Search

Elections and pandemics highlight how much one’s safety depends on fellow community members, a realization that is especially threatening when this collective perceives political realities inconsistent with one’s own. Two longitudinal studies examined how people restored safety to social bonds when everyday experience suggested that fellow community members inhabited inconsistent realities. We operationalized consensus political realities through the negativity of daily nationwide social media posts mentioning President Trump (Studies 1 and 2), and the risks of depending on fellow community members through the pending transition to a divided Congress during the 2018 election season (Study 1), and escalating daily U.S. COVID-19 infections (Study 2). On days that revealed people could not count on fellow community members to perceive the same reality of President Trump’s stewardship they perceived, being at greater risk from the judgment and behavior of the collective community motivated people to find greater happiness in their family relationships.

Evidence supports that being overwhelmed by many choice options predicts negative consequences. However, there is uncertainty regarding the effects of choice overload on two key motivational dimensions: (1) the extent to which people view their decision as subjectively valuable (versus not), and (2) the extent to which people view themselves as capable (versus incapable) of reaching a good decision. While evaluating their options and while deciding, we assessed theory-based cardiovascular responses reflecting these dimensions. A meta-analysis across two experiments found that participants who made a final selection from many options-relative to those who chose from few or rated many-exhibited cardiovascular responses consistent with greater task engagement (i.e., perceiving greater subjective value), as well as greater threat (i.e., perceiving fewer resources to manage situational demands). The current work suggests a novel motivational account of choice overload, providing insight into the nature and timing of this experience as it occurs.

The emotion of awe occurs when one feels small relative to something vaster than the self; it leads to benefits such as care for others. However, because awe elicits the experience of a “small self,” it is unclear to what extent awe positively versus negatively affects responses to subsequent stressors. If personal obstacles seem trivial in comparison to awe-inspiring stimuli, stressors should seem either manageable or unimportant, but if one's capabilities seem comparatively insignificant, stressors should seem unmanageable. We hypothesized that awe would have a generally positive effect on responses during a subsequent performance stressor, but that this would further depend on whether people tended to spontaneously take on a self-distanced versus self-immersed perspective. In the face of awe, focusing less on the self (self-distanced perspective) should make obstacles in particular seem trivial, whereas focusing more on the self (self-immersed) should lead one's capabilities to seem insignificant. Using the biopsychosocial model of challenge/threat, we found that spontaneous self-distancing significantly moderated awe's effects on responses during a subsequent performance stressor (speech task): For participants who self-distanced, the awe condition led to cardiovascular responses consistent with greater challenge than the neutral control condition (reflecting evaluating the stressor as more manageable); for participants who self-immersed, awe predicted relative threat (less manageable stressor). There was no support for awe making people care less about the stressor (as reflected in cardiovascular responses consistent with task engagement). This offers insight into how awe can have divergent effects on people's experiences during performance stressors.

When selecting from too many options (i.e., choice overload), maximizers (people who search exhaustively to make decisions that are optimal) report more negative post-decisional evaluations of their choices than do satisficers (people who search minimally to make decisions that are sufficient). Although ample evidence exists for differences in responses after-the-fact, little is known about possible divergences in maximizers' and satisficers' experiences during choice overload. Thus, using the biopsychosocial model of challenge/threat, we examined 128 participants' cardiovascular responses as they actively made a selection from many options. Specifically, we focused on cardiovascular responses assessing the degree to which individuals (a) viewed their decisions as valuable/important and (b) viewed themselves as capable (vs. incapable) of making a good choice. Although we found no differences in terms of the value individuals placed on their decisions (i.e., cardiovascular responses of task engagement), satisficers-compared to maximizers-exhibited cardiovascular responses consistent with feeling less capable of making their choice (i.e., greater relative threat). The current work provides a novel investigation of the nature of differences in maximizers'/satisficers' momentary choice overload experiences, suggesting insight into why they engage in such distinct search behaviors.

Mindfulness has been associated with enhanced coping with stress. However, it remains unclear how dispositional mindfulness impacts the nature and valence of experiences during active stressors. Across 1,001 total participants, we used cardiovascular responses from the biopsychosocial model of challenge/threat to assess the degree to which individuals cared about a stressor in the moment and had a positive versus negative psychological experience. Although we found a small association between mindfulness—particularly the acting with awareness facet—and responses consistent with caring more about the stressor (i.e., greater task engagement), we found no evidence that mindfulness was associated with exhibiting a more positive psychological response (i.e., greater challenge) during the stressor. Despite no differences in the valence of momentary experiences as a function of mindfulness, individuals higher in mindfulness self-reported more positive experiences afterward. These findings suggest that dispositional mindfulness may benefit responses to active stressors only after they have passed.

Self-distancing has been shown to lead to benefits in the face of upcoming stressors, but the process by which this occurs remains unclear. We applied the cardiovascular measures of the biopsychosocial model of challenge/threat to test two plausible explanations: whether manipulating self-distancing (vs. a control condition) (1) makes a subsequent active-performance stressor seem less personally relevant, thereby leading to lower task engagement during task performance, and/or (2) promotes more favorable evaluations of personal resources relative to situational demands, resulting in greater challenge during performance. Participants who self-distanced by using non-first-person (vs. first-person) pronouns and their own name while preparing for a speech showed cardiovascular responses consistent with greater challenge while delivering the speech. Self-distancing did not, however, influence cardiovascular responses reflecting task engagement during the speech. Moreover, the effect of self-distancing persisted in the form of relative challenge during a second speech on an unrelated topic. These findings suggest self-distancing can lead to a positively valenced experience during active-performance stressors, rather than simply muted responses based on decreasing the stressor's self-relevance.

Preejection period (PEP) is a common measure of sympathetic nervous system activation in psychophysiological research, which makes it important to measure reliably for as many participants as possible. PEP is typically calculated as the interval between the onset or peak of the electrocardiogram Q wave and the impedance cardiography B point, but the Q wave can lack clear definition and even its peak is not visible for all participants. We thus investigated the feasibility of using the electrocardiogram R wave peak (Rpeak ) instead of Q because it can be consistently identified with ease and precision. Across four samples (total N = 408), young adult participants completed a variety of minimally metabolically demanding laboratory tasks after a resting baseline. Results consistently supported a close relationship between absolute levels of the Rpeak -B interval and PEP (accounting for approximately 90% of the variance at baseline and 89% during task performance, on average), but for reactivity values, Rpeak -B was practically indistinguishable from PEP (accounting for over 98% of the variance, on average). Given that using Rpeak rather than the onset or peak of Q saves time, eliminates potential subjectivity, and can be applied to more participants (i.e., those without a visible Q wave), findings suggest that Rpeak -B likely provides an adequate estimate of PEP when absolute levels are of interest and clearly does so for within-person changes.