Jerry Suls

Associations of depression with C-reactive protein, IL-1, and IL-6: a meta-analysis.

Objective: To assess the magnitude and direction of associations of depression with C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin (IL)-1, and IL-6 in community and clinical samples. Methods: Systematic review of articles published between January 1967 and January 2008 in the PubMed and PsycINFO electronic databases was performed. Effect sizes were calculated as stat d and meta-analyzed, using random-effects models. Results: Each inflammatory marker was positively associated with depression; CRP, d = 0.15 (95% CI = 0.10, 0.21), p < .001; IL-6, d = 0.25 (95% CI = 0.18, 0.31), p < .001; IL-1, d = 0.35 (95% CI = 0.03, 0.67), p = .03; IL-1ra, d = 0.25 (95% CI = 0.04, 0.46), p = .02. Associations were strongest in clinically depressed patient samples—but were also significant in community-based samples—and when clinical interviews were used. Studies adjusting for body mass index (BMI) had smaller associations, albeit significant. Relationships were inconsistent with respect to age, medication, and sex. Depression was related to CRP and IL-6 among patients with cardiac disease or cancer. Conclusions: Depression and CRP, IL-1, and IL-6 are positively associated in clinical and community samples and BMI is implicated as a mediating/moderating factor. Continuity in clinic- and community-based samples suggests there is a dose-response relationship between depression and these inflammatory markers, lending strength to the contention that the cardiac (or cancer) risk conferred by depression is not exclusive to patient populations. Available evidence is consistent with three causal pathways: depression to inflammation, inflammation to depression, and bidirectional relationships. ANS = autonomic nervous system; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; BMI = body mass index; CAD = coronary artery disease; CES-D = Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale; CI = confidence interval; CNS = central nervous system; CRH = corticotrophin-releasing hormone; CRP = C-reactive protein; DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; HPA = hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal; IL = interleukin; IL-1ra = interleukin-1 receptor antagonist; LPS = lipopolysaccharide; MI = myocardial infarction; OTC = over-the-counter; PBMC = Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells; PHQ-9 = Depression Module of the Patient Health Questionnaire; SE = Standard Error.

Anger, anxiety, and depression as risk factors for cardiovascular disease: The problems and implications of overlapping affective dispositions

Several recent reviews have identified 3 affective dispositions--depression, anxiety, and anger-hostility--as putative risk factors for coronary heart disease. There are, however, mixed and negative results. Following a critical summary of epidemiological findings, the present article discusses the construct and measurement overlap among the 3 negative affects. Recognition of the overlap necessitates the development of more complex affect-disease models and has implications for the interpretation of prior studies, statistical analyses, prevention, and intervention in health psychology and behavioral medicine. The overlap among the 3 negative dispositions also leaves open the possibility that a general disposition toward negative affectivity may be more important for disease risk than any specific negative affect.

Social Comparison: Why, With Whom, and With What Effect?

Social comparison consists of comparing oneself with others in order to evaluate or to enhance some aspects of the self. Evaluation of ability is concerned with the question “Can I do X?” and relies on the existence of a proxy performer. A proxys relative standing on attributes vis‐à‐vis the comparer and whether the proxy exerted maximum effort on a preliminary task are variables influencing his or her informational utility. Evaluation of opinions is concerned with the questions “Do I like X?”“Is X correct?” and “Will I like X?” Important variables that affect an individuals use of social comparison to evaluate his or her opinions are the other persons expertise, similarity with the individual, and previous agreement with the individual. Whether social comparison serves a self-enhancement function depends on whether the comparer assimilates or contrasts his or her self relative to superior or inferior others. The kinds of self‐knowledge made cognitively accessible and variables such as mutability of self-views and distinctiveness of the comparison target may be important determinants of assimilation versus contrast.

