1. Low mood in everyday life as a mediator of subjective stress responses to an acute naturalistic stressor
Tom Higgins, Keyleigh Johnson, Stuart Pugh & George White (under the supervision of Dr Sarita Robinson)
Introduction
Results
Over 121 million people suffer from depression worldwide (Kulhan, et al., 2012) with even more people suffering from low mood. Depressive symptoms can have a major impact on people’s lives, including how they interpret how they experience life events.
Research has shown that exposure to stressful situations leads to changes in mood. For example public speaking (Garcia-Leal et al., 2005) or undertaking Helicopter Underwater Evacuation Training (HUET, Robinson et al., 2008) can lead to increased self-reported state anxiety levels.
However, people appear to differ in their subjective responses to acute stressors. One possible explanation for these differences is the person’s mood state prior to exposure to the stressor. Therefore, the current study explored whether people who self-report higher levels of low mood had different patterns of subjective responses during a stressful training exercise.
The effect of HUET exposure on Vigour levels:
A significant main effect of time on vigour scores (F (3, 51) = 81.64, p < .001) showed levels of vigour changed over the duration of the HUET. Further, a significant main effect of low mood (F (1, 17) = 4.98, p < .04) was revealed with those in the low mood group reporting less vigour. Finally, a significant interaction effect was revealed (F (3, 51) = 5.184, p < .003) with post hoc testing suggesting those in the low mood group had lower levels of vigour after HUET at T4.
Correspondence:
Sarita Robinson
School of Psychology
University of Central Lancashire
Preston
England
United Kingdom
PR1 2HE
Telephone:
Fax:
Acknowledgements
A big thank you to all the participants and staff at the Fleetwood Nautical College (UK).
Figure 1. Photograph of the Helicopter Underwater Evacuation Training (HUET)
vehicle at the Fleetwood Nautical College
Results
The effect of HUET exposure on anxiety/tension: A 2 (mood) X 4 (time) mixed ANOVA was undertaken. There was a significant main effect of time on state anxiety scores (F (3, 51) = 6.97, p < .01) with higher anxiety at T2 and T3. Further, a significant main effect of low mood was observed (F (1, 17) = 6.99, p < .05) with participants with low mood reporting more anxiety. However no significant interaction was observed (F (3, 51) = 1.25, p = .303).
The effect of HUET exposure on Fatigue: A 2 (mood) X 4 (time) mixed ANOVA was undertaken. There was a significant main effect of time on fatigue scores (F (3, 51) = 6.69, p < .01) with participants reporting more fatigue at T1. Further, a significant main effect of low mood was observed (F (1, 20) = 6.05, p < .05) with those with low mood reporting more fatigue. However no significant interaction was observed (F (3, 60) = 2.57, p = .630).
The effect of HUET exposure on Depression, Confusion and Anger: Participants with low mood reported higher levels of depression/dejection (F (1, 18 ) = 16.34, p < .001) and confusion/bewilderment (F (1, 19) = 9.06, p < .01) throughout the training. No significant differences on the anger subscale of the POMS were noted.
Figure 3: Mean vigour scores over the four time points for high and low mood participants.
Method
Conclusions
Participants in the study comprised of 24 healthy male volunteers recruited via opportunity sampling from individuals attending the sea survival training at Fleetwood Nautical College (UK). All the participants were exposed to an acute naturalistic stressor ( HUET; See Figure 1). The HUET involves participants entering a mock-up of a helicopter which is then suspended over an environmental pool. Participants then had to egress the submerged helicopter following each of seven ‘crash landings’ into the pool.
Profile of Mood States Questionnaire (POMS; McNair et al., 1992). was completed at four time points (T1: Two hours before HUET, T2: Immediately before the HUET, T3: Immediately after the HUET, T4: minutes following the HUET). The POMS included 6 subscales, tension/anxiety, depression/dejection, anger/hostility, energy/vigour, fatigue/inertia and confusion/bewilderment.
Levels of low mood were assessed using the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies – Depression (CES-D) questionnaire (Radloff, 1977) with 9 participants having a score of over 12 which is classified as exhibiting low mood.
People who are experiencing low mood/depressive symptoms do appear to have marked differences in the way that they respond to acutely stressful situations.
In the current study, people with low mood had higher levels of anxiety, reported more fatigue, less vigour and felt more depression/dejection and confusion.
Therefore the results of this study suggest that low mood states might explain some of the individual differences reported in stress reactivity. Future research should explore whether resilience to trauma is affected by interventions that improve depressive mood symptoms prior to stress exposure.
Figure 2: Mean state anxiety levels over the four time points for high and low mood participants.
References
Kulhan, T., Ondrejka, I., Ordaz, J.A., Snircova, E. And Nosalova, G. (2012). Coexisting depression and anxiety: Classification and treatment. Acta Medica Martiniana, 12(2): 32-38
McNair, Lorr & Droppleman (1992). Revised manual for the profile of mood states. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Services
Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied-Psychological-Measurement, 1 (3):
Robinson, S. J., Sunram-Lea, S., Leach, J. and Owen-Lynch, P. J. (2008) The effects of exposure to an acute naturalistic stressor on working memory, state anxiety and salivary cortisol concentration. International Journal on the Biology of Stress. 11(2),
Southwick, S. M., Vythilingam, M., & Charney, D. S. (2005). The psychobiology of depression and resilience to stress: implications for prevention and treatment. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol., 1,