Page 154 - Biobehavioral Resilence to Stress

Psychophysiology of Resilience to Stress 131

resilient individuals less likely to generalize negative outcomes and thus
better able to differentiate among safety signals, innocuous cues, and real

threats (Charney, 2004). The ability to quickly and effi ciently recognize the

absence or nonoccurrence of an anticipated stressor may depend heavily on

how the stressor was anticipated in the first place. We contend that the more
certain an individual is about the occurrence of an anticipated stressor, the
more time that the individual will need to recognize the safety signal as such

and then to recover. Perceived certainty can be influenced by two factors. First,
there may be information concerning statistical probability of the stressor’s
occurrence. For example, in the case of breast cancer, a physician might tell
the patient that there is a 25% chance of malignancy. However, it is impor-

tant to note that the effect of the understood statistical likelihood that the

stressor will occur will be greatly affected by the severity of the stressor itself.
If the stressor is understood to be life-threatening (e.g., cancer), even a rela-
tively small percentage of its occurrence may generate a signifi cant negative
emotional anticipatory response (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer &
Vohs, 2001).

The second influence on perceived certainty stems from the individual

personality differences. Some people tolerate high levels of uncertainty

(Freeston, Rheaume & Letarte, 1994) with fewer negative eff ects than
people who are more sensitive to uncertainty. Individuals who are able to
tolerate high levels of uncertainty may also be more optimistic (Scheier
& Carver, 1985) and more inclined to embrace the possibility of a posi-

tive outcome (Norem & Cantor, 1986). Thus, if two individuals anticipate
the same stressor with the same real probability of occurrence, they may
experience very different emotional reactions due to their individual levels

of tolerance.
In general, the greater the perceived probability of any given stressor’s
actual occurrence, the more similar will be its anticipatory eff ects to those
of a stressor that is certain to occur (Paterson & Neufield, 1987; Waugh,

Fredrickson & Taylor, 2006). An explanation for this point is that when the
perceived certainty of stress is high, the intuitive response is to orient to
its probable occurrence as a need to be “better safe than sorry” and thus to
prepare psychologically and physiologically for the worst (i.e., expect that
stress will occur). Individuals who adopt this approach and are wrong—
that is, stress does not occur—will have to adjust more dramatically to a
subsequent (unexpected, unprepared-for) presentation of a safety signal.

Thus, we would expect the “better safe than sorry” approach to be associ-
ated with slower physiological recovery to baseline. By contrast, individuals
who adopt a “wait and see” approach by focusing on the possibility that the
stressor may not occur may achieve better conservation of physiological and
emotional energy prior to observing the safety signal. In theory, the “wait
and see” approach would avoid the impact of surprise and thus promote

12/15/2007 6:10:24 PM
CRC_71777_Ch006.indd 131
CRC_71777_Ch006.indd 131 12/15/2007 6:10:24 PM