Social psychological foundations of health and illness

List of contributors. Preface. 1. Introduction to Social Psychological Foundations of Health and Illness: Jerry Suls (University of Iowa) and Kenneth A. Wallston (Vanderbilt University). Part I: Models of Health/Risk Behavior and Behavior Change:. 2. Healthy Lifestyle across the Life--Span: The Heck with the Surgeon General: Howard Friedman (University of California, Riverside). 3. Exploring the links between risk perceptions and preventive behavior: Neil Weinstein (Cook College). 4. Communicating about Health: Message Framing, Persuasion and Health Behavior: Peter Salovey (Yale University) and Duane Wegener (Purdue University). 5. The Information--Motivation--Behavioral Skills Model: A General Social Psychological Approach to Understanding and Promoting Health Behavior: William A. Fisher (University of Western Ontario), Jeffrey D. Fisher (University of Connecticut), and Jennifer J. Harman (University of Connecticut). 6. A Social Reaction Model of Adolescent Health Risk: Frederick X. Gibbons, Meg Gerrard, and David J. Lane (all Iowa State University). 7. Affect, Thought and Protective Health Behavior: The Case of Worry and Cancer Screening: Kevin McCaul and Amy Boedicker Mullens (both North Dakota State University). 8. Social--Cognitive Factors in Health Behavior Change: Britta Renner (Ernst--Moritz--Arndt--Universitaet Greifswald) and Ralf Schwarzer (Free University of Berlin). Part II: Social--Cognitive Processes in Health:. 9. Common Sense Models of Illness: Implications for Symptom Perception and Health--Related Behaviors: Rene Martin (University of Iowa), Nan Rothrock (University of Iowa), Howard Leventhal (Rutgers University), and Elaine Leventhal (University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey). 10. Contributions of Social Comparison to Physical Illness and Well--Being: Jerry Suls (University of Iowa). 11. Interpersonal Emotional Processes in Adjustment to Chronic Illness: Robert F. DeVellis, Megan A. Lewis, and Katherine Regan Sterba (all University of North Carolina). 12. The Social, Linguistic and Health Consequences of Emotional Disorder: James Pennebaker (University of Texas at Austin). 13. Affiliation, Social Support and Biobehavioral Responses to Health: Shelley Taylor (University of California, Los Angeles), Laura Cousino Klein (Pennsylvania State University), Tara L. Gruenewald (University of California, Los Angeles), Regan A.R. Gurung (University of Wisconsin), and Sara Fernandes--Taylor (University of California, Los Angeles). Part III: Personality and Health:. 14. Toward a Social Psychophysiology of Cardiovascular Reactivity: Interpersonal Concepts and Methods in the Study of Stress and Coronary Disease: Timothy Smith (University of Utah), Linda Gallo (San Diego State University), and John Ruiz (University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine). 15. Gender--Related Traits and Health: Vicki Helgeson (Carnegie Mellon University). 16. Self--Regulatory Processes and Responses to Health Threats: Effects of Optimism on Well--Being: Michael Scheier (Carnegie Mellon University) and Charles Carver (University of Miami). Part IV: Adaptation to Stress and Chronic Illness:. 17. The Influence of Psychological Factors on Restorative Function in Health and Illness: Ashley W. Smith and Andrew Baum (both University of Pittsburgh). 18. Coping and Adjustment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Craig A. Smith, Kenneth A. Wallston, and Kathleen A. Dwyer (all Vanderbilt University). 19. Daily Processes in Health and Illness: Howard Tennen (University of Connecticut Health Center), Glenn Affleck (University of Connecticut Health Center), and Stephen Armelli (Pace University). 20. Scenes from a Marriage: The Coupling of Support, Coping and Gender within the Context of Chronic Illness: Tracey A. Revenson (City University of New York Graduate Center). Index.

