This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Robles, T. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Robles, T. F. Related Collections Dermatology Social Support Stress and Coping

Stress, Social Support, and Delayed Skin Barrier Recovery

From the Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Theodore F. Robles, Assistant Professor UCLA Department of Psychology, Box 951563, 1285 Franz Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563. E-mail: robles{at}psych.ucla.edu

Objective: To examine the effect of a brief laboratory stressor and social support before the stressor on cardiovascular and cortisol responses, and skin barrier recovery after skin disruption.

Methods: Eighty-five healthy participants (mean age 22.9 ± 4.4 years) underwent a "tape-stripping" procedure that disrupts normal skin barrier function, and were randomly assigned to a No Stress (reading task), Stress (Trier Social Stress Test), or Stress + Social Support condition (support from a confederate before the stressor). Skin barrier recovery was assessed by measuring transepidermal water loss from up to 2 hours after skin disruption.

Results: Compared with the No Stress condition, the stressor delayed skin barrier recovery by 10% at 2 hours after skin disruption (effect size, r = .29), and increased anxiety (r = .24), negative affect (r = .22), cardiovascular activity (r values from .4–.6), and among male participants, cortisol levels (r = .40). Social support did not influence psychological or physiological responses or skin barrier recovery. Larger physiological responses to the tasks did not predict slower skin barrier recovery. Instead, larger systolic blood pressure responses predicted faster skin barrier recovery (r = .26).

Conclusions: This study replicated the effects of short-term laboratory stressors on skin barrier recovery, further establishing the relevance of skin barrier recovery for future research. The support manipulation did not influence physiological responses or skin barrier recovery, suggesting that future research on social support, physiology, and objective health outcomes should focus on naturalistic social interactions, relationships, and stressors.

Key Words: acute stress • social support • wound healing • cardiovascular reactivity • cortisol • skin barrier recovery

Abbreviations: AUC_I = area under the curve with respect to increase; BMI = body mass index; DBP = diastolic blood pressure; GCRC = General Clinical Research Center; HR = heart rate; MAP = mean arterial pressure; SBP = systolic blood pressure; TSST = Trier Social Stress Test; TEWL = transepidermal water loss.