OBJECTIVE: Social support is a reliable predictor of cardiovascular health. According to the buffering hypothesis, stress is 1 mechanism by which support is able to affect physiological processes. However, most of the experimental evidence for the hypothesis comes from laboratory studies. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) protocols examine participants in their natural environment, where they are more likely to encounter personally relevant real-world stressors. Furthermore, prior work shows that examining support by its specific functional components reveals additional independent links to health. METHODS: The current study aimed to examine the stress-buffering effects of functional social support on ABP. One hundred eighty-eight participants completed a 1-day ABP assessment along with measures of functional social support and both global perceived stress and momentary stress at time of reading. RESULTS: RESULTS indicated main effects for both stress measures. Global support, emotional, tangible, and informational support only moderated the effects of momentary stress, but not global stress, in predicting ABP. Informational support was the most consistent stress-buffering predictor of ABP, predicting both ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: The predicted values in ABP for informational support achieved health-relevant differences, emphasizing the value of examining functional support beyond global support alone. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Social support is a reliable predictor of cardiovascular health. According to the buffering hypothesis, stress is 1 mechanism by which support is able to affect physiological processes. However, most of the experimental evidence for the hypothesis comes from laboratory studies. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) protocols examine participants in their natural environment, where they are more likely to encounter personally relevant real-world stressors. Furthermore, prior work shows that examining support by its specific functional components reveals additional independent links to health. METHODS: The current study aimed to examine the stress-buffering effects of functional social support on ABP. One hundred eighty-eight participants completed a 1-day ABP assessment along with measures of functional social support and both global perceived stress and momentary stress at time of reading. RESULTS: RESULTS indicated main effects for both stress measures. Global support, emotional, tangible, and informational support only moderated the effects of momentary stress, but not global stress, in predicting ABP. Informational support was the most consistent stress-buffering predictor of ABP, predicting both ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: The predicted values in ABP for informational support achieved health-relevant differences, emphasizing the value of examining functional support beyond global support alone. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Amara E Ezeamama; Jennifer Elkins; Cherie Simpson; Shaniqua L Smith; Joseph C Allegra; Toni P Miles Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-10-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jennifer Mandelbaum; Spencer Moore; Patricia P Silveira; Michael J Meaney; Robert D Levitan; Laurette Dubé Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Neha A John-Henderson; Betty Henderson-Matthews; Scott R Ollinger; Jerry Racine; Megan R Gordon; Aidan A Higgins; Wil C Horn; Sequoia A Reevis; Jolynn A Running Wolf; Davida Grant; Agnieszka Rynda-Apple Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2020-01-24
Authors: Caroline Y Doyle; John M Ruiz; Daniel J Taylor; Joshua W Smyth; Melissa Flores; Jessica R Dietch; Chul Ahn; Matthew Allison; Timothy W Smith; Bert N Uchino Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2019 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Bert N Uchino; Wendy Birmingham; Joshua Landvatter; Sierra Cronan; Emily Scott; Timothy W Smith Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 3.864