Do stress and personality determine health of the Indian executive?

Abstract

Many researchers have concluded that stress causes illness. This conclusion is based on studies with cross sectional designs that found correlations between stress and illness. However, this conclusion has been criticized on two counts. First, the correlations between stress and illness could well imply that illness causes stress. Second this conclusion implies, pessimistically, that the individual has no role to play in moderating the effects of stress on health. Certain personality traits could help moderate the effects of stress on health. Control, commitment and challenge are three dimensions of personality that have been proposed as moderators of the effects of stress on health. Control is a tendency to operate from the belief that one is Influential in the face of life's various contingencies, rather than being at their mercy. Commitment is a tendency to be purposefully involved in whatever one is doing. Challenge is a tendency to view change as normal and desirable rather than as threatening. Persons high in control, commitment, and challenge have been found to enjoy better health than those low on these dimensions. The three dimensions are collectively called hardiness. Frequency of self-reinforcement (FSR) is another trait that has been proposed as a stress moderator. It is a tendency to reward (or punish) oneself. Some people tend to reward (or punish) themselves more frequently than others. If hardiness and FSR are attributes of an executive that have stress moderating effects, Their assessment in selection, training, and placement may help ensure good health of executives. But the cross-cultural generality of the concepts may not be high. Hardiness may apply only in the individualistic cultures of the west, and not in the collectivistic, dependence-oriented cultures such as in India. Further, previous studies do not rule out the possibility that poor health affects personality. This study, therefore, examined whether (a) stress affects health, (b) hardiness and FSR apply to the Indian executives and (c) personality affects health. A longitudinal study was conducted. Stress was measured using the Life Experiences Survey and the HassIes Survey. Health was assessed using the Seriousness of Illness Rating Scale. Personality measures included the Hardiness Scale, the Frequency of Self-reinforcement Scale, and the Internal—external Locus of 6ontro1 Scale. Two hundred and twelve executives participated in the first assessment of these 175 gave usable responses. Three months later, all the executives were mailed the same questionnaires for a second assessment. Of these, 101 returned the questionnaires. Eighty two executives gave usable responses in both the assessments- The analysis revealed that (1) the causal relationship between stress and illness was indeterminate; (2) the control, commitment, and challenge dimensions of the hardy personality did not predict health of the Indian executive; the self-esteem dimension of FSR correlated positively with health of the Indian executive; (3) the state of one‘s health appeared to affect (or cause) his self-esteem; and (4) prior health appeared to be a good predictor of future health. The practical and theoretical implications, the possible limitations of the study and consequent research implications are discussed.