No abstract

Previous research has identified increased negative affect as a potential mechanism linking early adversities and later poor mental and physical health. Further, increased self-criticism associated with early adversities may partially explain the association between early adversities and negative affect. Early adversities are more common at lower income levels, and much of the previous research has focused on low-income samples. Hence, little is known about whether the association between early adversities and negative affect is similar across income levels. First, we examine the interactive effect of early adversities and family income on negative affect (anger, hostility, shame and guilt) in a sample of 180 young adults (52% female, 73.6% White, Mage = 21 years). Second, we examine whether self-criticism mediates the association between early adversities and negative affect using moderated mediation analyses. The interaction between early adversities and family income was significant for each outcome. Those from high-income families reported significantly more negative affect when exposed to more early adversities. Further, self-criticism mediated the relationship between early adversities and negative affect, and family income moderated this mediational path such that the mediational effect was stronger at high family income levels. Results are interpreted as consistent with the biological sensitivity to context theory, which suggests individuals from highly supportive and resource rich environments (e.g., high family income) should be more sensitive to stressors than those from moderately supportive, moderately safe environments (e.g., average family income), displaying worse outcomes when exposed to environmental stressors.

Objective: The stress reactivity hypothesis (SRH) posits that stressful early environments contribute to exaggerated stress responses, which increase risk for later cardiovascular (CV) disease. However, recent studies have revealed conflicting associations. The current study examined whether the biological sensitivity to context theory (BSCT) or SRH is a more accurate description of associations between early stress and CV reactivity and recovery, and determine which framework best explains sleep outcomes. This is the first article to conceptually link these theories and empirically examine competing hypotheses. Method: Participants were 213 adults who participated in the Pittsburgh Cold Study 3. Early environment stress was assessed by four self-report measures consistent with operationalizations of the BSCT. Average heart rate and mean arterial pressure reactivity to the trier social stress test were assessed on two occasions, and sleep parameters were assessed using wrist-worn actigraphy over 7 days. Results: Results generally did not support the SRH; little evidence that high-stress early environments were reliably associated with exaggerated CV reactivity or slower CV recovery, and little evidence that these CV stress responses were consistently associated with poor sleep. However, there was some support for the BSCT; both high-stress and low-stress early environments were associated with exaggerated CV reactivity, the combination of high-stress and high CV reactivity was associated with poor sleep, and the combination of low-stress and high CV reactivity was associated with better sleep. Conclusions: Associations proposed by the BSCT persist into adulthood and may help explain associations with poor health outcomes. Public Significance StatementThis is the first article to conceptually link the stress reactivity hypothesis (SRH) and biological sensitivity to context theory (BSCT), and empirically examine their competing hypotheses. Findings provided some of the first evidence of the associations proposed by the BSCT in an adult sample and suggest this model may help explain associations between early environment stress, cardiovascular stress responses, and disease risk which contradict the SRH.

Affective states alter the perception of how quickly time is passing. However, previous studies have not examined the independent and interactive effects of emotion and time perception on behavioral outcomes. The current study sought to better understand the relationships between affect, time perception, and reported engagement in COVID-19 pathogen avoidance behaviors (e.g., social distancing, wearing a mask) over 1 year. The study sample was comprised of American adults (n = 1,000) recruited using Prolific. The majority of participants in the final sample (50.1% male, 46.8% female, 3.1% nonbinary/other) identified as White/Caucasian (78.9%) or Black/African American (11.9%). The average age in the sample was 34.4 years (SD = 11.3). Consistent with study hypotheses, approach-motivated affective states (happiness) were associated with time flying, and avoidance-motivated affective states (nervous, lack of control) were associated with time dragging. Moderation analyses revealed that reports of greater avoidance-motivated affect and time dragging, and reports of greater approach-motivated affect and time flying interacted to predict more frequent engagement in pathogen avoidance behaviors. These results contribute to the existing literature describing the affective and behavioral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic by suggesting both approach- and avoidance-motivated affective states have important implications for engagement in pathogen avoidance behaviors.

No abstract