Creative Commons anales de psicología / annals of psychology © Copyright 2022: Editum. Universidad de Murcia (Spain) 4.0: BY-SA 2022, vol. 38, nº 3 (october), 538-545 ISSN print: 0212-9728. ISSN online: 1695-2294. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.500581 https://revistas.um.es/analesps How primary and secondary appraisals of daily stressful events influence negative and positive affect Jordi Fernández-Castro*, Iris Ferrer, Sílvia Edo, and Tatiana Rovira. Departament de Psicologia Bàsica, Evolutiva i de l’Educació. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona (Spain) Título: ¿Cómo la evaluación primaria y secundaria de los eventos estresan- Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of primary tes cotidianos influyen en el afecto negativo y positivo? and secondary appraisal, and of coping strategies, on daily stress, taking in- Resumen: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la influencia de la eva- to account any possible effect of the big five personality traits. Over 10 luación primaria, secundaria y de las estrategias de afrontamiento sobre el days, a cohort of 122 people filled out an on-line diary in which they rec- estrés diario, teniendo en cuenta cualquier posible efecto de los cinco gran- orded the most important stressful event each day, their primary and sec- des rasgos de personalidad. Durante 10 días, una cohorte de 122 personas ondary appraisal of this, and how they coped with it. The results indicate llenó un diario en línea en el que registraron el evento estresante más im- that negative affect is influenced by a high degree of primary appraisal, lim- portante de cada día, su evaluación primaria y secundaria y cómo lo afron- ited secondary appraisal and a high rate of refusal, with no significant in- taron. Los resultados indican que el afecto negativo está influido por una fluence of personality traits. Positive affect is mainly influenced by a lower evaluación primaria alta, una evaluación secundaria limitada y una alta tasa extent of primary appraisal, more secondary appraisal, and by a low rate of de rechazo, sin influencia significativa de los rasgos de personalidad. El refusal and of social support seeking. Moreover, a low level of neuroticism afecto positivo está influido principalmente por un menor grado de valora- was a predictor of greater positive affect. These data are discussed, high- ción primaria, una evaluación secundaria alta, por una baja tasa de rechazo lighting the importance of a situational assessment of stressful episodes at y de búsqueda de apoyo social. Además, un nivel bajo de neuroticismo fue each moment to not only understand the effects of stress on health but al- el mejor predictor del afecto positivo. Se discuten estos datos, destacando so, to develop effective interventions. la importancia de una evaluación situacional de episodios estresantes en ca- Keywords: Negative affect. Positive affect. Primary appraisal. Secondary da momento para no sólo comprender los efectos del estrés en la salud appraisal. Coping. Daily stress. sino también, para desarrollar intervenciones efectivas. Palabras clave: Afecto negativo. Afecto positivo. Evaluación primaria. Evaluación secundaria. Afrontamiento. Estrés cotidiano. Introduction portance of the situation that is qualitatively categorized as a threat, a challenge or a loss; whereas secondary appraisal re- Stress was defined by Lazarus & Folkman (1984) as the state fers to both the assessment of what can be done when faced produced by the perception that the demands of a specific with a stressful situation, regardless of its nature (threat, situation exceed the resources available. This definition has challenge or loss), and to the extent of an individual’s belief had an important effect, shifting the evaluation of stress in their ability to use these resources. This distinction is con- from the objective description of events to their perception sistent with the proposed constructs of outcome expectancy (Segerstrom & O’Connor, 2012). Even more, the conserva- and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, when consider- tion of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) stated that stress ing stress, it is crucial to evaluate the degree of imbalance be- occurs when resources are threatened with loss, lost, or there tween demands and resources, which requires the accurate is a failure to gain resources A important consequence of and specific measurement of both primary and secondary these approaches has been to identify the strategies to cope appraisals. However, measuring the perception of stressful with stress as the main mediators of how a stressful event af- situations has not been subject to as much study as has the fects individuals (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988), which has in measurement of coping. The widely used Perceived Stress turn led to a large number of research studies aimed at defin- Scale (PSS) is a questionnaire containing items that refer to ing, classifying and evaluating coping strategies, that include the severity of the stressful situation and the perceived ability both actions aimed at reducing demands, as maintaining or to cope with it (Cohen et al., 1983). However, this scale does increasing resources (Hobfoll et al., 1994; Skinner et al., not provide an independent evaluation of the two types of 2003). appraisals