Search

Repeated assessments in everyday life enables collecting ecologically valid data on dynamic, within-persons processes. These methods have widespread utility and application and have been extensively used for the study of stressors and stress responses. Enhanced conceptual sophistication of characterizing intraindividual stress responses in everyday life would help advance the field. This article provides a pragmatic overview of approaches, opportunities, and challenges when intensive ambulatory methods are applied to study everyday stress responses in "real time." We distinguish between three stress-response components (i.e., reactivity, recovery, and pileup) and focus on several fundamental questions: (a) What is the appropriate stress-free resting state (or "baseline") for an individual in everyday life? (b) How does one index the magnitude of the initial response to a stressor (reactivity)? (c) Following a stressor, how can recovery be identified (e.g., when the stress response has completed)? and (d) Because stressors may not occur in isolation, how can one capture the temporal clustering of stressors and/or stress responses (pileup)? We also present initial ideas on applying this approach to intervention research. Although we focus on stress responses, these issues may inform many other dynamic intraindividual constructs and behaviors (e.g., physical activity, physiological processes, other subjective states) captured in ambulatory assessment.

Despite widespread interest in variance in affect, basic questions remain pertaining to the relative proportions of between-person and within-person variance, the contribution of days and moments, and the reliability of these estimates. We addressed these questions by decomposing negative affect and positive affect variance across three levels (person, day, moment), and calculating reliability using a coordinated analysis of seven daily diary, ecological momentary assessment (EMA), and diary-EMA hybrid studies (across studies age = 18-84 years, total Npersons = 2,103, total Nobservations = 45,065). Across studies, within-person variance was sizeable (negative affect: 45% to 66%, positive affect: 25% to 74%); in EMA more within-person variance was attributable to momentary rather than daily level. Reliability was adequate to high at all levels of analysis (within-person: .73-.91; between-person: .96-1.00) despite different items and designs. We discuss the implications of these results for the design of future intensive studies of affect variance.

The experience of naturally-occurring stress in daily life has been linked with lower physical activity levels. However, most of this evidence comes from general and static reports of stress. Less is known how different temporal components of everyday stress interfere with physical activity. In a coordinated secondary analysis of data from two studies of adults, we used intensive, micro-longitudinal assessments (ecological momentary assessments, EMA) to investigate how distinct components of everyday stress, that is, reactivity to stressor events, recovery from stressor events, and pileup of stressor events and responses predict physical activity. Results showed that components of everyday stress predicted subsequent physical activity especially for indicators of stress pileup. In both studies, the accumulation of stress responses over the previous 12 h was more predictive of subsequent physical activity than current stress reactivity or recovery responses. Results are compared to the effects of general measures of perceived stress that showed an opposite pattern of results. The novel everyday stress approach used here may be fruitful for generating new insights into physical activity specifically and health behaviors in general.

This study employed an intersectional approach (operationalized as the combination of more than one social identity) to examine the relationship between aspects of social identity (i.e., race, gender, age, SES), self-reported level of mistreatment, and attributions for discrimination. Self-reported discrimination has been researched extensively and there is substantial evidence of its association with adverse physical and psychological health outcomes. Few studies, however, have examined the relationship of multiple demographic variables (including social identities) to overall levels self-reported mistreatment as well the selection of attributions for discrimination. A diverse community sample (N = 292; 42.12% Black; 47.26% male) reported on experiences of discrimination using the Everyday Discrimination Scale. General linear models were used to test the effect of sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., race, gender, age, SES) on total discrimination score and on attributions for discrimination. To test for intersectional relationships, we tested the effect of two-way interactions of sociodemographic characteristics on total discrimination score and attributions for discrimination. We found preliminary support for intersectional effects, as indicated by a significant race by age interaction on the selection of the race attribution for discrimination; gender by SES on the age attribution; age by gender on the education attribution; and race by SES on the economic situation attribution. Our study extends prior work by highlighting the importance of testing more than one factor as contributing to discrimination, particularly when examining to what sources individuals attribute discrimination.

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., stressors-did an event happen, subjective stress-how stressed do you feel, conditional stress-how 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.

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

BackgroundBoth exposure to stress and perseverative cognitions (PCs)-repetitive cognitive representations of real or imagined stressors-are linked with poor psychological health. Yet, stress exposure and PCs are correlated, thus potentially obscuring any unique effects.PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to concurrently test associations between stress exposure and PCs and psychological health to examine the independent relationship of each with psychological health. Moreover, we examined whether these relationships are similar across sex, age, and race.MethodsAn adult community sample (n = 302) completed a measure of stress exposure, three PCs scales, and questionnaires assessing self-reported psychological health, including emotional well-being, vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to personal problems, subjective well-being, depressive symptoms, and poor sleep quality.ResultsStructural equation modeling was used to test a model in which both stress exposure and PCs predict psychological health. PCs consistently predicted all the psychological health outcomes, but stress was largely unrelated to the outcomes despite bivariate correlations suggesting a relationship. A follow-up model identified indirect effects of stress exposure on psychological health via PCs. Results were fairly consistent regardless of one's sex, age, or race.ConclusionsPCs robustly predicted all of the psychological health outcomes, intimating PCs as a common pathway to poor psychological health. Results have implications for stress interventions, including the need to address PCs after experiencing stress.

