| Literature DB >> 35410991 |
Andree Hartanto1, Nadyanna M Majeed2, Verity Y Q Lua2, Joax Wong2, Nicole R Y Chen2.
Abstract
Dispositional gratitude has emerged in the literature to be associated with many health benefits in measures ranging from self-reported health to biomarkers of cardiovascular risk. However, little is known about the link between dispositional gratitude and lipid profiles. Drawing from the Gratitude and Self-improvement Model that grateful individuals are more likely to strive for actual self-improvement such as engaging in healthy lifestyles, we investigated the relation between dispositional gratitude and serum lipid levels. Participants consisted of 1800 adults from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) 2: Biomarker Project (N = 1054) and MIDUS Refresher: Biomarker Project (N = 746). Serum lipid profiles were measured through fasting blood samples. After controlling for demographics, use of antihyperlipidemic mediation, and personality traits, we found that higher dispositional gratitude was associated with lower triglyceride levels. Results also revealed that healthy diets and lower BMI partially mediated the gratitude-triglyceride association. However, some variations in the analytic method may influence the associations between gratitude and triglycerides levels. Our findings provide preliminary evidence suggesting dispositional gratitude as a promising psychological factor that is associated with a healthier lipid profile.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35410991 PMCID: PMC9001645 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09960-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Demographics, health behaviors, lipid profile, and other main characteristics of participants in the biomarker projects.
| Variables | Range | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at biomarker assessment (years) | 1800 | 56.17 (12.69) | 26–86 |
| Sex (% male) | 1800 | 47.28% | |
| Race (% White) | 1792 | 88.06% | |
| Educationa | 1796 | 8.02 (2.43) | 1–12 |
| Household income (in thousands) | 1752 | 82.38 (63.15) | 0–300 |
| Dispositional gratitude | 1797 | 6.25 (0.82) | 1.50–7.00 |
| Dispositional optimism | 1792 | 23.52 (4.82) | 6–30 |
| Agreeableness | 1794 | 3.39 (0.52) | 1.20–4.00 |
| Conscientiousness | 1794 | 3.38 (0.47) | 1.40–4.00 |
| Extraversion | 1794 | 3.11 (0.58) | 1.20–4.00 |
| Emotional stability | 1794 | 2.05 (0.64) | 1.00–4.00 |
| Openness to experience | 1789 | 2.98 (0.52) | 1.00–4.00 |
| Alcohol consumption (drinks per month) | 1800 | 16.05 (27.84) | 0–360 |
| Body mass index | 1799 | 29.51 (6.64) | 14.99–77.58 |
| Exercise (% exercise regularly) | 1800 | 78.00% | |
| Healthy eating index | 1794 | 16.99 (2.69) | 8–24 |
| Smoking (% current smoker) | 1799 | 10.23% | |
| Antihyperlipidemic agent medication (% on medication) | 1800 | 29.67% | |
| Triglycerides (mg/DL) | 1785 | 128.37 (117.75) | 25–3299 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 1785 | 184.86 (39.20) | 70–439 |
| High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (mg/dL) | 1782 | 56.51 (18.68) | 19–137 |
| Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (mg/dL) | 1782 | 102.87 (34.42) | 2.80–283.00 |
Values are shown before imputation.
aEducation attainment was rated on a scale of 1 (No school) to 12 (PhD, EdD, MD, LLB, LLD, JD, or other professional degree).
Model summaries with HDL as the outcome variable.
| Predictor | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | β | β | β | |||||||||||||
| Dispositional gratitude | .08 | 1.80 | 0.52 | .01 | 0.31 | 0.49 | .525 | .00 | 0.02 | 0.53 | .973 | − .01 | − 0.18 | 0.47 | .706 | |
| Antihyperlipidemic medication use (0 = | − .21 | − 3.80 | 0.93 | − .21 | − 3.79 | 0.93 | − .10 | − 1.74 | 0.84 | |||||||
| Age | .13 | 0.19 | 0.03 | .13 | 0.18 | 0.03 | .08 | 0.11 | 0.03 | |||||||
| Sex (0 = | − .75 | − 13.71 | 0.81 | − .77 | − 14.13 | 0.85 | − .80 | − 14.67 | 0.79 | |||||||
| Race (0 = | .09 | 1.57 | 1.24 | .205 | .08 | 1.50 | 1.24 | .223 | .15 | 2.80 | 1.11 | |||||
| Education | .11 | 0.84 | 0.17 | .09 | 0.69 | 0.18 | .03 | 0.22 | 0.16 | .182 | ||||||
| Household income | .04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | .068 | .03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | .193 | .00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | .957 | ||||
| Dispositional optimism | .08 | 0.30 | 0.11 | .05 | 0.20 | 0.10 | ||||||||||
| Agreeableness | − .10 | − 3.64 | 0.95 | − .03 | − 1.21 | 0.86 | .162 | |||||||||
| Conscientiousness | .04 | 1.56 | 0.92 | .090 | .02 | 0.83 | 0.83 | .316 | ||||||||
| Extraversion | .05 | 1.59 | 0.88 | .070 | − .01 | − 0.17 | 0.79 | .827 | ||||||||
| Emotional stability | .03 | 0.90 | 0.72 | .214 | .01 | 0.37 | 0.65 | .573 | ||||||||
| Openness to experience | .03 | 0.91 | 0.94 | .331 | .02 | 0.62 | 0.85 | .462 | ||||||||
| Alcohol consumption | .26 | 0.17 | 0.01 | |||||||||||||
| BMI | − .27 | − 0.73 | 0.06 | |||||||||||||
| Exercise (0 = | .12 | 2.25 | 0.88 | |||||||||||||
| Healthy Eating Index | .10 | 0.65 | 0.14 | |||||||||||||
| Smoking (0 = | − .31 | − 5.61 | 1.22 | |||||||||||||
N = 1800. β = standardized slope coefficient, b = unstandardized slope coefficient, SE = standard error of the slope coefficient. Bolded p-values indicate statistical significance at the .05 level.
