1

RESEARCH FACT SHEET #9

RESEARCH DIGEST
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Title: PERSONALITY TRAITS (EXTRAVERSION-

INTROVERSION) ON STRESS LEVEL OF GRADE 12
STUDENTS ON SELECTED SCHOOLS IN SAN MIGUEL,
BULACAN
Proponent/s: Andrea V. Rosal
Lara Kathleen T. Ocbania

According to Ortony, Norman, and Revelle (2005); Revelle,

(2008), personality trait dimensions are abstractions used to describe
and explain consistency and coherence in affect, behavior, cognition,
and desire—the “ABCDs” of personality over time and space, while
Allport (1937) defined a trait or disposition as “a generalized
neuropsychic structure (peculiar to the individual), with the capacity
to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and
guide consistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and stylistic
behaviour.” Boyle, Matthews, and Saklofske (2008) further
explained the theory given by Allport (1937) and said that a trait
describes the filtering of experience through the self to impose a
personal structure on the world, as for example, a trait-anxious
person may interpret a miscellany of stimuli as threats. Furthermore,
traits generate consistency in response, in the service of adaptive and
expressive goals. One of the trait theory known is the Nomothetic
trait models by Raymond Cattell (e.g., Cattell, 1973; Cattell &
Kline, 1977: see Boyle; Campbell, Vol. 1). It is the most articulate
early proponent of the view that the main attributes of personality
may be described by a number of discrete dimensions. Cattell’s
personality theory is inextricably linked to quantitative measurement
models based on factor analysis of questionnaire responses and other
sources of personality data (although known for the 16 Personality
Conceptual Framework Factor Questionnaire or 16PF, Cattell also identified several
additional personality traits that were not amenable to questionnaire
assessment). Cattell’s formulation of trait models remains
influential. Four attributes of these models stand out. First, the trait
as a latent construct with causal force, the source trait, should be
distinguished from superficial regularities in behavior or surface
traits. Second, personality models should be hierarchical; broad
factors such as extraversion and anxiety are defined by groupings of
more narrowly defined primary traits, such as in the case of
extraversion -- dominance, surgency and venturesomeness. Third,
the personality sphere should be differentiated from other domains
of individual differences, including ability, motivation and transient
mood states. Fourth, the influence of traits on behavior is moderated
by situational factors. The third figure in the trinity is Hans Eysenck
(e.g., Eysenck, 1957, 1967; see O’Connor, Vol. 1). His debates with
Cattell on the optimal number of factors (Eysenck focused on three
broad dimensions, extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism, as
compared with the 16 primary factors and several secondary factors
reported by Cattell) – were a precursor to the number-of-factors
issues that have embroiled the field ever since. Matthews, Deary,
and Whiteman (2003) stated that everyday conceptions of
personality traits make two key assumptions. First, traits are stable
over time. Most people would accept that an individual’s behavior

PRACTICAL RESEARCH II
 2

naturally varies somewhat from occasion to occasion, but would

maintain also that there is a core of consistency which defines the
individual’s ‘true nature’ the unchangeable spots of the leopard.
Second, it is generally believed that traits directly influence
behavior. If a person spontaneously breaks into cheerful song, we
might ‘explain’ the behavior by saying that he or she has a happy
disposition. Such lay explanations are, of course, on shaky ground
because of their circularity.
Extraversion, defined as a dimension of personality reflecting
individual differences in the tendencies to experience and exhibit
positive affect, assertive behavior, decisive thinking, and desires for
social attention. Extraversion is one of five basic tendencies in the
Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality. In the FFM, basic
tendencies are conceptualized as including the following
characteristics. They are organized hierarchically, based in biology,
develop over time according to intrinsic maturation principles, are
manifested in characteristic adaptations (i.e., are expressed in
affective, behavioral, and cognitive tendencies), influence one’s
objective biography, are reflected in the self-concept, and have both
adaptive and maladaptive variants. Introversion–extraversion is a
higher order dimension of personality reflecting tendencies to
experience and exhibit positive affect, assertive behavior, decisive
thinking, and desires for social attention (Wilt & Revelle, 2009).
More extraverted individuals are characterized by energy,
dominance, spontaneity, and sociability, whereas more introverted
individuals tend to be described as more lethargic, inhibited,
reflective, and quiet.
Stress was theoretically defined as “a generalized stimulation of
the autonomic nervous system that alerts a person to the presence of
stressors arising from an actual or perceived threat” (Toth, 1993,
p. 36). Selye (1974) viewed stress as the common denominator of all
adaptive reactions in the body and complete freedom from stress as
death. Two concepts are central to any psychological stress theory:
appraisal, i.e., individuals’ evaluation of the significance of what is
happening for their well-being, and coping, i.e., individuals’ efforts
in thought and action to manage specific demands (cf. Lazarus
1993). According to Lazarus (1991), stress is regarded as a
relational concept, i.e., stress is not defined as a specific kind of
external stimulation nor a specific pattern of physiological,
behavioral, or subjective reactions. Instead, stress is viewed as a
relationship (`transaction’) between individuals and their
environment. `Psychological stress refers to a relationship with the
environment that the person appraises as significant for his or her
well being and in which the demands tax or exceed available coping
resources’ (Lazarus and Folkman 1986, p. 63). From stress theory,
Roy (1984) selected the concepts of stressor, stress, and adaptation
for her model. Roy (1984) defines stress as “a constantly changing
point, made up of focal, contextual, and residual stimuli, which
represent the person’s own standard of the range of stimuli to which
one can respond with ordinary adaptive responses”. Focal stimuli are
the internal and external demands immediately confronting the
organism (e.g., a need for cancer surgery). Contextual stimuli are all
other internal and external factors in the given situation (e.g., fear of
dying). Residual stimuli are factors that may be affecting current
emotions and behaviors but whose effects are not clearly validated
(e.g., having a mother who died from cancer). Stress, for Roy,
represents the person’s adaptive level. She/he wrote, “The human

PRACTICAL RESEARCH II
 3

system has the capacity to adjust effectively to changes in the

environment and, in turn, to affect the environment” (p. 22). She/he
defined adaptation as “that which promotes the integrity of the
person in terms of survival, growth, reproduction, and mastery” (p.
51). According to Selye (Tache & Selye, 1985), the a nervous and
hormonal responses to stressors, as discussed previously, aid
survival.

Independent Dependent

Personality Traits:

Extraversion/Introver Stress Level

sion

Figure 1. Paradigm of the Study

Figure 1 shows the paradigm of the study. It shows the

relationship between the Independent variable of the study, which is
the personality traits (mainly the extraversion trait and introversion
trait) to the dependent variable, which is the stress level of an
individual.
NOTE: This should provide an explanation of the related theory/theories to be tested.
Remarks: □ APPROVED □ DISAPPROVED □ NEEDS REVISION

Evaluated by:

BRYAN DC. GABRIEL

Research Adviser

PRACTICAL RESEARCH II