Microanalysis of the relationship between goal self-efficacy and cardiovascular reactivity. A test for the moderating role of incentive value and the mediating role of anxiety

Intraocular Pressure Reactivity to Social Stressors

Abstract. A field study was carried out in an optometry clinic, aimed at assessing the role of perceived control and aversiveness of non-contact tonometry in intraocular pressure (IOP) reactivity to psychosocial stressors, and analyzing the covariation with cardiovascular and affective reactivity. Forty-four customers volunteered to participate in the study. Perceived control (self-efficacy and threat) was assessed at the onset. IOP, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, affect, and aversiveness of the IOP measurement procedure were assessed throughout five phases with a mean duration for each phase of 9 min: arrival, optometry, baseline, stressor task (speech in public task), and recovery. The results suggest that IOP decreases over time and the stressor task induced a remarkable reactivity in all the physiological variables assessed. The interaction between self-efficacy and threat partially explains individual variability in IOP: a high threat combined with a high self-efficacy yielded higher reactivity in IOP or increased tonic values throughout the phases. The aversiveness of the measurement procedure did not affect IOP. Intraocular Pressure (IOP) is reactive to social stressors and perceived control partially explains individual variability. Cardiovascular and IOP reactivity are parallel phenomena but do not share a common regulatory mechanism.

Self-Efficacy as a Mechanism Linking Daily Stress to Mental Health in Students: A Three-Wave Cross-Lagged Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

While stress is generally well established to be predictive for different indicators of mental health, little is known about the longitudinal effects of daily life stressors and the role of self-evaluation factors. We tested whether perceived general self-efficacy is a mediator for the association between daily life stressors and psychopathological symptoms as well as subjective well-being.

METHODS

Data derived from 2160 Chinese university students was assessed at three time points with one-year intervals. We used the Brief Daily Stressor Screening, the General Self-Efficacy Scale, the Positive Mental Health Scale, and the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales. Total, direct, and indirect effects were estimated using 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals and structural equation modeling.

RESULTS

Latent variable mediation analyses showed that daily stressors were associated with increased symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress and with decreased subjective well-being. All cross-lagged mediational paths via self-efficacy were significant in predicting positive and negative mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering stress of daily life as well as including the two dimensions of mental health may be important for future research and practice. This study provides novel evidence for mediating stress effects by perceived self-efficacy, which should be focused in intervention- and prevention-based approaches.

Costs and benefits of self-efficacy: Differences of the stress response and clinical implications

Encounters with stressors induce diverse idiosyncratic neuroendocrine, behavioral and psychological reactions across people. Perceived self-efficacy can alter autonomic responses and their effects on mental health. The beneficial effects of self-efficacy in buffering physiological arousal, enhancing performance, and diminishing psychopathological symptoms have been observed in diverse contexts. We show that the role of self-efficacy is not uniformly beneficial, and that higher levels of self-efficacy can sometimes lead to increases in neuroendocrine and psychological stress responses and decreases in performance, a phenomenon that has been widely neglected. We discuss specific conditions under which self-efficacy effects do not uniformly ameliorate or prevent the consequences of stress. These conditions suggest that therapeutic interventions need not always promote self-efficacy in principal. Simultaneously, they to do suggest that keeping self-efficacy high might be disadvantageous or detrimental.