The stress-buffering effects of functional social support on ambulatory blood pressure.

OBJECTIVE Social support is a reliable predictor of cardiovascular health. According to the buffering hypothesis, stress is 1 mechanism by which support is able to affect physiological processes. However, most of the experimental evidence for the hypothesis comes from laboratory studies. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) protocols examine participants in their natural environment, where they are more likely to encounter personally relevant real-world stressors. Furthermore, prior work shows that examining support by its specific functional components reveals additional independent links to health. METHODS The current study aimed to examine the stress-buffering effects of functional social support on ABP. One hundred eighty-eight participants completed a 1-day ABP assessment along with measures of functional social support and both global perceived stress and momentary stress at time of reading. RESULTS RESULTS indicated main effects for both stress measures. Global support, emotional, tangible, and informational support only moderated the effects of momentary stress, but not global stress, in predicting ABP. Informational support was the most consistent stress-buffering predictor of ABP, predicting both ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS The predicted values in ABP for informational support achieved health-relevant differences, emphasizing the value of examining functional support beyond global support alone.

[1]  Daniel W. Russell,et al.  Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. , 1990 .

[2]  B. Uchino,et al.  The Availability of Social Support Reduces Cardiovascular Reactivity to Acute Psychological Stress , 1997, Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

[3]  Timothy B. Smith,et al.  Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[4]  Timothy W. Smith,et al.  Specific dimensions of perceived support and ambulatory blood pressure: which support functions appear most beneficial and for whom? , 2013, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[5]  R. Littell.  SAS System for Mixed Models , 1996 .

[6]  T. Wills,et al.  Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  Stephen C. Jones,et al.  Validation of the Oscar 2 oscillometric 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitor according to the British Hypertension Society protocol , 2007, Blood pressure monitoring.

[8]  T. Kamarck,et al.  Psychosocial stress and cardiovascular risk: what is the role of daily experience? , 2005, Journal of personality.

[9]  T. Kamarck,et al.  Measuring the Functional Components of Social Support , 1985 .

[10]  Taesung Park,et al.  Covariance models for nested repeated measures data: analysis of ovarian steroid secretion data. , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  J P Lehoczky,et al.  The statistical analysis of treatment effects in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure recordings. , 1988, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Lorne Campbell,et al.  Estimating Actor, Partner, and Interaction Effects for Dyadic Data Using PROC MIXED and HLM: A User–Friendly Guide , 2002 .

[13]  T. Kamarck,et al.  A global measure of perceived stress. , 1983, Journal of health and social behavior.

[14]  B. Uchino.  Understanding the Links Between Social Support and Physical Health: A Life-Span Perspective With Emphasis on the Separability of Perceived and Received Support , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[15]  A Steptoe,et al.  Stress, social support and cardiovascular activity over the working day. , 2000, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.