Intraocular Pressure Reactivity to Social Stressors: The Role of Self-Efficacy, Perceived Threat, and Aversiveness of Non-Contact Tonometry

Antoni Sanz, Jorge Luis Méndez-Ulrich*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

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.

Original languageAmerican English
JournalJournal of Psychophysiology
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted in press - 2020

Keywords

  • affect
  • cardiovascular reactivity
  • intraocular pressure
  • perceived control
  • self-efficacy
  • threat

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Intraocular Pressure Reactivity to Social Stressors: The Role of Self-Efficacy, Perceived Threat, and Aversiveness of Non-Contact Tonometry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this