LEAN ON ME 1

Lean on Me:

The Effect of Social Support and Extraversion on Stress-Coping

Shruti Shankar Ram, Aaron Berg, Jack Graham & Jo Patterson

Centre College

Danville, KY

LEAN ON ME 2

Abstract

Past research shows that introverts are more likely to use problem-focused coping and deal with

stressors independently whereas extroverts are more likely to get social support from their family

and friends (Swickert, Rosentreter, Hittner & Mushrush, 2002). The researchers wanted to see if

introverts and extroverts needed use a certain coping method that was particular to their own

personality type to reduce stress, or if they could use any stress-coping strategy. The researchers

hypothesized that introverts and extroverts using coping methods that came naturally to them

(problem-focused for introverts; social-support seeking for extroverts) in order to reduce their

stress levels would have lower stress levels then when they used the other coping strategy. 35

participants from a small liberal arts college were randomly assigned to either the isolated

condition, which induced problem-focused coping, or the partner condition, which induced

social-support coping. The stress levels, measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

(Spielberger et. al., 1983), were compared to their Extraversion levels, measured using the Big

Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999), and condition. A randomized factorial ANOVA

revealed non-significant main effects and interactions of extraversion and condition on stress.

Results also showed a significant correlation between stress and neuroticism and between

extraversion and neuroticism. The marginal means were consistent with the hypothesis as

introverts had lower stress levels in the isolated condition and extroverts had lower stress levels

in the partner condition. Introverts had higher stress levels overall.

Keywords: social-support, problem-focused coping, stress, extraversion

LEAN ON ME 3

Introduction

The researchers were interested in how personality and coping methods affected an

individual's experience of stress. In particular, we wanted to see if individuals needed to use

certain coping mechanisms related to their personality to relieve stress or if any coping methods

could be used. We were interested in this because we thought that individuals should use healthy

coping mechanisms that most relieve their stress, and if they do not feel predisposed to use that

coping mechanism, maybe intervention is required to let them know of the alternatives.

Everyone has different ways of dealing with their stress (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub,

1989) and past research has shown that personality influences the perception of the stressor and

stress level, which in turn can influence the coping strategy used (Vollrath, 2001). Research from

Baltes, Zhdanova and Clark (2011) lends support to the fact that coping strategies for stress are

affected by personality.

The 'Big Five' personality traits – Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness,

Neuroticism and Agreeableness have provided a reliable measure that has increased studies of

personality and stress (Vollrath, 2001). In particular, Extraversion has more of a biological

influence than any other Big Five traits and has emerged as a 'singularly powerful influence' on

support seeking, a kind of coping strategy (Amirkhan, Risinger, & Swickert, 1995). Moreover,

research shows that people high in Extraversion consider themselves, on average, to be less

stressed than people low in Extraversion (i.e. Introverts) (Vollrath and Torgerson, 2000). This led

us to hypothesize that there was something unique about Extraversion that may influence an

individual's experience of stress and coping strategy used.

Introverts tend to focus inward on their thoughts and feel less comfortable in a social

LEAN ON ME 4

setting. Extroverts, on the other hand, take social settings in their stride and focus outward,

thinking less and communicating more with the people around them (Freyd, 1924). Using this

information we can see that socializing is important to extroverts, but not introverts, and this

could translate to stress-coping as well.

Lazarus (1997) defined two over-arching coping strategies - problem-focused and

emotion-focused coping. Problem focused coping involves tackling the stressor directly and

learning how to deal with it whereas emotion focused coping involves releasing the frustration

involved with the stressor. A lot of emotion-focused coping mechanisms are negative, such as

avoidance. However, social support seeking, which is talking through problem which other

people and getting their input and advice, is seen as a positive emotion-focused coping strategy.

(Folkman and Moskowitz, 2000).

Research by Kardum and Krapic (2001) showed that extroverts were more likely to use

emotion-focused strategies such as venting, which involved other people, while introverts used

more problem-focused coping such as directly tackling the issue. Swickert, Rosentreter, Hittner

& Mushrush (2002) found that extroverts are more pre-disposed to using social support as a

coping mechanism and this lowers their stress levels and that introverts are more likely to handle

the stress on their own since this can be done alone without help from other people. The

researchers considered this trend of stress-coping as consistent with an individual's personality

and was an indication that social-support seeking is a crucial difference in the experience of

stress between extroverts and introverts.