Model summaries with LDL as the outcome variable.
| Predictor | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | β | β | β | |||||||||||||
| Dispositional gratitude | − .00 | − 0.19 | 0.97 | .847 | − .02 | − 0.74 | 0.93 | .425 | − .02 | − 0.74 | 1.01 | .460 | − .01 | -0.35 | 1.01 | .729 |
| Antihyperlipidemic medication use (0 = | − .77 | − 25.92 | 1.77 | − .77 | − 25.80 | 1.77 | − .78 | − 26.32 | 1.78 | |||||||
| Age | .02 | 0.05 | 0.06 | .394 | .02 | 0.05 | 0.07 | .445 | .04 | 0.10 | 0.07 | .152 | ||||
| Sex (0 = | .01 | 0.36 | 1.54 | .815 | .01 | 0.27 | 1.63 | .867 | − .02 | − 0.65 | 1.69 | .702 | ||||
| Race (0 = | − .17 | − 5.61 | 2.34 | − .17 | − 5.87 | 2.35 | − .19 | − 6.41 | 2.34 | |||||||
| Education | − .08 | − 1.17 | 0.33 | − .09 | − 1.22 | 0.34 | − .06 | − 0.86 | 0.35 | |||||||
| Household income | .00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | .908 | .00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | .864 | .01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | .591 | ||||
| Dispositional optimism | − .02 | − 0.15 | 0.20 | .471 | − .01 | − 0.06 | 0.20 | .763 | ||||||||
| Agreeableness | .03 | 2.17 | 1.82 | .234 | .02 | 1.19 | 1.83 | .515 | ||||||||
| Conscientiousness | − .03 | − 2.30 | 1.76 | .191 | − .02 | − 1.71 | 1.77 | .332 | ||||||||
| Extraversion | − .02 | − 0.98 | 1.67 | .556 | − .01 | − 0.69 | 1.67 | .681 | ||||||||
| Emotional stability | − .01 | − 0.76 | 1.39 | .582 | − .02 | − 0.97 | 1.39 | .483 | ||||||||
| Openness to experience | .04 | 2.71 | 1.76 | .122 | .04 | 2.82 | 1.76 | .110 | ||||||||
| Alcohol consumption | − .02 | − 0.02 | 0.03 | .477 | ||||||||||||
| BMI | .05 | 0.26 | 0.12 | |||||||||||||
| Exercise (0 = | .00 | 0.07 | 1.89 | .972 | ||||||||||||
| Healthy Eating Index | − .06 | − 0.80 | 0.30 | |||||||||||||
| Smoking (0 = | .24 | 7.92 | 2.61 | |||||||||||||
N = 1800. β = standardized slope coefficient, b = unstandardized slope coefficient, SE = standard error of the slope coefficient. Bolded p-values indicate statistical significance at the .05 level.
Model summaries with triglycerides as the outcome variable.
