Literature DB >> 16250691

Family support and cardiovascular responses in married couples during conflict and other interactions.

S D Broadwell1, K C Light.   

Abstract

This study examined the relation between perceived support from family and cardiovascular (CV) responses to interaction in 45 married couples, 24 to 50 years old. Gender-specific median splits on Family Support scores from the Brief Social Support Questionnaire defined high versus low support groups. CV responses were obtained from both spouses during baseline and 3 stressors: reading control, conversing about events of the day, and conflict discussion. Men with low support had higher systolic (SBP) and diastolic pressure (DBP) than men with high support or either group of women at baseline and during all task periods (p < .004 and .05). Women with high support did not differ in blood pressure (BP) from women with low support. Men and women with low support had higher vascular resistance indexes (VRI) than those with high support, during all periods (p < .0015), and reported lower dyadic satisfaction and total dyadic adjustment. Because a disproportionate number of non-White participants reported low family support, secondary analyses that included race as a covariate were conducted. Covarying for race did not produce substantial results for any of the measures (SBP, p < .05; DBP, p < .058; VR1, p < .021). Post-hoc analyses were also conducted, in which the marital dyad was considered the unit of analysis. For these analyses, in which both spouses' perceptions of family support as high or low were considered together, the wife's perceived support did not influence the husband's BP, whereas his perceived support did influence his BP (ps < .03). For VRI in both men and women, the spouses' support level, as well as the participant's own support level, affected responses (ps < .02). Thus, high family support is associated with both marital and CV benefits for both husbands and wives, although husbands may benefit more.

Entities:  

Year:  1999        PMID: 16250691     DOI: 10.1207/s15327558ijbm0601_4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Behav Med        ISSN: 1070-5503


  53 in total

1.  Type A behavior and marital interaction: hostile-dominant responses during conflict.

Authors:  J D Sanders; T W Smith; J F Alexander
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  1991-12

2.  Social support reduces cardiovascular reactivity to psychological challenge: a laboratory model.

Authors:  T W Kamarck; S B Manuck; J R Jennings
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  1990 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.312

3.  Living alone after myocardial infarction. Impact on prognosis.

Authors:  R B Case; A J Moss; N Case; M McDermott; S Eberly
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992 Jan 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Social support, type A behavior, and coronary artery disease.

Authors:  J A Blumenthal; M M Burg; J Barefoot; R B Williams; T Haney; G Zimet
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  1987 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.312

Review 5.  Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Authors:  S Cohen; T A Wills
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 17.737

6.  Physiological and affective predictors of change in relationship satisfaction.

Authors:  R W Levenson; J M Gottman
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1985-07

7.  Interpersonal aspects of blood pressure control.

Authors:  J J Lynch; S A Thomas; D A Paskewitz; K L Malinow; J M Long
Journal:  J Nerv Ment Dis       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 2.254

8.  The impact of marital status on survival after an acute myocardial infarction: a population-based study.

Authors:  V Chandra; M Szklo; R Goldberg; J Tonascia
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Sex differences in social support, self-deception, hostility, and ambulatory cardiovascular activity.

Authors:  W Linden; L Chambers; J Maurice; J W Lenz
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 4.267

10.  Magnitude and causes of mortality differences between married and unmarried men.

Authors:  Y Ben-Shlomo; G D Smith; M Shipley; M G Marmot
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 3.710

View more
  7 in total

1.  Hostility, conflict and cardiovascular responses in married couples: a focus on the dyad.

Authors:  Sherry D Broadwell; Kathleen C Light
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2005

2.  It's Complicated: Marital Ambivalence on Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Daily Interpersonal Functioning.

Authors:  Wendy C Birmingham; Bert N Uchino; Timothy W Smith; Kathleen C Light; Jonathan Butner
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2015-10

3.  Cardiovascular reactivity during positive and negative marital interactions.

Authors:  Jill B Nealey-Moore; Timothy W Smith; Bert N Uchino; Melissa W Hawkins; Chrisana Olson-Cerny
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2007-09-21

4.  Conflict and collaboration in middle-aged and older couples: II. Cardiovascular reactivity during marital interaction.

Authors:  Timothy W Smith; Bert N Uchino; Cynthia A Berg; Paul Florsheim; Gale Pearce; Melissa Hawkins; Nancy J M Henry; Ryan M Beveridge; Michelle A Skinner; Kelly J Ko; Chrisanna Olsen-Cerny
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2009-06

5.  Maternal Emotional and Physiological Reactivity: Implications for Parenting and the Parenting-Adolescent Relationship.

Authors:  Claire E Niehaus; Tara M Chaplin; Caitlin C Turpyn; Stefanie F Gonçalves
Journal:  J Child Fam Stud       Date:  2019-03-15

6.  The link between oxytocin plasma levels and observed communication behaviors during sexual and nonsexual couple discussions: An exploratory study.

Authors:  Rick Roels; Uzma S Rehman; C Sue Carter; Hossein P Nazarloo; Erick Janssen
Journal:  Psychoneuroendocrinology       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 4.693

7.  Determinants of Uncontrolled Hypertension in Rural Communities in South Asia-Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

Authors:  Tazeen H Jafar; Mihir Gandhi; Imtiaz Jehan; Aliya Naheed; H Asita de Silva; Hunaina Shahab; Dewan Alam; Nathasha Luke; Ching Wee Lim
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 3.080

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.