and moreover, it refers to global perceived stress The process by which the imbalance between demands in the last month without differentiating between specific ep- and resources can be evaluated has been described in some isodes. detail by Lazarus and his collaborators (Lazarus & Folkman, In order to assess the association between anticipatory 1984; Smith & Lazarus, 1993). As such, a distinction was cognitive appraisal and the physiological responses of the made between primary and secondary appraisal: the former hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis to acute stress, a refers to the perception of the seriousness and the im- questionnaire was developed called the Primary Appraisal Secondary Appraisal Scale (PASA: Gaab et al. 2005). This scale is derived from the theoretical constructs proposed by * Correspondence address [Dirección para correspondencia]: Lazarus and Folkman (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and it is Jordi Fernández-Castro. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 - comprised of four sub-scales: Threat, Challenge, Outcome Bellaterra, Barcelona (Spain). E-mail: Jordi.fernandez@uab.cat Expectancy, and Self-efficacy. The first two address issues (Article received: 12-11-2021; reviewed: 24-02-2022; accepted: 10-01-2022) - 538 - How primary and secondary appraisals of daily stressful events influence negative and positive affect 539 related to primary appraisal and the latter two, those focus- they highlight the importance of a personality trait (i.e.: con- ing on secondary appraisal. Finally, an overall score for per- scientiousness). It is well established that neuroticism can ceived stress can also be calculated from PASA by subtract- explain the effects of daily stress, as it favors a more negative ing the secondary appraisal score from that for primary ap- interpretation of stressful events (Carver & Connor-Smith, praisal. However, a subscale assessing loss was not included 2010). However, since only conscientiousness and not neu- as it focuses on assessing anticipatory appreciation. This roticism or other personality traits was recorded in this scale was applied in the anticipatory phase of the Trier Social study, it remains unclear whether it is the personality trait Stress Test (Kirschbaum et al., 1993) and it was found that that most strongly influences the affective state. the PASA scores were associated with the cortisol produced Finally, the role of coping strategies must be considered, during the test. By contrast, personality measures or retro- which have traditionally been considered the main mediator spective measures of perceived stress were not significantly between stressful events and emotional states, as indicated associated with the cortisol produced. These results, along above (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Taylor & Stanton, 2007), with those obtained elsewhere (Wirtz et al., 2006), provide although significantly, the coping strategy employed depends very clear evidence supporting the hypothesis that the main mainly on the primary and secondary appraisals. Another 14- driver of stress responses in experimental situations is the day study on daily stress found that the type of coping em- anticipatory and specific cognitive assessment. However, it is ployed in response to daily stressors initially depends on the necessary to confirm this in natural contexts, such as that of primary and secondary appraisals, as evaluated using the daily stress. PASA scale, and subsequently on the traits of neuroticism, Daily stress is conformed by the set of irritating or dis- openness, extraversion and conscientiousness (Ferrer et al., turbing events that occur in the individual’s daily interaction 2021). Moreover, it should be noted that elsewhere coping with his/her environment (Kanner et al., 1981). There is an was also associated with personality traits (Gomà-i-Freixanet extensive literature on the daily stress paradigm, which uses et al., 2021). In short, there are some studies on the relation- specific intensive longitudinal methods to examine individual ship between personality, appraisal and affective state and differences in the time pattering of events and reactions others that relate coping and personality or coping and affec- (Almeida, 2013; Bolger et al., 1989; Tennen & Affleck, tive state. However, we have not found studies that contem- 2002). Given that daily stress is not something that can be plate all these variables at the same time with a momentary identified at a specific moment but rather, it develops and ecological evaluation methodology. shifts over time, it is particularly appropriate to study this Based on the above, the aim of this work was looking phenomenon using specific methodologies, such as ecologi- how primary and secondary appraisals, along with coping cal momentary assessment. This approach involves capturing strategies and personality traits, can predict positive and neg- real time psychological data using different mobile devices, ative affect in daily stress. regardless of the individual's location (Bolger et al., 2003). The hypothesis set out in this study was that the main These longitudinal methods differ fundamentally from the predictor of the emotional state in response to situations of retrospective methods that involve the use of questionnaires daily stress is the primary