However, most past research has been correlational studies that only explored the

relationship between personality types, stress and coping, but we were interested in designing an

LEAN ON ME 5

experimental design to expand on past research. The present study sought to test if use of social

support by extroverts lowered stress for extroverts only since it came more naturally to them, or

see if introverts could also be influenced to make use of social support and lower their stress

levels. We theorized that introverts would use more problem-focused coping since this can be

done alone with use of social support, and see if extroverts could be influenced to use problem-

focused coping and if this lowered their stress levels or worked only for introverts. We

hypothesized that coping methods that came naturally to each personality type (social support

seeking for Extroverts; problem-focused coping for introverts) would lower stress levels more so

than using a coping method that did not relate to their personality types. The outcome of this

experiment could show how colleges could help students deal with stress effectively according to

their personality type, or show them new coping strategies if the hypothesis is proven wrong and

using more diverse coping strategies to more effectively mitigate stress.

Methods

Subjects

The participants of this study were 35 students from Centre College, of which 23 were

Male and 12 were Female. 15 of the students were in the isolated condition and 20 of the

students were in the partner condition. Students in all four years and a diverse variety of majors

were represented in the sample. All participants were PSY 110 students who were recruited

through the Centre College Research Participant Sign-Up System (SONA) and were given

course credit for taking part in the experiment.

Procedure

A post-test was done before the study was carried out with three other students from the

LEAN ON ME 6

researchers' Experimental Design class. After this the researchers decided to time the anagram

task to not only induce more stress but also ensure that all participants ended the task and began

the post-test at the same time.

The researchers conducted six sessions in which they collected data. Each participant

stayed for one thirty-minute session where they were given an anonymous Qualtrics survey with

two parts. Researchers randomly assigned participants to condition but all participants took the

same Qualtrics survey. Participants in the first two sessions were in the isolated condition and

those in the remaining four sessions were in the partner condition.

Part I of the Qualtrics survey included a consent form and questions concerning general

demographic information like year, gender and major, as well as a shortened version of the Big

Five Inventory questionnaire (John & Srivastava, 1999). This questionnaire included 44

questions and measured all of the Big Five traits. 9 out of the 44 questions pertained to

Extraversion and were used to calculate the participants' Extraversion level. Since the mean level

of Extraversion was very high, 3.5 was used as the cut-off point between high Extraversion

(Extroverts) and low Extraversion (Introverts) since it was closer to the median. For the purpose

of this experiment, only Extraversion and Neuroticism were studied, but including questions for

the other traits helped maintain the validity of the experiment by making it more difficult for the

participants to guess the hypothesis.

In addition to this the researchers also planned a cover story so participants would not

change their behavior to fit the hypothesis – instead of revealing the study was about personality,

social support and stress, the researchers pretended that the study was about problem solving. If

the participants were curious after the experiment, the researchers revealed their true hypothesis.

LEAN ON ME 7

After participants completed part I of the experiment, the survey led participants to a

screen which told them they had to finish a task before moving on to part II of the survey.

Researchers gave out word anagrams to the participants. If the participants were in the isolated

condition, they were required to work alone on the anagrams, and if they were in the social

support condition, the participants worked with one assigned partner to solve the anagrams, who

was another participant. The researchers timed the task so the participants had exactly 10 minutes

to solve 15 anagrams, of which 7 were unsolvable and the rest were solvable. The participants

were unaware that some of the anagrams were unsolvable and that this was a mechanism to

increase stress.

After completing the anagrams, the participants were allowed to move on to part II of the

Qualtrics survey. In this section, the participants completed the specific and general State Trait

Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger et. al., 1983) and asked to rate how difficult the anagram

task was.

Materials

For this experiment the researchers used primarily two measures, the Big-Five Inventory

and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, as well as the fifteen anagrams given to the participants to

induce stress.

Extroversion/Introversion Measure

The researchers used the small Big-Five Inventory (BFI) (John & Srivastava, 1999) to

measure Extraversion. This Inventory asked 44 questions, which all began with the statement 'I

see Myself as Someone Who...' followed by a few descriptive phrases such as 'is reserved' or 'is

outgoing, sociable'. Participants rated the statements on a five-point Likert scale from 1

LEAN ON ME 8

('Disagree Strongly)' to 5 ('Agree Strongly'). About a third of the questions were reverse-scored.

