Literature DB >> 29240901

Daily Social Interactions and the Biological Stress Response: Are There Age Differences in Links Between Social Interactions and Alpha-Amylase?

Kira S Birditt1, Lauren A Tighe1, Michael R Nevitt1, Steven H Zarit2.   

Abstract

Background and
Objectives: According to the strength and vulnerability integration (SAVI) model, older people are better able to avoid negative social interactions than younger people, but when they do experience negative interactions, they are equally or more emotionally and physiologically reactive than younger people. Less is known about the links between daily negative and positive social encounters and the sympathetic adrenal medullary system (a key stress pathway) and whether there are age differences in these links. This study considers whether negative and positive social interactions are associated with diurnal alpha-amylase (a measure of the sympathetic adrenal medullary system) and whether there are differences in these links by age. Research Design and
Methods: Participants were from the Daily Health, Stress, and Relationship Study, which includes a random sample of 89 individuals (aged 40-95) who completed 14 days of daily diary interviews and provided saliva samples four times a day (wake, 30 min after wake, lunch, and bedtime) for four of those days that were assayed for alpha-amylase.
Results: Days in which people reported more negative interactions were associated with flatter morning declines in alpha-amylase, indicating greater stress. Links between positive interactions and diurnal alpha-amylase varied by age group. Discussion and Implications: Findings are consistent with the SAVI model indicating that older adults respond differently to social stimuli than younger people.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29240901      PMCID: PMC6215457          DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnx168

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gerontologist        ISSN: 0016-9013


  34 in total

1.  Age differences in Exposure and Reactivity to Interpersonal Tensions among Black and White Individuals across Adulthood.

Authors:  Kira S Birditt; Kelly E Cichy; David Almeida
Journal:  Race Soc Probl       Date:  2011-10-01

2.  A snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the United States.

Authors:  Arthur A Stone; Joseph E Schwartz; Joan E Broderick; Angus Deaton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Positive couple interactions and daily cortisol: on the stress-protecting role of intimacy.

Authors:  Beate Ditzen; Christiane Hoppmann; Petra Klumb
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 4.312

4.  Assessing daily stress processes in social surveys by combining stressor exposure and salivary cortisol.

Authors:  David M Almeida; Katherine McGonagle; Heather King
Journal:  Biodemography Soc Biol       Date:  2009

5.  Daily positive events and diurnal cortisol rhythms: Examination of between-person differences and within-person variation.

Authors:  Nancy L Sin; Anthony D Ong; Robert S Stawski; David M Almeida
Journal:  Psychoneuroendocrinology       Date:  2017-06-03       Impact factor: 4.905

6.  Aging diurnal rhythms and chronic stress: Distinct alteration of diurnal rhythmicity of salivary alpha-amylase and cortisol.

Authors:  Jana Strahler; Christiane Berndt; Clemens Kirschbaum; Nicolas Rohleder
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 3.251

7.  Daily interpersonal coping strategies: Implications for self-reported well-being and cortisol.

Authors:  Kira S Birditt; Michael R Nevitt; David M Almeida
Journal:  J Soc Pers Relat       Date:  2015-08

8.  Poignancy: mixed emotional experience in the face of meaningful endings.

Authors:  Hal Ersner-Hershfield; Joseph A Mikels; Sarah J Sullivan; Laura L Carstensen
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2008-01

9.  Now you see it, now you don't: age differences in affective reactivity to social tensions.

Authors:  Susan Turk Charles; Jennifer R Piazza; Gloria Luong; David M Almeida
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2009-09

10.  Age differences in emotional reactions to daily negative social encounters.

Authors:  Kira S Birditt
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 4.077

View more
  6 in total

1.  Everyday discrimination in later life: A social network approach.

Authors:  Alyssa W Goldman
Journal:  Soc Sci Res       Date:  2021-11-12

2.  Social Integration, Daily Discrimination, and Biological Markers of Health in Mid- and Later Life: Does Self-Esteem Play an Intermediary Role?

Authors:  Jeffrey E Stokes
Journal:  Innov Aging       Date:  2020-07-06

3.  Isometric exercise facilitates attention to salient events in women via the noradrenergic system.

Authors:  Mara Mather; Ringo Huang; David Clewett; Shawn E Nielsen; Ricardo Velasco; Kristie Tu; Sophia Han; Briana L Kennedy
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Physiological reactions to acute stressors and subjective stress during daily life: A systematic review on ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies.

Authors:  Jeannette Weber; Peter Angerer; Jennifer Apolinário-Hagen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 3.752

5.  Salivary Biomarkers and Work-Related Stress in Night Shift Workers.

Authors:  Giusi Briguglio; Michele Teodoro; Sebastiano Italia; Francesca Verduci; Manuela Pollicino; Manuela Coco; Annalisa De Vita; Elvira Micali; Angela Alibrandi; Giuseppe Lembo; Chiara Costa; Concettina Fenga
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Covariation of psychobiological stress regulation with valence and quantity of social interactions in everyday life: disentangling intra- and interindividual sources of variation.

Authors:  Martin Stoffel; Elvira Abbruzzese; Stefanie Rahn; Ulrike Bossmann; Markus Moessner; Beate Ditzen
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2021-06-28       Impact factor: 3.575

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.