appraisal, understood as an as- to assess the main stressful events that occur during a given sessment of whether an event poses a threat, challenge or a period of time, as well as their consequences and the strategy loss for a negative emotional dimension, By contrast, the used to cope with them. However, retrospective methods are secondary appraisal, understood as the expectation of the re- easily influenced by recall biases and thus, they are not al- sults and self-efficacy, is a predictor of the positive emotion- ways recommended to assess daily stress. al state. Personality traits may influence these primary and In a 14-day study on daily stress, primary and secondary secondary appraisals, yet the direct effects of these primary appraisal was seen to influence positive and negative affect and secondary appraisals are more significant than the direct (Gartland, O’Connor, Lawton, & Bristow, 2014). In this effects of the personality traits. In terms of coping strategies, case, primary and secondary appraisal was evaluated by while they certainly influence the affective state since they adapting the 10-item scale proposed by Schneider (2008), in are chosen depending on how the situation is appraised, the which seven items are devoted to the severity of the stressful direct effects of primary and secondary appraisals on these event and three items are dedicated to the ability to cope. states are also likely to be stronger than those of coping. To However, this scale is less specific than the aforementioned test this hypothesis, we have assessed daily stress over a two PASA questionnaire. The results indicated that primary ap- week period, recording both the primary and secondary ap- praisal was related to the degree of negative affect and that praisals, and the coping strategies employed in response to the ratio between primary and secondary appraisals predicted the main stressor each day. This study was carried out on a the extent of positive affect. It was also found that the per- cohort representative of the general population and in which sonality trait “conscientiousness” moderates the influence of the different personality traits included in the “Big Five” primary and secondary appraisal on positive affect, yet not model have also been evaluated (Costa & McCrae, 1992). that on negative affect. These data support the idea that pri- mary and secondary appraisals predict the affective state produced by daily stressful events (hassles) but in addition, anales de psicología / annals of psychology, 2022, vol. 38, nº 3 (october) 540 Jordi Fernández-Castro et al. Methods items assessing negative affect and 10 items assessing posi- tive affect using a 5-point Likert scale format for the re- Sample sponses. The participants were then asked to recall the main events that had occurred during the day using the Day Re- This study was carried out on a cohort of 122 individu- construction Method (Kahneman et al., 2004) to reduce the als, 42 men (34.4%) and 80 women (65.6%). The mean age bias of daily retrospective reporting. Subsequently, partici- of the participants was 42.7 years of age (range: 26-64 years pants were asked to answer the three following question- old), with a standard deviation of 7.9 years. naires focusing on the most important event they had expe- rienced during the day: The Daily Inventory of Stressful Procedure Events, the PASA Scale, and the Mo-Cope. The Daily Inventory of Stressful Events (Almeida et al., 2002). The study population was drawn from 345 people select- This is a classification of daily stressors that distributes them ed randomly from an Opt-in panel representative of the gen- into the following categories: 1 - I had a discussion or disa- eral Spanish population. The 345 panelists selected were greement with someone; 2 - I wanted to protest at some- asked to provide their signed informed consent, where they thing that happened to me, but I decided to let it pass to committed to answering a 10 minute online diary before go- avoid a disagreement; 3 - Something happened to me at ing to sleep over 10 days. As a result, 148 questionnaires work or with my studies; 4 - Something happened to me at were completed initially and 141 volunteers agreed to partic- home; 5 - I felt discriminated against because of my physical ipate in the study. Every day during the 10 days of the study appearance, skin color, age or gender; 6 - Something hap- the participants received a message mid-way through the af- pened to a close family member or friend that affected me; 7 ternoon that contained a link to the online diary and that - Something else happened to me not included in the previ- reminded them to fill it out before going to sleep. A total of ous statements. The discomfort caused by the most im- 122 participants filled out the diary every day for the 10 days portant event was assessed using a 7-point Likert-type scale. of the study and received 25 euros as compensation for their The PASA Scale (Gaab et al., 2005). In this study, we participation in the study. used the Spanish version of this scale (Edo et al., 2021), which includes an additional subscale as part of the primary Measurement instruments appraisal that assesses loss and that allows an event that has already occurred to be appraised as a loss. This scale is com- Initial questionnaire: The initial questionnaire was complet- posed of 20 items: 10 