A study was conducted to expand the conventional view of cardiovascular (CV) reactivity by using the idiodynamic paradigm for investigation of individuals. Patterns of autonomic CV regulation were assessed in six subjects across diverse laboratory tasks on three separate occasions. Individual CV profiles were derived from these data with P-technique factor analysis, and then group aggregated with chain P-technique. The composite pattern suggested a three-component solution consisting of cardiac rate, cardiac contractility, and peripheral resistance factors. Individual profiles were compared to the composite pattern; these profiles differed in the number of components derived, percentage variance explained by these components, and relative dominance of specific CV components. A hypothesis that emerged is that the subjects differed in the complexity of CV control. It appears that the idiodynamic framework, combined with novel research designs and statistical methods, may help expand the view of CV reactivity beyond the traditional unitary view as response magnitude.

This study examined how the outcomes of joint decision making relate to cardiovascular reactions when group members disagree about the decision to be taken. A conflict was experimentally induced during a joint decision-making task, while cardiovascular markers of challenge/threat motivational states were assessed following the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (BPSM; J. Blascovich, ). Results show that individuals were less likely to adjust their initially preferred decision alternative the more they exhibited a cardiovascular pattern indicative of threat (i.e., relatively high total peripheral resistance and low cardiac output) compared to challenge. This finding extends the BPSM by showing a link between threat and rigidity, and emphasizes the importance of psychophysiological processes for studying intragroup conflict and decision making.

Mental stress can trigger myocardial infarction, with poor vascular responses to stress implicated as a pathway. Vascular stress reactivity can be assessed by different methods, such as total peripheral resistance (TPR) and forearm blood flow (FBF). Little is known about how these vascular assessments are linked. This was examined in two separate studies. Healthy men (Study 1: N = 29, Study 2: N = 23) completed rest and mental arithmetic (Study 1: 8 min, Study 2: 16 min). In both studies, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and FBF increased in response to stress. In Study 1, no changes in TPR were seen, but Study 2 found stress-induced increases in TPR. FBF was not linked to TPR at any time (all ps > .05). It appears that limb vasculature and TPR responses to stress do not give the same information about impairments of the vasculature. These findings are relevant to the interpretation of prior research findings and the design of future studies on stress and vascular responses.