Social Interactions and Cardiovascular Reactivity during Problem Disclosure among Friends

Abstract

The authors examined the relations of social interactions with cardiovascular response in the context of two friends disclosing a problem. They also examined the relations of the sex composition of the dyad and partner gender-related traits (communion/agency) with social interactions. Same-sex and opposite-sex dyads (N = 79) came to the lab. One friend disclosed a real-life problem while the partner provided support; cardiovascular response was monitored. Women provided more emotional support than men, and this sex difference was due to women's higher levels of communion. Agency was linked with greater advice, whereas unmitigated communion was linked with greater negative interactions. Negative interactions predicted slower diastolic blood pressure (DBP) recovery, whereas advice predicted slower heart rate (HR) recovery. Sex composition of dyad moderated some of these effects.

The effects of the spontaneous presence of a spouse/partner and others on cardiovascular reactions to an acute psychological challenge

“…However, previous laboratory studies revealing attenuated reactivity in participants tested with a friend present have all been conducted women, particularly female college students (Fontana et al, 1999;Gerin et al, 1995;Kamarck et al, 1995;Kamarck et al, 1990;Kors et al, 1997) Supportive females have been found to attenuate reactions to a speech task whereas supportive men had no such effect; this occurred irrespective of the sex of the participant (Glynn, Christenfeld, & Gerin, 1999). In contrast, the sex of the participant has been observed to be more important than the sex of the supporter in the context of an emotional disclosure procedure; women benefited more than men, in terms of lower reactivity, from emotional support provided by men (Fritz, Nagurney, & Hegelson, 2003). Finally, during a speech challenge, no main effects of sex of supporter have been reported, although women who interacted with a female friend regarded as an ambivalent network member showed higher reactivity than women who interacted with an 13 ambivalent male network member or a supportive female network member (Uno, Uchino, & Smith, 2002).…”

Psychological Mechanisms Underlying the Köhler Motivation Gain

“…There is considerable evidence that, all else being equal, women are more concerned than men with a variety of communal goals. For example, women are more likely to have prosocial social value orientations (van Lange, de Bruin, Otten, & Joireman, 1997), to be inclusive in coalition formation (Vinacke, 1959), to favor ingroup members (even without the possibility of reciprocation; Gaertner & Insko, 2000), to react more negatively to social exclusion (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995), to provide more emotional support (e.g., Fritz, Nagurney, & Helgeson, 2003), to behave more warmly/agreeably in interpersonal interactions (at least in same-sex relationships; Suh, Moskowitz, Fournier, & Zuroff, 2004), and to use less confrontational or coercive means of social influence (Carli, 1999). Although few overall gender differences in the Köhler motivation gain have been reported (e.g., Hertel et al, in press;, Experiment 1; although see Lount et al, 2000), it may well be that men and women get to much the same place through somewhat different routes.…”

When Support Seeking Backfires: Co-Rumination, Excessive Reassurance Seeking, and Depressed Mood in the Daily Lives of Young Adults

“…While discussing stressors in a rehashing, emotion-focused style predicts depressive symptoms, disclosing problems with others in a non-co-ruminative manner is less likely to be associated with negative emotions, as it could help generate solutions, elicit social support, and enrich relationships (Collins & Miller, 1994; Fritz, Nagurney, & Helgeson, 2003). This implies that talking about problems would have different implications for mood depending on trait CR levels, with problem-related conversations more closely linked to depressed mood among habitual co-ruminators.…”