items addressing primary appraisal, or ed online and it collected sociodemographic data together the degree to which a stressor is considered as a threat, chal- with the baseline responses to the online versions of the fol- lenge or loss; and 10 items focusing on secondary appraisal, lowing instruments: the degree to which the event can be controlled. When ap- Perceived Stress Scale (PSS: Cohen et al., 1983), which as- plying these scales on the first day of this study, a sesses the level of stress perceived over the previous month. Cronbach's α = 0.81 was obtained for the Primary Appraisal The Spanish version was used here (Remor, 2006), which Scale and a Cronbach's α = 0.79 for the Secondary Appraisal consists of 14 items that are responded using a 5-point Lik- Scale. ert scale. The internal consistency of the PSS in this study The MoCope 10-item coping questionnaire (Ferrer et al., 2021; was 0.89 (Cronbach's α). Rovira et al., 2016). This scale consists of 10 items specifical- The NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) that assesses ly designed to be used in momentary ecological evaluation Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and and that are grouped into the following four categories, de- Conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1999). The Spanish fined only by their functional properties: Problem-focused version was used in this study, in which each scale contains coping (2 items); Emotion-focused coping (3 items); Support 12 items assessed using a five-point Likert scale. In this seeking (2 items); and Refusal (3 items). These items were study, the NEO-FFI reliability values (Cronbach's α) were assessed using a 5-point Likert-type response scale and as 0.89 (Neuroticism), 0.86 (Extraversion), 0.77 (Openness), this scale is designed to measure the variation over time, no 0.67 (Agreeableness) and 0.83 (Conscientiousness). correlation between items is assumed. Daily diary Statistical analysis In the electronic diary, the participants were first asked In order to examine the influence of personality traits, about their emotional state at the time of answering the primary and secondary appraisal, and coping strategies on questionnaire using the Positive and Negative Affect Sched- positive and negative affect, multilevel multiple regression ule (PANAS), which assesses both the individual’s positive analysis were conducted, using the Mixed Models procedure and negative affective status (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, in the SPSS software (IBM, 2019). Each model included 10 1988). The Spanish version of this scale was used (López- observations nested within individuals, following a two-level Gómez, Hervás & Vázquez, 2015), which is composed of 10 hierarchical structure: Level 1, representing the within- anales de psicología / annals of psychology, 2022, vol. 38, nº 3 (october) How primary and secondary appraisals of daily stressful events influence negative and positive affect 541 person variation, conformed by the repeated daily assess- of coping is emotion-focused, followed by problem-focused ment that recorded the primary and secondary appraisal, and coping, while seeking support and refusal are the least fre- the coping strategies (problem-focused coping, emotion- quent. focused coping, support seeking and refusal); and Level 2, representing the between-person variability, conformed by Table 1 Aggregate mean and standard deviation (SD) of the quantitative variables for level 1 (n= the individual’s variables, such as gender and personality 122). traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness Variables Mean SD and Conscientiousness). Level 1 predictors were group Negative affect 11.09 1.61 mean-centered and these centered scores represent the devi- Positive affect 14.81 4.74 ation of each momentary score from the person’s general- Primary Appraisal 18.79 5.32 ized tendency. Secondary Appraisal 20.50 3.80 Two separate modeling analyses were performed, using Problem-focused Coping 5.19 1.22 different dependent variables: one for predicting negative af- Emotion-focused Coping 7.35 1.98 fect, and another for predicting positive affect. The fitting Social Support Seeking 2.93 1.46 for all of these modelling analyses commenced by establish- Refusal 2.30 1.42 ing the simplest regression model, a random intercept model without explanatory variables, and it went from a parsimoni- Negative affect ous to more complex models, as recommended by Hox (2010). The results of the four exploratory models tested for After the random intercept model (Model 1) was as- Negative Affect are shown in Table 2, left part. The intra- sessed, primary appraisal and secondary appraisal were in- class correlation coefficients of negative affect showed that troduced as fixed effects (Model 2) and then problem- 64.2% of the variation was at the moment level (level 1), focused coping, emotion-focused coping, support seeking whereas 35.8% was at the participant level (level 2). The and refusal were introduced as fixed effects (Model 3). Final- multi-level analysis demonstrated that model 2, which in- ly, gender and the traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion, cluded the variables of primary and secondary appraisal as Agreeableness, Openness and Conscientiousness were intro- fixed effects, showed a significant -2LL change (489.96**), duced as fixed