| Predictor | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | β | β | β | |||||||||||||
| Dispositional gratitude | − 0.10 | − 8.98 | 2.11 | − 0.06 | − 5.65 | 2.10 | − 0.06 | − 5.05 | 2.29 | − 0.04 | − 3.20 | 2.21 | .148 | |||
| Antihyperlipidemic medication use (0 = | 0.15 | 10.72 | 3.96 | 0.15 | 10.65 | 3.94 | 0.05 | 3.99 | 3.82 | .297 | ||||||
| Age | − 0.06 | − 0.33 | 0.15 | − 0.04 | − 0.23 | 0.15 | .119 | − 0.01 | − 0.04 | 0.14 | .760 | |||||
| Sex (0 = | 0.38 | 27.52 | 3.44 | 0.41 | 29.56 | 3.61 | 0.34 | 24.80 | 3.60 | |||||||
| Race (0 = | − 0.22 | − 15.71 | 5.29 | − 0.23 | − 16.53 | 5.28 | − 0.30 | − 21.85 | 5.12 | |||||||
| Education | − 0.07 | − 2.17 | 0.74 | − 0.06 | − 1.69 | 0.77 | − 0.00 | − 0.11 | 0.75 | .886 | ||||||
| Household income | − 0.08 | − 0.09 | 0.03 | − 0.07 | − 0.08 | 0.03 | − 0.06 | − 0.07 | 0.03 | |||||||
| Dispositional optimism | − 0.07 | − 1.08 | 0.45 | − 0.05 | − 0.75 | 0.44 | .083 | |||||||||
| Agreeableness | 0.06 | 8.43 | 4.05 | 0.01 | 2.03 | 3.91 | .605 | |||||||||
| Conscientiousness | − 0.03 | − 5.31 | 3.91 | .174 | − 0.00 | − 0.48 | 3.76 | .899 | ||||||||
| Extraversion | 0.04 | 5.09 | 3.74 | .173 | 0.07 | 8.54 | 3.59 | |||||||||
| Emotional stability | 0.05 | 5.92 | 3.08 | .054 | 0.06 | 6.24 | 2.97 | |||||||||
| Openness to experience | 0.02 | 3.05 | 3.96 | .440 | 0.02 | 2.95 | 3.81 | .438 | ||||||||
| Alcohol consumption | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.06 | .755 | ||||||||||||
| BMI | 0.25 | 2.76 | 0.27 | |||||||||||||
| Exercise (0 = | − 0.18 | − 13.12 | 4.06 | |||||||||||||
| Healthy Eating Index | − 0.09 | − 2.39 | 0.65 | |||||||||||||
| Smoking (0 = | 0.13 | 9.34 | 5.71 | .102 | ||||||||||||
N = 1800. β = standardized slope coefficient, b = unstandardized slope coefficient, SE = standard error of the slope coefficient. Bolded p-values indicate statistical significance at the .05 level.
Coefficients of gratitude predicting triglyceride levels in sensitivity analyses.
| Variation in analysis | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | β | β | ||||
| Original results (for comparison) | − .10 | − .06 | − .06 | |||
| Gratitude reflected and log-transformed | .10a | .06a | .05a | |||
| Triglyceride level log-transformed (after winsorization at 3 | − .10 | − .06 | − .05 | .058 | ||
| Winsorization (3 | − .11 | − .07 | − .06 | |||
| Winsorization (4 | − .10 | − .07 | − .07 | |||
| Only participants with complete data (i.e., listwise deletion; | − .11 | − .07 | − .07 | |||
| Only participants not taking antihyperlipidemic medication ( | − .11 | − .07 | − .05 | .089 | ||
| Only MIDUS 2 data ( | − .09 | − .05 | .124 | − .05 | .175 | |
| Only MIDUS Refresher data ( | − .12 | − .08 | − .06 | .130 | ||
| Adjustment with Hommel procedure | − .10 | − .06 | − .06 | .168 | ||
| Adjustment with Bonferroni procedure | − .10 | − .06 | .064 | − .06 | .252 | |
| Adjustment with Benjamini–Hochberg procedure | − .10 | − .06 | − .06 | .063 | ||
Bolded p-values indicate statistical significance at the .05 level.
aCoefficients were opposite in sign compared to the rest of the results because gratitude was reflected (i.e., reversed).
bp-value adjustments were conducted taking into account all three dependent variables (triglycerides, LDL, HDL) across the first three models (i.e., a total of nine p-values).
Gratitude as a predictor of alcohol consumption, BMI, exercise, healthy eating index, and smoking.
| Model | Alcohol consumptiona | BMIa | Exerciseb | Healthy eating indexa | Smokingb | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | β | β | β | β | ||||||
| Model 1 | − .08 | − .07 | .15 | .14 | − .29 | |||||
| Model 2 | − .06 | − .04 | .055 | .12 | .09 | − .23 | ||||
| Model 3 | − .06 | − .04 | .157 | .09 | .163 | .07 | − .17 | |||
N = 1800. β = standardized slope coefficient.
Bolded p values indicate significance at the .05 level. Model 1 was an unadjusted model with dispositional gratitude as the only predictor without entering any other covariates. Model 2 additionally controlled for age, sex, education attainment, household income, race, and the use of hyperlipidemic agent medication. Model 3 additionally controlled for dispositional optimism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional stability, and openness to experience.
aLinear regression. bLogistic regression.
Figure 1Serial mediation model for triglyceride levels. Note N = 1704. Serial mediation modelling demonstrates the influence of dispositional gratitude on blood triglyceride levels via the healthy eating index and body mass Index. a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, c, and c’ represent path coefficients in standardized forms. c and c’ represent the total effect and direct effect respectively. The model additionally controlled for age, sex, education attainment, household income, race, the use of hyperlipidemic agent medication, dispositional optimism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional stability, and openness to experience. Listwise deletion was used as an imputation method for the serial mediation analysis. Listwise deletion was used as Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) multiple imputation using mice version 3.13.0 and mitml version 0.4-3 was not compatible with PROCESS version 4.0.1 for R.