(See Appendix A)

Stress measure

The researchers used the specific State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et. al., 1983)

to see how stressed the participants felt at that moment after solving the anagram. The inventory

had 20 items and began with a statement saying 'I feel/am' followed by an adjective such as

'tense' or 'strained'. Participants rated how much like the adjective they felt like in the current

situation on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 ('Not at All') to 4 (''Very Much So'). (See Appendix A)

Anagrams

Fifteen anagrams were used by the researchers to induce stress in both the partner and

isolated conditions. The anagrams were found online and compiled. The anagrams were always

given in the same order and the seven unsolvable anagrams were interspersed with the eight

solvable ones. (See Appendix B)

Results

A Randomized Factorial ANOVA revealed a non-significant main effect of

Isolated/Partner Condition on stress, F (1, 31) = 0.006, p=0.94, η2<0.001, where the stress level

of people in the Isolated Condition (M=2.27, SD=0.6) was approximately equal to the stress

level of people in the Partner Condition (M=2.28, SD=0.55). It also revealed a non-significant

main effect of level of Extraversion on on stress, F (1, 31) = 1.13, p=0.29, η2=0.035, where the

stress level of Introverts (M=2.28, SD=0.57) was slightly higher than the stress level of

Extroverts (M=2.19, SD=0.58). The interaction of Extraversion and Condition on stress was also

non-significant, F (1, 31) = 0.13, p=0.72, η2=0.004. These results can be seen in Table 1.

LEAN ON ME 9

Stress (M=2.28; SD=0.57) was negatively and moderately correlated with Extraversion

(M=3.27; SD=0.72; r(35)=-0.29, p=0.097), but the results were non-significant. The researchers

also looked at the correlation between Neuroticism and Stress and found that Stress (M=2.28;

SD=0.57) was positively and moderately correlated with Neuroticism (M=2.67; SD=0.78;

r(35)=0.37, p=0.03) and these results were significant at the 0.05 level (see Table (4)). In

addition, Neuroticism (M=2.67; SD=0.78) was negatively and moderately correlated to

Extraversion (M=3.27; SD=0.72; r(35)=-0.44, p=0.008) and this result was significant at the 0.01

level. These correlations can be seen in Table 2.

Another Randomized Factorial ANOVA, where Extraversion and Neuroticism were run

as covariates, revealed a non-significant main effect of Extraversion on Stress, F (1, 31) = 0.69,

p=0.41, η2=0.02, and a non-significant effect of Condition on Stress, F (1, 31) = 0.15, p=0.69,

η2=0.01. However there was a marginal main effect of Neuroticism, F (1, 31) = 2.90, p=0.09,

η2=0.09.

Despite the non-significant main effects and interactions, the estimated marginal means

of stress revealed results similar to the hypothesis. The stress levels of introverts in the partner

condition (M=2.46; SE=0.21) were higher than stress levels of introverts in the isolated condition

(M=2.37; SE=0.26). In addition, extroverts in the isolated condition (M=2.23; SE=0.18) had

higher stress levels than extroverts in the partner condition (M=2.17; SE=0.17). However,

introverts had higher stress levels overall. The graphical representation of the estimated marginal

means can be seen in Figure 1.

Discussion

Even though there were no significant main effects or interactions found in this study, the

LEAN ON ME 10

marginal means and graph do reveal results consistent with the original hypothesis. As

hypothesized, introverts had lower stress levels when they were asked to work on the anagram

alone, which induced the use of problem-focused coping which came naturally to them.

Conversely, extroverts has lower stress levels when they were asked to work on the anagram

with a partner, which induced the use of social-support, which was the coping strategy that was

more natural to them. introverts had higher stress levels on average than Introverts did, which

reflects past research by Vollrath and Torgerson (2000), where extroverts reported feeling less

stressed.

There were several limitations in the present study that may have compromised the

validity of the results. For example, out of a sample size of 35, there were only 15 participants in

the isolated condition and 20 participants in the partner condition, which is a relatively small

number and might not be representative of the population. Another limitation is that the

participants might not have really felt compelled to use another kind of coping mechanism

depending on the condition. Though the participants in the isolated condition were forced to use

problem-focused coping, participants in the partner condition interacted in varying amounts, and

might have still used problem-focused coping while interacting minimally with their partner. The

final limitation identified in this study was the effect of the personality of the participants' partner

in the partner condition. Since the participants in the partner condition had other participants as

their partners the effect of their partner's Extraversion on their own coping methods or interaction

level was not standardized or controlled for, and this might have affected the results depending

on wether the participant was paired with another that was high in Extraversion, low in

Extraversion or was the same level as them or not. Hence, future studies should consider having

LEAN ON ME 11

a larger sample size for both conditions and look at Extraversion of the partner as another

variable to be studied. In addition, future studies could also consider designing an experiment

where the partners in the partner condition are confederates as that would also help standardize

the level of interaction in the partner condition.

