1. Stress buffering benefits of capitalization events Agnes Wolowiec, Brooklyn College, CUNY & Cheryl L. Carmichael, Brooklyn College, CUNY Method Participants Brooklyn College students (N=146; 99F, 47M) completed the study. Age range 18-48 (M = 20.84, SD = 5.05) Procedure Completed a measure of self-reported attachment insecurity Sensors attached to monitor physiological activity Recalled and wrote for three minutes about a one of three topics (randomly assigned) Active-constructive capitalization event Supportive event Control (contents of their bedroom) Experienced a social-exclusion based stress induction via Cyberball, a computerized virtual ball-toss game Three animated characters, representing the participant and two other alleged participants (computer-controlled characters) Participant passes a ball back and forth with “other participants” Ball is returned to participant at a rate of 6.7% to induce social exclusion Completed post-exclusion measures of perceived rejection. Measures Pre-manipulation questionnaire Attachment: Attachment insecurity was assessed with the 18-item Experiences in Close Relationships survey (ECR- R) (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000) with 9 items each assessing anxiety (α =.84; M = 3.45, SD = 1.21) and avoidance (α =.87; M = 2.62, SD = 1.01). Items were rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. Physiological activity A MindWare BioNex chassis was used to collect and digitize physiological recordings of participants’ heart rate, respiration rate, and galvanic skin response during study procedures Heart rate: Three spot-electrodes were attached to participants’ torso according to manufacturer and guidelines to continuously monitor heart activity including heart period (HP), heart rate (HR), and heart rate variability (HRV) Respiration: Participants were fitted with a Piezo Crystal respiratory effort belt to monitor respiration rate Skin conductance (GSR): Electrodes were attached to the base of participants’ non-dominant palm to measure pooled sweat, an indicator of sympathetic nervous system arousal Post-manipulation questionnaires Perceived Rejection: 5 items each from the Reflexive Needs Scale (Williams, 2008) assess the following outcomes exclusion/belonging (α =.80; M =3.75, SD =.87) invisibility/meaningful existence (α =.78; M =3.53, SD =.93) control (α =.63; M =1.85, SD =.72) self-esteem (α =.83; M =2.72, SD =.88) mood (α =.89; M =2.92, SD =.88) Anxiety: Anxiety (α =.90; M =3.47, SD =.98) was measured with the 20-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Speilberger, 1972). Discussion Background & Hypothesis The stress buffering literature shows that perceiving support availability for negative events has stress buffering benefits (Cohen, 1992). Social support has been found to decrease cardiovascular disease and inflammation (Uchino, 2009), and increase immune system functioning (Kiecolt-Glasser, McGuire, Robles, Glaser, 2002). Capitalization refers to support seeking for positive events by sharing good news with close others. Receiving enthusiastic, supportive feedback to a capitalization attempt is associated with personal and relational benefits (Reis, Smith, Carmichael, Caprariello, Tsai, Rodrigues, & Maniaci, 2010). This experiment examined whether supportive feedback to a capitalization attempt could buffer stress in a similar manner to supportive feedback for a negative event. Given that perceptions of support are influenced by attachment insecurity such that insecure people typically experience received support as less helpful (Collins & Feeney, 2000), this research also tested whether attachment insecurity moderates the stress-buffering benefits of supportive feedback to a positive event in a similar way that attachment insecurity alters perceptions of support for negative events. Results Analysis strategy Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to test whether our writing manipulation and attachment insecurity had main and interactive effects on reactions to social exclusion. Two contrast codes were created to represent the three conditions of our writing manipulation. The first compared the two interpersonal writing conditions (support, capitalization) to the control condition (room description). The second compared the two interpersonal conditions to each other (support vs. capitalization). Attachment anxiety and avoidance scores were each centered around their mean, and multiplied by each of the two contrast codes to create interaction terms. The main effects of the manipulation and attachment were entered first, followed by the interaction terms. Findings There were no main effects of our manipulation on any of the dependent variables. There were significant associations between attachment anxiety and post-rejection exclusion, self-esteem, mood, and anxiety. Anxiety was not significantly related to feelings of invisibility or control. The were Attachment Anxiety X Writing Manipulation interactions on the post- rejection outcomes of exclusion, invisibility (marginally), mood, and anxiety, but not control, or self-esteem. In each case, the Capitalization vs. Support Contrast X Anxiety interaction was significant, but the Interpersonal Writing vs. Control Contrast X Anxiety interaction was not. Table 1 contains all standardized regression coefficients Exclusion: Attachment anxiety was positively associated with feeling excluded for participants who wrote about a support event (b =.28), and negatively associated with feeling excluded for