Acceso usuarios
Tamara Gschneidner, Timo Kortsch
Occupational stress is a major contributor to mental and physical health problems, yet individuals vary in how they appraise and respond to stress, even in identical situations. This study investigates whether motivational goals and internalized conflict schemas—as proposed by Grawe’s Consistency Theory—account for these differences by intensifying subjective stress when approach and avoidance goals are simultaneously activated. In a vignette-based pilot study, we validated 12 workplace scenarios varying in incongruence levels. In the main study (N = 482; mean age 25 years; 83.2% female), participants completed the FAMOS questionnaire to assess approach and avoidance goals and were randomly assigned to 4 out of the 12 pretested vignettes. Subjective stress was measured before and after vignette exposure using the SSSQ, and subjective wellbeing was measured using the PANAS. Multilevel modeling showed that participants with stronger avoidance goals and conflict schemas reported higher baseline stress, and that experimentally induced high incongruence led to greater increase in stress levels compared to low incongruence in three out of four scenarios. These findings suggest that psychological inconsistencies—particularly avoidance goals, conflict schemas, and goal incongruence—serve as internal stressors that intensify stress responses. The results highlight the importance of considering individual motivational patterns in stress research and intervention.