Though there were no significant main effects or interactions, the correlation between

Extraversion and Stress somewhat reflects this because it was a relatively weak moderate

relationship that was non-significant. In contrast however, we found that the relationship

between Neuroticism and Extraversion to be moderate and significant. This suggests that

although past research has suggested the strong influence of Extraversion, it may be Neuroticism

that is truly the biggest factor in determining experience of stress and future studies should focus

on this trait of the Big-Five instead. Past studies have shown that Extraversion and Neuroticism

are negatively correlated and co-occur (Amirkhan, Risinger, & Swickert, 1995), and this is

reflected in the significant negative correlation between Extraversion and Neuroticism in the

present study. This suggests that there may be a third variable problem occurring and the effects

of Neuroticism on Stress may really be Extraversion. The Randomized Factorial ANOVA

revealed that Neuroticism had a marginal main effect on Stress, as opposed to Extraversion

which had a non-significant main effect. Future studies should look at the differential effects of

high and low Neuroticism on Stress since these results indicate that Neuroticism may be the real

big factor in stress-coping.

From the results we can infer that it does not matter greatly what kind of coping

mechanism is used, as long as these coping methods are positive. Though maladaptive coping

mechanisms were not explored in this study, past research has showed that maladaptive coping

LEAN ON ME 12

mechanisms, such as avoidance and use of alcohol and drugs, are more harmful to students

(Brougham, Zail, Mendoza, & Miller, 2009) as opposed to problem-focused coping and social-

support coping. Thus, college students should not have to worry which kind of coping methods

they are using as long as they are not maladaptive. Instead, they should be encouraged to use

coping methods in general, especially positive ones. Knowledge about other coping mechanisms

will inform college students about other ways to cope with their stress in cases where a student

finds that the coping mechanism they naturally gravitate to is not working for them personally.

LEAN ON ME 13

References

Amirkhan, J. H., Risinger, R. T., & Swickert, R. J. (1995). Extraversion: A "hidden" personality

factor in coping? Journal of Personality, 63(2), 189-212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1995.tb00807.x

Baltes, B. B., Zhdanova, L. S., & Clark, M. A. (2011). Examining the relationships between

personality, coping strategies, and work–family conflict. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 26(4), 517-530. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9207-0

Brougham, R. R., Zail, C. M., Mendoza, C. M., & Miller, J. R. (2009). Stress, sex differences,

and coping strategies among college students. Current Psychology,28(2), 85-97.

10.1007/s12144-009-9047-0

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A

theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267-

283. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.56.2.267

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Stress, positive emotion, and coping. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 9(4), 115-118. 10.1111/1467-8721.00073

Freyd, M. (1924). Introverts and extroverts. Psychological Review, 31(1), 74-87.

doi:10.1037/h0075875

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and

theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:

Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

Kardum, I., & Krapić, N. (2001). Personality traits, stressful life events, and coping styles in

early adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences,30(3), 503-515.

LEAN ON ME 14

doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00041-6

Lazarus, R. S. (1998). Fifty years of the research and theory of R.S. Lazarus: An analysis of

historical and perennial issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for

the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Swickert, R. J., Rosentreter, C. J., Hittner, J. B., & Mushrush, J. E. (2002). Extraversion, social

support processes, and stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(5), 877-891.

doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00093-9

Vollrath, M. (2001). Personality and stress. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 335-347.

doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00245

Vollrath, M., & Torgersen, S. (2000). Personality types and coping. Personality and Individual

Differences, 29(2), 367-378. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00199-3

LEAN ON ME 15

Appendix A

Part 1

1. What year are you?

□ First-year

□ Sophomore

□ Junior

□ Senior

□ Fifth-year Senior

2. What is your Gender?

□ Male

□ Female

□ Gender fluid, transgender, etc.

3. What is your major?

______________________________________________________

4. Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do

you agree that you are someone who likes to spend time with others? For the following

questions, please rate how much the characteristics agree with your own personality and

dispositions, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree.

1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

I see Myself as Someone Who...