participants who wrote about a capitalization event (b=-.11). Capitalization vs. Support X Anxiety Interaction F(1,137) = 6.97, p <.01; see Figure 1. Invisibility: Attachment anxiety was positively associated with feeling invisible for participants who wrote about a support event (b =.18), and negatively associated with feeling invisible for participants who wrote about a capitalization event (b=-.12). Capitalization vs. Support X Anxiety Interaction F(1,136) = 3.21, p <.07; see Figure 2. Mood: Attachment anxiety was negatively associated with mood for participants who wrote about a support event (b =.28), and unrelated to mood for participants who wrote about a capitalization event (b=.01). Capitalization vs. Support X Anxiety Interaction F(1,137) = 5.38, p <.05; see Figure 3. Anxiety: The association between attachment anxiety and feeling post-exclusion anxiety was relatively stronger for participants who wrote about a support event (b =.54), than for participants who wrote about a capitalization event (b=.36). Capitalization vs. Support X Anxiety Interaction F(1,137) = 3.84, p =.01; see Figure 4. Attachment avoidance did not have any main or interactive effects on post-exclusion outcomes. Participant sex did not moderate any of the reported effects. Figure 2 : Attachment Anxiety X Capitalization vs Support Interaction on post-exclusion feelings of invisibility Figure 3 : Attachment Anxiety X Capitalization vs Support Interaction on post-exclusion mood Figure 4 : Attachment Anxiety X Capitalization vs Support Interaction on post-exclusion anxiety ExclusionInvisibilityControl Self- esteemMoodAnxiety Interpersonal vs. Control.04-.04-.01.00.01.00 Capitalization vs. Support -.06.02.01-.04-.06-.09 Attachment Anxiety.14*.09.00-.22*-.21*.47*** Anxiety X Interpersonal vs. Control.04.07-.03.09.02-.03 Anxiety X Capitalization vs. Support -.22**-.16 +.10.11.19*-.15* Table 1. Standardized regression coefficients for the main and interactive effects of attachment anxiety and the writing manipulation on the post-exclusion outcomes. Attachment Anxiety Anxiety This research sought to determine whether responsive support for positive events (capitalization) could buffer stress in a manner similar to responsive support for negative events. Our results suggest that the differential stress-buffering benefits one may derive from supportive feedback to a capitalization attempt versus supportive feedback for a negative event may depend on a person’s attachment anxiety. According to the pattern of findings, people high in attachment anxiety felt relatively less excluded, less invisible, and less anxious, and reported relatively better post-exclusion mood if they had recalled a supportive capitalization experience compared to recalling effective support for a negative experience. This suggests that anxiously attached people experienced an enhanced stress buffering benefit by recalling a positive experience for which they received support from a close other compared to recalling a negative experience for which they received support from a close other. For people low in attachment anxiety, the pattern was somewhat different. For secure (low anxiety) people, recalling supportive feedback for a negative event was relatively more effective in buffering post-exclusion feelings of exclusion, invisibility, and mood than recalling supportive feedback to a capitalization event. However, secure people generally showed no differences in post- exclusion anxiety as a function of having recalled supportive feedback to a capitalization attempt versus a negative event. People high in attachment anxiety tend to have less positive views about themselves and frequently seek approval in their relationships so it might be a case that they perceive sharing positive events with a close other as increasing and validating their worth in a relationship. On the other hand, low anxiety people are comfortable with depending on others and might find more benefit or consolation after a stressful event by self-disclosure and advice seeking from a close other. People who were high in attachment avoidance did not report significant differences in stress-buffering benefits as a function of writing about support for a capitalization event versus a negative event. It may be the case that avoidant peoples’ desire for independence and self-sufficiency leads them to view self-disclosure about events in their lives (both positive or negative) as threatening rather then beneficial. Sharing personal positive events provides key opportunities to obtain understanding, validation, and caring in relationships, which people high in attachment avoidance tend not to view as significant or essential to them. Further research is necessary to test this hypothesis and to determine whether or how people for who are high in attachment avoidance can benefit from responsive support in capitalization events in a same way as people who are high in attachment anxiety. This research places emphasis on the exploration of stress reactivity, and could inform the development of interventions to reduce the negative impact of such reactivity on health outcomes. Stress buffering methods serve to improve mental and physical health, and positive emotions appear to have important consequences for health and well being over and above negative emotions. Tables & Figures + p <.10; *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p<.001 Figure 1: Attachment Anxiety X Capitalization vs Support Interaction on post-exclusion feelings of exclusion