| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Smyth, Joshua M., et al.
(författare)
-
Everyday stress response targets in the science of behavior change
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Behaviour Research and Therapy. - : Elsevier. - 0005-7967 .- 1873-622X. ; 101, s. 20-29
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Stress is an established risk factor for negative health outcomes, and responses to everyday stress can interfere with health behaviors such as exercise and sleep. In accordance with the Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program, we apply an experimental medicine approach to identifying stress response targets, developing stress response assays, intervening upon these targets, and testing intervention effectiveness. We evaluate an ecologically valid, within-person approach to measuring the deleterious effects of everyday stress on physical activity and sleep patterns, examining multiple stress response components (i.e., stress reactivity, stress recovery, and stress pile-up) as indexed by two key response indicators (negative affect and perseverative cognition). Our everyday stress response assay thus measures multiple malleable stress response targets that putatively shape daily health behaviors (physical activity and sleep). We hypothesize that larger reactivity, incomplete recovery, and more frequent stress responses (pile-up) will negatively impact health behavior enactment in daily life. We will identify stress-related reactivity, recovery, and response in the indicators using coordinated analyses across multiple naturalistic studies. These results are the basis for developing a new stress assay and replicating the initial findings in a new sample. This approach will advance our understanding of how specific aspects of everyday stress responses influence health behaviors, and can be used to develop and test an innovative ambulatory intervention for stress reduction in daily life to enhance health behaviors. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Zawadzki, Matthew J., et al.
(författare)
-
Understanding stress reports in daily life : a coordinated analysis of factors associated with the frequency of reporting stress
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of behavioral medicine. - : Springer. - 0160-7715 .- 1573-3521. ; 42:3, s. 545-560
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Although stress is a common experience in everyday life, a clear understanding of how often an individual experiences and reports stress is lacking. Notably, there is little information regarding factors that may influence how frequently stress is reported, including which stress dimension is measured (i.e., stressorsdid an event happen, subjective stresshow stressed do you feel, conditional stresshow stressful a stressor was) and the temporal features of that assessment (i.e., time of day, day of study, weekday vs. weekend day). The purpose of the present study was to conduct a coordinated analysis of five independent ecological momentary assessment studies utilizing varied stress reporting dimensions and temporal features. Results indicated that, within days, stress was reported at different frequencies depending on the stress dimension. Stressors were reported on 15-32% of momentary reports made within a day; across days, the frequency ranged from 42 to 76% of days. Depending on the cutoff, subjective stress was reported more frequently ranging about 8-56% of all moments within days, and 40-90% of days. Likewise, conditional stress ranged from just 3% of moments to 22%, and 11-69% of days. For the temporal features, stress was reported more frequently on weekdays (compared to weekend days) and on days earlier in the study (relative to days later in the study); time of day was inconsistently related to stress reports. In sum, stress report frequency depends in part on how stress is assessed. As such, researchers may wish to measure stress in multiple ways and, in the case of subjective and conditional stress with multiple operational definitions, to thoroughly characterize the frequency of stress reporting.
|
|
| 5. |
- Stawski, Robert S., et al.
(författare)
-
Age Differences in Everyday Stressor-Related Negative Affect : A Coordinated Analysis
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Psychology and Aging. - : Amercican Psychological Association. - 0882-7974 .- 1939-1498. ; 34:1, s. 91-105
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Advancing age is often characterized by preserved or even enhanced emotion regulation, which is thought to manifest in terms of age-related reductions in the within-person association between stressors and negative affect. Existing research from ecological momentary assessment and end-of-day daily diary studies examining such age-related benefits have yielded mixed results, potentially due to differences in samples, design, and measurement of everyday stressors and negative affect. We conducted a coordinated analysis of 5 ecological momentary assessments and 2 end-of-day daily diary studies to examine adult age differences in the within-person association between everyday stressors and negative affect. Reported stressor occurrences are robustly associated with higher negative affect, regardless of study design and sample characteristics. Across studies, interactions between age and everyday stressors predicting negative affect revealed a pattern of age-related decreases in the stressor-negative affect association, but this interaction was only significant for 2 studies. Further, examination of statistical power of the included studies suggests that, despite differences in the number of repeated assessments, power to detect within-person stressor-negative affect associations is quite good. In contrast, despite possessing wider age ranges, observed age differences were relatively small in magnitude, and studies are potentially underpowered to detect age differences in these within-person associations. We discuss the importance of study design, interval of repeated assessments and number of participants for examining age differences in everyday stressors and negative affect, as well as the virtue of coordinated analyses for detecting consistent direction of associations, but inconsistent patterns of statistical significance.
|
|