Effects of sensory and procedural information on coping with stressful medical procedures and pain: a meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis of studies on preparation for medical procedures and pain evaluated the relative effects of sensory; procedural, and combined sensory-procedural preoperational information on coping outcomes. Results indicated that, in contrast to sensory information, procedural information provided no significant benefits over control group instruction. Combined sensory-procedural preparation, however, yielded the strongest and most consistent benefits in terms of reducing negative affect, pain reports, and other-rated distress. The meta-analytic results are consistent with the dual process preparation hypothesis, which proposes that the information combination is optimal because procedural details provide a map of specific events while sensory information facilitates their interpretation as nonthreatening. It is concluded that a combined preparation is the preferred clinical option.

Emotional Reactivity to Everyday Problems, Affective Inertia, and Neuroticism

A naturalistic diary recording study was conducted to assess affective responses to everyday stress. Community-residing male participants made diary recordings regarding problem occurrence and mood several times a day for 8 days. In addition to reporting more frequent daily problems, persons scoring high in neuroticism were more reactive to stressors and were more distressed by recurrent problems than were persons scoring low in neuroticism. New problems affected everyone comparably. There was also evidence of affective inertia, such that bad mood was more likely to carry over to the next assessment. This lag effect tended to be stronger among more neurotic individuals.

Evolution of the Biopsychosocial Model: Prospects and Challenges for Health Psychology

Although advances have been made in specifying connections between biological, psychological, and social processes, the full potential of the biopsychosocial model for health psychology remains untapped. In this article, 4 areas that need to be addressed to ensure the continued evolution of the biopsychosocial model are identified and a series of recommendations concerning initiatives directed at research, training, practice and intervention, and policy are delineated. These recommendations emphasize the need to better understand and utilize linkages among biological, psychological, social, and macrocultural variables. Activities that facilitate the adoption of a multisystem, multilevel, and multivariate orientation among scientists, practitioners, and policymakers will most effectively lead to the kinds of transdisciplinary contributions envisioned by the biopsychosocial perspective.

Differential roles of neuroticism, extraversion, and event desirability for mood in daily life: An integrative model of top-down and bottom-up influences.

Top-down and bottom-up approaches were combined to assess the relative impact of extraversion, neuroticism, and daily events on daily mood. Ninety-six community-residing men completed diaries for 8 consecutive nights. Extraversion predicted positive mood, whereas neuroticism predicted positive and negative mood. Undesirable events predicted negative mood and, more modestly, positive mood. Desirable events predicted positive mood. Negative dispositional and situational factors play a larger role in daily positive affect than positive factors do in daily negative affect.

Global self-esteem in relation to structural models of personality and affectivity.

Three studies examined global self-esteem in relation to structural models of personality and affectivity. In every study, self-esteem was strongly negatively correlated with Neuroticism/Negative Affectivity and moderately to strongly related to Extraversion/Positive Affectivity. Additional findings, however, revealed that self-esteem is better viewed at the lower order level. For instance, global self-esteem correlated -.79 with the Depression facet of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (P. T. Costa, Jr., & R. R. McCrae, 1992) in Study 3. Moreover, confirmatory factor analyses produced very strong correlations between self-esteem and depression in both Study 2 (r = -.82) and Study 3 (r = -.86). Taken together, the data suggest that global self-esteem measures define one end of a bipolar continuum, with trait indicators of depression defining the other.

Daily stress and the trajectory of mood: Spillover, response assimilation, contrast, and chronic negative affectivity.

Experience sampling methodology was used to examine the effects of current and prior problems on negative mood within and across days. Forty male community residents wore signal watches and kept dairy records of problem occurrence and mood 8 times a day for 8 consecutive days. Trait negative affectivity (NA), prior mood, and concurrent stress were related to mood during the day. Mood in response to a current problem was worse if the prior time had been problem free than if the prior time had been stressful. High NA Ss were more reactive to concurrent stressors than were low NAs, but the effect was small. NA and current-day stress were the major influences of mood across days. High NAs were more distressed by current-day problems and recovered more slowly from problems of the preceding day. The benefits of conceptualizing the effects of daily stressors on mood in terms of spillover, response assimilation, habituation, and contrast are discussed.