Is talkative 1 2 3 4 5

Tends to find fault with others 1 2 3 4 5

LEAN ON ME 16

Does a thorough job 1 2 3 4 5

Is depressed, blue 1 2 3 4 5

Is original, comes up with new ideas 1 2 3 4 5

Is reserved 1 2 3 4 5

Is helpful and unselfish with others 1 2 3 4 5

Can be somewhat careless 1 2 3 4 5

Is relaxed, handles stress well 1 2 3 4 5

Is curious about many different things 1 2 3 4 5

Is full of energy 1 2 3 4 5

Starts quarrels/arguments with others 1 2 3 4 5

Is a reliable worker 1 2 3 4 5

Can be tense 1 2 3 4 5

Is ingenious, a deep thinker 1 2 3 4 5

Generates a lot of enthusiasm 1 2 3 4 5

Has a forgiving nature 1 2 3 4 5

Tends to be disorganized 1 2 3 4 5

Worries a lot 1 2 3 4 5

Has an active imagination 1 2 3 4 5

Tends to be quiet 1 2 3 4 5

Is generally trusting 1 2 3 4 5

Tends to be lazy 1 2 3 4 5

Is emotionally stable, not easily upset 1 2 3 4 5

LEAN ON ME 17

Is inventive 1 2 3 4 5

Has an assertive personality 1 2 3 4 5

Can be cold and aloof 1 2 3 4 5

Perseveres until the task is finished 1 2 3 4 5

Can be moody 1 2 3 4 5

Values artistic, aesthetic experiences 1 2 3 4 5

Is sometimes shy, inhibited 1 2 3 4 5

Is considerate and kind to almost everyone 1 2 3 4 5

Does things efficiently 1 2 3 4 5

Remains calm in tense situations 1 2 3 4 5

Prefers work that is routine 1 2 3 4 5

Is outgoing, sociable 1 2 3 4 5

Is sometimes rude to others 1 2 3 4 5

Makes plans and follows through with them 1 2 3 4 5

Gets nervous easily 1 2 3 4 5

Likes to reflect, play with ideas 1 2 3 4 5

Has few artistic interests 1 2 3 4 5

Likes to cooperate with others 1 2 3 4 5

Is easily distracted 1 2 3 4 5

Is sophisticated in art, music and literature 1 2 3 4 5

Part II

5. A number of statements that people use to describe themselves are given below. Read

LEAN ON ME 18

each statement and then circle the appropriate number to the right of the statement to indicate

how you feel right now, that is, at this moment. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not

spend to much time on any one statement but give the answer which seems to describe your

present feelings best.

1 Not at All 2 Somewhat 3 Moderately So 4 Very Much So

I feel/am...

Calm 1 2 3 4

Secure 1 2 3 4

Tense 1 2 3 4

Strained 1 2 3 4

At Ease 1 2 3 4

Upset 1 2 3 4

Presently worrying over 1 2 3 4

possible misfortunes 1 2 3 4

Satisfied 1 2 3 4

Frightened 1 2 3 4

Comfortable 1 2 3 4

SelfConfident 1 2 3 4

Nervous 1 2 3 4

Jittery 1 2 3 4

Indecisive 1 2 3 4

Relaxed 1 2 3 4

LEAN ON ME 19

Content 1 2 3 4

Worried 1 2 3 4

Confused 1 2 3 4

Steady 1 2 3 4

Pleasant 1 2 3 4

LEAN ON ME 20

Appendix B

TESENRP

TSLADE

EFINSST

TSRSEI

KDNITE

EYEHLK

VDAOCO

GEIDLH

COMEPR

LOPOED

ALLRGON

OLWGFNA

UTAFIE

DNOEIG

AESIDUD

LEAN ON ME 21

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of introverts and extroverts in the isolated and partner conditions as well as the total number of

participants in each condition

Condition Introverts Extroverts Total

n M (SD) 95% CI n M (SD) 95% CI n M (SD)

Isolated 5 2.37 (0.69) [1.84, 2.89] 10 2.23 (0.59) [1.85, 2.59] 15 2.27(0.60)

Partner 8 2.46 (0.49) [2.04, 2.88] 12 2.17 (0.58) [1.83, 2.51] 20 2.28(0.55)

Total 13 2.43 (0.55) 22 2.19 (0.57) 35 2.28(0.57)

LEAN ON ME 22

Table 2

Summary of Intercorrelations for Stress, Extraversion, and Neuroticism

Measure 1 2 3

1. Stress - -.285 .373*

2. Extraversion -.285 - -.443**

3. Neuroticism .373* -.443** -

*p<0.05

** p<0.01

LEAN ON ME 23

Figure 1. Graphical representation of the estimation of marginal means. Error bars represent

standard errors. This shows that stress levels of introverts is overall higher than extroverts and

that stress levels of introverts is slightly higher in the partner condition than in the isolated

condition. Conversely the stress levels of extroverts is slightly lower in the partner condition than

in the partner condition.