Search

Background: Resilience in children with early family life adversity is linked with successful adulthood psychological outcomes. However, whether resilience influences daily emotional responses to stress remains unclear. This study examined whether resilience capacity in the context of early family risks predicts better daily stress and affect outcomes during a stressful transition.Methods: International and interstate undergraduates (N = 98; aged 18-25 years) were grouped as Resilient (high family risk, high resilience), Vulnerable (high family risk, low resilience), or Control (low family risk, average anxiety and depression). Daily negative (NA) and positive affect (PA), perceived stress, and stressors were assessed 4-times daily across 14 consecutive days (4333 total surveys; 73.7% completion rate). Affect reactivity was operationalized as the NA and PA slopes on perceived stress from each survey.Results: The Resilient group did not differ from the Control group on all outcomes. The Vulnerable group reported significantly higher number of stressors, perceived stress levels, NA, and NA reactivity than the Resilient and Control groups (all p < .001); as well as significantly lower PA (p = .024) and PA reactivity (p = .003) than the Control group.Limitations: Our findings are not generalizable to other populations and cannot determine causality.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that resilience capacity is protective against the effects of early family risks on a daily basis. However, significant findings were limited to emotional distress outcomes and not supported for PA, suggesting resilience capacity may attenuate emotional distress but not positive emotions in response to stress in emerging adults with family risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Daily activities are associated with affective experiences. A 24-h day can be separated into five mutually exclusive activity types: sleep, awake in bed, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), light-intensity physical activity (LIPA), and sedentary behavior (SB). Most research has examined these activities independently and not collectively, yet increased time in one activity must be offset by decreasing other activities. Using compositional isotemporal substitution analyses, this study examined the associations between time spent in daily activities and affect, including both high and low arousal positive and negative affect. Method: Across three separate studies, daily activities and affect were measured throughout 7–15 days (Mdays = 10) in 361 healthy community adults (72.5% females, Mage = 22.79 years). Activities were objectively assessed using accelerometry and self-reported affect was assessed using repeated ecological momentary assessments. Minutes spent in each activity and affect values across the three studies were averaged for each participant. Results: Longer sleep duration at the expense of time awake in bed was associated with lower high arousal negative affect (e.g., nervousness, b = − 0.24, p =.007). More MVPA at the expense of LIPA or SB was associated with higher high arousal positive affect (e.g., happiness, b = 0.35, p =.027). Activity composition was not associated with low arousal positive or negative affect (all p ≥.06). Conclusion: Associations between 24-h activity composition and affect differed based on types of activities, types of affect, and the interrelationships between activities within the composition. Findings can aid interventions to develop integrated guidance on the optimal activity patterns for mental health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined whether resilience capacity moderates the association of daily perceived stress and affect with cortisol diurnal slope among relocated emerging adults. Relocated undergraduates (N = 98; aged 18–25 years) were recruited from three groups: Resilient, Vulnerable, and Control. The Resilient group required Risky Family Questionnaire (RFQ) scores ≥ 29 and Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) scores ≥ 3.6. The Vulnerable group required RFQ scores ≥ 29 and BRS scores ≤ 3. The comparison Control group required RFQ scores ≤ 21 and T-scores < 60 on PROMIS anxiety and depression symptoms. Mixed-effects models were used to test the unique associations of perceived stress, negative affect, and positive affect x group interactions (predictors) on diurnal cortisol slope (outcome) across 14 consecutive days. The Resilient group did not moderate the associations between daily stress or affect on cortisol diurnal slope. Instead, both the Resilient and Vulnerable groups with early family risk, showed a steeper diurnal slope unique to higher stress and a flatter slope unique to higher negative affect. Results suggest that riskier early family life was significantly associated with altered cortisol diurnal slope outcomes to stress (i.e., demand) and negative affect (i.e., distress). These associations were not attenuated by current resilience capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emotional reactivity predicts poor health and psychopathology. Despite its theoretical importance, little research has tested whether coping predicts emotional reactivity to stressors. We analyse three studies to test this hypothesis for negative (NA) and positive affect (PA) reactivity to daily stressors. 422 Participants (72.5 % females, M age = 22.79 ± 5.36) came from three longitudinal, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies across 7–15 days (ACES N = 190; DESTRESS N = 134; SHS N = 98). Coping was measured at baseline. NA, PA, and daily stressors were assessed via EMA. Mixed effects linear models tested whether coping predicted NA and PA reactivity, defined as their slope on within- and between-person daily stressors. Behavioural disengagement and mental disengagement coping predicted greater within-person NA reactivity across all studies (all p <.01, all f 2 = 0.01). Denial coping predicted greater within-person NA reactivity in ACES and DESTRESS (both p <.01, f 2 from 0.02‐0.03) and between-person in ACES and SHS (both p <.01, f 2 from 0.02 to 0.03). For approach-oriented coping, only active planning coping predicted lower within-person NA reactivity and only in DESTRESS (p <.01, f 2 = 0.02). Coping did not predict PA reactivity (all p >.05). Our findings cannot be generalised to children or older adults. Emotional reactivity to daily stressors may differ from severe or traumatic stressors. Although data were longitudinal, the observational design precludes establishing causality. Avoidance-oriented coping strategies predicted greater NA reactivity to daily stressors with small effect sizes. Few and inconsistent results emerged for approach-oriented coping and PA reactivity. Clinically, our results suggest that reducing reliance on avoidance-oriented coping may reduce NA reactivity to daily stressors. • Emotional reactivity to stressors was measured with ecological momentary assessment. • Avoidance-oriented coping predicted greater negative affect reactivity in 3 studies. • Active planning coping predicted lower negative affect reactivity in 1 study. • No coping strategy predicted positive affect reactivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]