effects (Model 4). In addition, further models as did model 3 that added problem-focused and emotion- were tested to evaluate the random effects. focused coping, social support seeking and refusal as fixed A Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation was used effects (41.03**). Likewise, a significant change in -2LL to test the adjustment of each model, and models were com- (164.01**) was also detected in model 4 that added gender pared according to the change in the logarithm of the Re- and the five personality traits. Model 4 shows that Primary stricted Maximum Likelihood (-2LL change). The signifi- appraisal fixed effect positively influences negative affect, cance of the -2LL was calculated based on a Chi Squared whereas secondary appraisal fixed effect influences it nega- Distribution. The choice of the final model for each model- tively. Related to coping strategies, only refusal coping fixed ing analysis was made according to the last significant change effect had a significant positive influence on negative affect in -2LL. (0.07*), while no personality trait showed a significant effect. No cross-level interactions were found between variables from level 1 and 2, and no acceptable adjustment indicators Results were obtained from the analysis of the additional models in which the random effects of the predictor variables were in- The aggregate descriptive statistics of the positive and nega- troduced and thus, they were discarded. tive affect, the primary and secondary appraisals, as well as Dispersion of the individual slopes of negative affect the problem-focused, emotion-focused, social support seek- were plotted as a function of the significant predictors (Fig- ing and refusal strategies are shown in Table 1. These aggre- ure 1, left panels), in order to facilitate the visual detection of gate data reflect the central trends for the aforementioned the generic trend (fixed effects) along with potential devia- variables without considering any temporal variability. It tions from the fixed effect pattern by a group of individuals. should be noted from this data that the most common type anales de psicología / annals of psychology, 2022, vol. 38, nº 3 (october) 542 Jordi Fernández-Castro et al. Table 2 Fixed effects of the predictors of negative and positive affect. Negative affect Positive affect Parameters Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Fixed effects Intercept 11.09** (0.15)11.08** (0.15)11.08** (0.15)10.65** (01.48) 14.75** (0.43)14.75** (0.43)14.74** (0.43) 10.75* (0.48) Level 1 (day) Primary Appraisal 0.09** (0.01) 0.09** (0.01) 0.09** (0.01) -0.07** (0.01) -0.06** (0.01) -0.05** (0.01) Secondary Appraisal -0.03** (0,01) -0.03** (0,01) -0.03* (0,01) 0.10** (0,02) 0.11** (0,02) 0.11** (0,02) Problem-focused coping 0.01 (0,03) 0.01 (0.03) -0.03 (0.06) -0.04 (0.06) Emotion-focused cop- -0.04 (0.03) -0.03 (0.03) 0.06 (0.05) 0.04 (0.05) ing Social Support seeking 0.02 (0.03) 0.02 (0.03) -0.09 (0.05) -0.10* (0.05) Refusal 0.07* (0.03) 0.07* (0.03) -0.13* (0.05) -0.13* (0.05) Level 2 (person) Gender 0.25 (0.34) -0.24 (0.99) Neuroticism 0.03 (0.02) -0.15* (0.06) Conscientiousness -0.04 (0.03) 0.02 (0.08) Extraversion -0.02 (0.02) 0.01 (0.06) Openness 0.04 (0.02) 0.07 (0.07) Agreeableness 0.01 (0.03) 0.13 (0.09) Random effects Residual 3.95** (0.17) 3.11** (0.14) 3.13** (0.13) 3.13** (0.14) 11.67** (0.50)10.84** (0.48)10.75** (0.48)10.54** (0.48) Intercept 2.20** (0.33) 2.26** (0.32) 2.26** (0.33) 2.13** (0.33) 20.99** (2.83)21.20** (2.87)21.22** (2.87)19.53** (2.78) -2LL 5360.550 4870.590 4829.560 4665.640 6806.860 6423.670 6341.84 6084.950 df 2 4 6 2 4 6 -2LL change 489.96** 41.03** 164.01** 383.19** 81.84** 256.89** Note: Standard error in parentheses. Df = degrees of freedom. -2LL = Logarithm of the Restricted Maximum Likelihood. * p < .05. ** < .01. Positive affect influenced positive affect (-0.07**). Also positive affect was positively influenced by secondary appraisal (0.10**). Refusal The results of the four exploratory models tested for (-0.13*) and Social Support Seeking (-0.10*) had a significant Positive Affect are shown in Table 2, right part. The intra- negative influence on positive affect. Neuroticism (-0.15*) class correlation coefficients of positive affect showed that also had a significantly negative influence on positive affect. 35.7% of the variation was at the moment level (level 1), No cross-level interactions were found between variables while 64.3% was at the participant level (level 2). The multi- from level 1 and 2, and no acceptable adjustment indicators level analysis demonstrated that model 2 (-2LL = 6.423.67), were obtained from analyzing the models in which the ran- which included the primary and secondary appraisal variables dom effects of the predictor variables were introduced, and as fixed effects, produced a significant change in -2LL thus, they were discarded. (383.19**). Model 3 added problem-focused and emotion- Dispersion of the individual slopes of positive affect focused coping, social support seeking and refusal as fixed were plotted as a function of the significant predictors (Fig- effects, producing a significant change in -2LL (81.84**), ure 1, right panels) in order to facilitate the visual detection and model 4 introduced gender and the five personality traits of the generic trend (fixed effects) along with potential devi- and it