Narrative centrality and negative affectivity: independent and interactive contributors to stress reactions.

Reactions to stressful negative events have long been studied using approaches based on either the narrative interpretation of the event or the traits of the individual. Here, we integrate these 2 approaches by using individual-differences measures of both the narrative interpretation of the stressful event as central to one's life and the personality characteristic of negative affectivity. We show that they each have independent contributions to stress reactions and that high levels on both produce greater than additive effects. The effects on posttraumatic stress symptoms are substantial for both undergraduates (Study 1, n = 2,296; Study 3, n = 488) and veterans (Study 2, n = 104), with mean levels for participants low on both measures near floor on posttraumatic stress symptoms and those high on both measures scoring at or above diagnostic thresholds. Study 3 included 3 measures of narrative centrality and 3 of negative affectivity to demonstrate that the effects were not limited to a single measure. In Study 4 (n = 987), measures associated with symptoms of posttraumatic stress correlated substantially with either measures of narrative centrality or measures of negative affectivity. The concepts of narrative centrality and negative affectivity and the results are consistent with findings from clinical populations using similar measures and with current approaches to therapy. In broad nonclinical populations, such as those used here, the results suggest that we might be able to substantially increase our ability to account for the severity of stress response by including both concepts.

Differential predictability of four dimensions of affect intensity.

Individual differences in affect intensity are typically assessed with the Affect Intensity Measure (AIM). Previous factor analyses suggest that the AIM is comprised of four weakly correlated factors: Positive Affectivity, Negative Reactivity, Negative Intensity and Positive Intensity or Serenity. However, little data exist to show whether its four factors relate to other measures differently enough to preclude use of the total scale score. The present study replicated the four-factor solution and found that subscales derived from the four factors correlated differently with criterion variables that assess personality domains, affective dispositions, and cognitive patterns that are associated with emotional reactions. The results show that use of the total AIM score can obscure relationships between specific features of affect intensity and other variables and suggest that researchers should examine the individual AIM subscales.