Objectives Despite extensive efforts to study individual differences in loneliness and neurocognitive health, little is known about how within-person changes in state loneliness relate to cognitive performance. This study addressed this gap by examining the association between within-person variation in state loneliness and cognitive performance assessed objectively in daily life. Methods Participants were 313 community-dwelling older adults (70–90 years) who reported momentary feelings of loneliness and completed smartphone-based cognitive tests 5 times daily for 14 consecutive days. Mobile cognitive tests assess visual associative memory, processing speed, and spatial memory. Results At the day level, average state loneliness levels were negatively related to cognitive performance on the same day and subsequent day. Consistent with the day-level analysis, momentary assessments of increased loneliness were consistently linked to worse cognitive performance on concurrent assessments. However, moments characterized by lower cognitive performance predicted higher levels of loneliness 3–4 hr later (next occasion), but not vice versa. Discussion The findings suggest a prospective association between loneliness and cognitive performance, with higher daily loneliness negatively associated with cognitive performance on the same day and predicting worse performance the following day. Notably, within a single day, lower cognitive performance at a given moment predicted elevated loneliness later in the day. This highlights a complex, reciprocal relationship—loneliness predicting and being predicted by cognitive performance depending on timescale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

ObjectiveDespite experimental manipulations that reliably elicit affective and physiological responses, the relationship between the two frequently appears small or nonexistent. We propose that this is, at least in part, due to a mismatch between the nature of the question being asked and the analytic methods applied. For example, to test if levels of affect reliably covary with physiology over time-a within-person question-one cannot apply analytic approaches that test whether people are similarly reactive across domains-a between-person question. The purpose of this paper is to compare within-person and between-person analyses testing the association between affect and physiology.MethodParticipants (N = 60) recalled an event from their lives that made them angry. Self-reported anger and objective blood pressure levels were recorded at baseline, after the recall, and 5 times during recovery.ResultsBetween-person correlations between anger and blood pressure were nonsignificant across all phases of the study, suggesting that those least/most reactive for anger were not least/most reactive for blood pressure. These null findings held regardless of whether linear or nonlinear assumptions were modeled. In contrast, within-person multilevel modeling indicated a clear relationship, suggesting that when a person was angrier that person's blood pressure was higher compared with when that person was less angry.ConclusionResults suggest the importance of appropriately matching analytic strategy to the nature of the question regarding the relationships between affect and physiology. Implications for past and future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

ObjectiveOlder adults often appraise and remember events less negatively than younger adults. These tendencies may influence reports that rely more on nonexperiential, reconstructive processes. As such, the current study examined whether age differences may be more pronounced for reports of emotions that span across increasingly longer temporal epochs compared to reports of more proximal emotional experiences.MethodParticipants (aged 25-74 during Burst 1) from the Midlife in the United States Survey and the National Study of Daily Experiences reported the negative affect they experienced across a month, a week, and throughout the day at two measurement bursts 10 years apart.ResultsAcross all negative affect measures, older age was related to lower levels of negative affect. The effect of age, however, varied across the three temporal epochs, such that age differences were smallest when people reported their daily negative affect and greatest when they reported their monthly negative affect.DiscussionTaking into account how emotion reports differ based on method provides a more realistic picture of emotional experience in adulthood. Findings suggest that age differences in emotional experiences vary based on whether questions ask about short versus longer time periods. Age advantages are most pronounced when people recall emotions across increasingly longer periods of time.

Objectives Detecting subtle behavioral changes in everyday life as early signs of cognitive decline and impairment is important for effective early intervention against Alzheimer's disease. This study examined whether features of daily social interactions captured by ecological momentary assessments could serve as more sensitive behavioral markers to distinguish older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from those without MCI, as compared to conventional global measures of social relationships. Method Participants were 311 community-dwelling older adults (aged 70–90 years) who reported their social interactions and socializing activities 5 times daily for 14 consecutive days using smartphones. Results Compared to those with normal cognitive function, older adults classified as MCI reported less frequent total and positive social interactions and less frequent in-person socializing activities on a daily basis. Older adults with and without MCI, however, did not show differences in most features of social relationships assessed by conventional global measures. Discussion These results suggest that certain features of daily social interactions (quality and quantity) could serve as sensitive and ecologically valid behavioral markers to facilitate the detection of MCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loneliness influences how people experience and respond to stressors, which may account for its role as a risk factor for morbidity and mortality. The present study was motivated by emerging evidence that affective responses to minor daily events have long‐term implications for health and well‐being. Specifically, we evaluated how individual differences in loneliness relate to the frequency of everyday stressors and stressor‐related negative emotions. A diverse community sample of 255 adults (age 25–65 years) completed ecological momentary assessments (EMA), during which they reported recent stressors and current negative affect (NA) five times a day for 14 days. Multilevel logistic analyses indicated that there was a quadratic association between loneliness and likelihood of reporting stressors, controlling for demographics, social isolation, depressive symptoms, and context (current activities, current location). Multilevel regression indicated that loneliness was unrelated to the concurrent effect of stressors on NA but significantly larger lagged stressor effects were observed among individuals in the low and high ranges of loneliness. These findings suggest that individuals with high levels of loneliness are more likely to experience everyday stressors and have prolonged emotional responses following stressors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]