also demonstrated a significant change in -2LL ations from the fixed effect pattern by a group of individu- (256.89**). Model 4 shows that primary appraisal negatively als. anales de psicología / annals of psychology, 2022, vol. 38, nº 3 (october) How primary and secondary appraisals of daily stressful events influence negative and positive affect 543 Figure 1 Individual slopes of negative (left panels) and positive affect (right panels) as a function of the primary appraisal (upper panels), of the secondary appraisal (middle panels) and of refusal (lower panels). Note: Each slope represents the relationship between the predictors (primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, and refusal coping) and the negative or positive affect respectivelly, for each participant. anales de psicología / annals of psychology, 2022, vol. 38, nº 3 (october) 544 Jordi Fernández-Castro et al. Discussion and on the secondary appraisal. The results of the present study do not support the usefulness of subtracting the sec- The main hypothesis of this study was confirmed, since pri- ondary assessment score from the primary assessment score mary and secondary appraisals were seen to have direct fixed to obtain an indicator of perceived stress, since it is not the effects on both negative and positive affect, while the influ- same when the primary appraisal exceeds the secondary ap- ence of coping or personality traits was only marginal. The praisal as when both scores are low or as when both scores degree of negative affect experienced at the end of the day is are high. In other words, it is necessary to consider the bal- positively related to the primary appraisal of the most im- ance between primary and secondary appraisals when as- portant stressor of the day and inversely related to the degree sessing stress, but only if a high score is attributed to the of secondary appraisal. Furthermore, it also depends on the primary appraisal. degree of stressor refusal, whereas no personality trait is sig- These results have a clear clinical implication. As such, it nificantly involved in the negative affect. That is why the would appear not to be necessary to focus on reducing nega- variance of negative affect is mostly dependent on factors re- tive emotions to facilitate adaptation to situations of daily lated to the moment (i.e.: within individual variability) and stress, since daily stress is a reaction to the real stressors that less dependent on variables related to the individual (be- we face. Conversely, it is necessary to favor the development tween individual variability). For example, we know that of realistic primary and secondary appraisals, as advocated by neuroticism has a strong influence on the discomfort caused third generation therapies like acceptance and commitment by stress (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Bolger & Zuckerman, therapy (Hayes et al., 2006). We should remember that in 1995). In the light of the present data, this phenomenon can subjectively stressful situations, it is advisable to enhance the be interpreted as a greater propensity towards a primary ap- feeling of control and the possibilities to successfully cope praisal, a lower tendency towards secondary appraisal and a with the situation, rather than minimizing the importance of greater degree of refusal in people with a stronger trait of the stressor (Park et al., 2004). For example, when receiving neuroticism, as opposed to considering that neuroticism has a serious diagnosis it can only poorly be managed by reduc- a direct influence on negative affect. ing the importance of the primary appraisal as it is a real The degree of positive affect experienced at the end of threat, yet information regarding the actions that can be tak- the day was negatively related to the influence of primary en to confront such a diagnosis, which is the basis of the appraisal and positively related to the extent of secondary secondary appraisal, could produce a significant improve- appraisal, and only neuroticism was found to be inversely re- ment in the affective state (Edo et al., 2012). However, alt- lated to negative affect. With regards positive affect, and in hough the results of this study highlight the role of appraisal contrast to negative affect, there was greater between indi- in the affective consequences of stressful events, both pri- vidual variability than within individual variability, and it is mary and secondary appraisal have been considered as ag- precisely the degree of neuroticism that seemed to be the in- gregate constructs, without analysing their components. It dividual factor that explains the general tendency to experi- would be convenient for future research to differentiate the ence less positive affect, regardless of the other factors in- particular effects of threat, challenge and loss with respect to volved. As proposed previously (Gartland, O’Connor, Law- the primary appraisal as a whole and those of self-efficacy ton, & Ferguson, 2014), conscientiousness was not found to and outcome expectations with respect to the secondary ap- be a significant predictor, probably because all personality praisal, and also to determine whether there are interactions traits and not only one were taken into consideration here. A between the different components of primary and secondary higher degree of refusal was related to