How Response Styles Moderate the Relationship between Daily Stress and Social Interactions in Depression, Social Phobia, and Controls

Abstract

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Stress and social isolation are potent predictors of negative health outcomes and are impacted in mood and anxiety disorders. Difficulties in social interactions have been particularly noted in people diagnosed with major depression disorder (MDD) and social phobia (SP). It remains poorly understood, however, how these variables interact on a moment-to-moment basis and which variables moderate this relationship. Psychological flexibility, or the ability to be open to experiences while maintaining engagement in valued activities, may help moderate the relationship between stress and social interaction. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> This study examined these variables in participants diagnosed with MDD and SP and compared them to a control group. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Participants were diagnosed with a mental disorder (<i>n</i> = 118 MDD; <i>n</i> = 47 SP) or were in the control group consisting of participants without MDD or SP (<i>n</i> = 119). Using the event sampling methodology (ESM), participants were queried six times per day for 7 days about stress, social interactions, and emotional response (rigid vs. flexible). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Higher current stress levels were related to more social interactions. This relationship was even stronger in situations when response flexibility was increased, especially in the clinical groups. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Data suggest that a healthy psychological process (flexible emotional responding) buffers the relationship between stress and social interactions. We discuss how these variables interact and whether these patterns may paradoxically contribute to the maintenance of psychopathology.

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

“…This suggest that engaging in social interactions (especially considerably more often or when of higher quality than usual) requires effort and resources, which could lead to subjective ratings of being ‘stressed’ rather than ‘relaxed’. Interestingly, these results are in line with a recent study in which the frequency of social contacts in everyday life was clearly associated with higher levels of stress (Gloster et al 2020 ). Accordingly, such results had previously been reported and explained by others (Gleason et al 2008 ), with the most recent evidence pointing towards a role of social support visibility: when social support is experienced as such, it might be accompanied by negative effects on psychological outcomes (Zee and Bolger 2019 ).…”

To Help or Not to Help? Prosocial Behavior, Its Association With Well-Being, and Predictors of Prosocial Behavior During the Coronavirus Disease Pandemic

“…In an experimental study, the experience of an acute stressor led to increases in trustworthiness and prosocial behavior in social interactions (von Dawans et al, 2012), suggesting that feeling stressed contributes to the emergence of prosocial behaviors due to its stressbuffering properties. Alternatively, engaging in activities such as volunteering, helping, and supporting others require personal resources, which may increase stress (Gloster et al, 2020a). Within the pandemic, prosocial behaviors might be one way to overcome experiences of stress that result from being affected or by observing other peoples' suffering during the pandemic.…”

Psychotherapy for Chronic In- and Outpatients with Common Mental Disorders: The “Choose Change” Effectiveness Trial

“…Our trial supports the role of psychological flexibility as a process of treatment change with our results showing that psychological flexibility protects from the negative effects of stress on functioning and symptoms. Given that stressful events and the perception thereof cannot be prevented and are part of human nature [32], it is central to equip vulnerable individuals with inter-and intrapersonal skills to navigate the requirements of living in a manner that promotes well-being and functioning despite stress or symptoms [15]. This trial has three main limitations: first, we employed a nonrandomized trial design because it was not possible in this clinical setting.…”