A., Cook, B. B., & Mensah, G. A.
(1999). Hemodynamic at rest, during acute stress, and in the field: Predictors of cardiac
structure and function 2 years later in youth. Hypertension, 34, 1026- 1031.
Kline, K. A., Saab, P. G., & Llabre, M. M. (2005). Behavioral indices of threat and challenge in
hispanic adolescents and hemodynamic responses to a speech stressor. International Journal
of Psychophysiology, 55, 343-348.
Lash, S. J., Eisler, R. M., & Schulman, R. S. (1990). Cardiovascular reactivity to stress in men.
Behavior Modification, 14(1), 3-20.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Manuck, S. B., Kamarck, E. S., Kasprowicz, A. S., & Waldstein, S. R. (1993). Stability and
patterning of behaviorally evoked cardiovascular reactivity. Cardiovascular Reactivity to
Psychophysiological Stress and Disease, 111-134.

Matthews, K. A., Gump, B. B., Block, D. R., & Allen, M. T. (1996). Does background stress
heighten or dampen children's cardiovascular responses to acute stress? Psychosomatic
Medicine, 59, 488-496.
Obrist, P.A., 1981. Cardiovascular psychophysiology. A perspective. New York: Plenum Press.
Raskin, R., & Shaw, R. (1988). Narcissism and the use of personal pronouns. Journal of
Personality, 56(2), 393-404.
Saab, P.G., Kline, K.A., & McCalla, J.R. (2007). Mental stress testing. In G. Fink (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of stress (2nd
ed.). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Scherwitz, L., Berton, K., & Leventhal, H. (1978). Type A behavior, self-involvement, and
cardiovascular response. Psychosomatic Medicine, 40(8), 593-609.
Sherwood, A., Johnson, K., Blumenthal, J. A., & Hinderliter, A. L. (1999). Endothelial function
and hemodynamic responses during mental stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61, 365-370.
Siegman, A. W., Anderson, R. A., & Berger, T. (1990). The angry voice: Its effects on the
experience of anger and cardiovascular reactivity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 52, 631-643.
Singer, M. T. (1974). Presidential address -- engagement-involvement: A central phenomenon in
psychophysiological research. Psychosomatic Medicine, 36(1), 1-17.
Sinha, R., Lovallo, W. R., & Parsons, O. A. (1992). Cardiovascular differentiation of emotions.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 54, 422-435.

Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R. M., & Leitten, C. L. (1993). Subjective, physiological, and
behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65(2), 248-260.
Treiber, F. A., McCaffrey, F., Pflieger, K., Raunikar, R. A., Strong, W. B., & Davis, H. (1993).
Determinants of left ventricular mass in normotensive children. American Journal of
Hypertension, 6, 505-513.
Warner, R. M., & Strowman, S. R. (1995). Cardiovascular reactivity and positive/negative affect
during conversations. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18(2), 141-159.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, (54), 1063-1070.

DAVISCM SURI paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to DAVISCM SURI paper

Similar to DAVISCM SURI paper (19)

DAVISCM SURI paper