lower positive affect, appraisals. consistent with the influence on negative affect. More reli- This study has some important limitations. In the first ance on seeking social support was also related to lower lev- place, the cohort studied had a higher proportion of women els of positive affect. This data is intriguing and difficult to than men, because although a random and gender-balanced explain, although it may possibly reflect that situations in sample was invited to participate in the study, more women which we choose to ask for help give us less satisfaction by voluntarily agreed to participate. In second place, the size of having failed to resolve the problem ourselves. This explana- the sample has not allowed for detailed analyzes by age tion is speculative and further research will be required to range. Comparing the results of this study with another with clarify this issue. a similar methodology but carried out with a sample of From previous studies, it is thought that when primary young people of both genders between 18 and 25 years old appraisals exceed secondary appraisals, a situation is consid- (Puigbó et al., 2019), it can be seen that while the frequency ered a threat, whereas when the opposite occurs the situation and intensity of daily stress is similar, young people show is considered a challenge (Schneider, 2008). Our data indi- higher scores in affective state, both positive and negative, cate that in line with the original theory of Lazarus & Folk- they also performed more Social Support seeking and more man (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), primary appraisal tries to refusal than in the present study. identify the situation as a threat, a challenge or a loss. A chal- Finally, the study is based on self-report measurements lenge does not necessarily have to be more or less stressful that are not contrasted with objective or observational than a threat or a loss, which will depend on its importance measurements. Nevertheless, the findings from this study anales de psicología / annals of psychology, 2022, vol. 38, nº 3 (october) How primary and secondary appraisals of daily stressful events influence negative and positive affect 545 provide some insights that will help to design future studies Data sharing statement.- The datasets generated during the current aimed at deepening our understanding of the psychological study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable re- quest. processes used to assess daily stressors. Acknowledgements (Funding).- The present work was supported by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad of Spanish Government [grant number FEDER, PSI2016-76411-R]. References Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (2002). The daily invento- Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attmpt at concep- ry of stressful events: An interview-based approach for measuring daily tualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. stressors. Assessment, 9(1), 41-55. Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., Ben-Porath, Y., & Monnier, J. (1994). Gen- https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191102091006 der and coping: The Dual-Axis Model of Coping. American Journal of Almeida, D. M. (2013). Resilience and vunerability to daily stressrs assessed Community Psychology, 22(1), 49–82. via diary methods. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 64-68. Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. New York, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00336.x NY. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy. The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times IBM. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. IBM Corp. Books/ Henry Holt & Co. Kanner, A., Coyne, J., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. (1981). Comparison of Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary Methods: Capturing Life two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus ma- as it is Lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579-616. jor life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030 Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K. M., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The “Trier so- Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects cial stress test” - A tool for investigating psychobiological stress re- of daily stress on negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, sponses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28(1-2), 76-81. 57(5), 808-818. https://doi.org/10.1159/000119004 Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the Problems of Eve- Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. Springer. ryday Life: The role of Neuroticism in Exposure and Reactivity to Dai- López-Gómez, I., Hervás, G., & Vázquez, C. (2015). Adaptación de la “es- ly Stressors. Journal of Personality, 59(3), 355–386. cala de afecto positivo y negativo” (panas) en una muestra general Es- Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality pañola [Adaptation of the “positive and negative affect scale” (panas) in in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 890- a general Spanish sample]. Psicologia Conductual, 23(3), 529–548. 902. Park, C. L., Armeli, S., & Tennen, H. (2004). Appraisal-coping goodness of Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and Coping. Annual fit: a daily internet study. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), Review of Psychology, 61, 679–704. 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262855 Cohen, S, Kamarck, T. W., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of Puigbó, J., Edo, S., Rovira, T., Limonero, J. T., & Fernández-Castro, J. perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. (2019). Influence of the perceived emotional intelligence on the coping Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory of the daily stress. Ansiedad y Estres, 25(1). (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): professional manu- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anyes.2019.01.003 al. Psychological Assessment Resources. Remor, E. (2006). Psychometric Properties of a European Spanish Version Edo, S., Rovira, T., Maturano, N., & Fernández-Castro, J. (2021). Cuestiona- of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), rio PASA (Primary Appraisal Secundary Appraisal) para la Evaluación del Es- 86–93. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db= trés. Adaptación al español e instrucciones de uso [PASA Questionnaire (Primary psyh&AN=2006-05496-010&lang=es&site=ehost-live Appraisal Secondary Appraisal) for Stress Assessment. Adaptation to Spanish Rovira, T., Ferrer, I., Edo, S., Fernández-Castro, J., Benavides, G., Doval, and instructions for use]. https://ddd.uab.cat/record/237178 E., & Martínez, F. (2016). Validity and feasibility of a nurses’ coping Edo, S., Torrents-Rodas, D., Rovira, T., & Fernandez-Castro, J. (2012). Im- questionnaire for its use in Ecological Momentary Assessment. Europe- pact when receiving a diagnosis: Additive and multiplicative effects be- an Health Psychologist, 18(supp.), 758. tween illness severity and perception of control. Journal of Health Psychol- Schneider, T. R. (2008). Evaluations of stressful transactions: What’s in an ogy, 17(8). https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105311429727 appraisal? Stress and Health, 24(2), 151-158. Ferrer, I., Fernández-Castro, J., Edo, S., & Rovira, T. (2021). The influence https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1176 of the primary and secondary appraisal, and of the big five personality Segerstrom, S. C., & O’Connor, D. B. (2012). Stress, health and illness: Four traits, on the choice of coping strategies: A study based on daily stress. challenges for the future. Psychology & Health, 27(2), 128-140. Studia Psychologica, 63(3)., 63(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2012.659516 Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a Mediator of Emotion. Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 466-475. the structure of coping: a review and critique of category systems for Gaab, J., Rohleder, N., Nater, U. M., & Ehlert, U. (2005). Psychological de- classifying ways of coping. Psychological bulletin, 129(2), 216. terminats of the cortisol stress rfesponse: the role of anticipatory cogni- https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216 tive apparaisal. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 599–610. Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relational Gartland, N., O’Connor, D. B., Lawton, R., & Bristow, M. (2014). Explor- themes, and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7(3/4), 233–269. ing day-to-day dynamics of daily stressor appraisals, physical symptoms Taylor, S. E., & Stanton, A. L. (2007). Coping, Resources, Coping Process- and the cortisol awakening response. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 50, 130– es, and Mental Health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology., 3(6), 377–401. 138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.08.006 Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2002). The challenge of capturing daily process- Gartland, N., O’Connor, D. B., Lawton, R., & Ferguson, E. (2014). Investi- es at the interface of social and clinical psychology. Journal of Social and gating the effects of conscientiousness on daily stress, affect and physi- Clinical Psychology, 21(6), 610–627. cal symptom processes: A daily diary study. British Journal of Health Psy- Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and valida- chology, 19(2), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12077 tion of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Gomà-i-Freixanet, M., Martínez Ortega, Y., & Arnau, A. (2021). The loca- scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. tion of coping strategies within the Alternative Five Factor Model of https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 personality. New Ideas in Psychology, 60(August 2020). Wirtz, P. H., Ehlert, U., Emini, L., Rüdisüli, K., Groessbauer, S., Gaab, J., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2020.100834 Elsenbruch, S., & Von Känel, R. (2006). Anticipatory cognitive stress Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Ac- appraisal and the acute procoagulant stress response in men. Psychosoma- ceptance and Commitment Therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. tic Medicine, 68(6), 851-858. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000245866.03456.aa https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006 anales de psicología / annals of psychology, 2022, vol. 38, nº 3 (october)