This Article Abstract 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 Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Christian, L. M. Articles by Stoney, C. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Christian, L. M. Articles by Stoney, C. M. Related Collections Social Support Psychophysiology Other Cardiovascular Medicine

Social Support Versus Social Evaluation: Unique Effects on Vascular and Myocardial Response Patterns

From Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio (L.M.C.); and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (C.M.S.).

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Mean change scores (±1 standard deviation) in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (mm Hg) elicited by the stressor, by experimental condition. A significant interaction is noted (p = .05). Those in the evaluative alone condition exhibited significantly greater SBP reactivity than did those in the nonevaluative alone condition. Potential for evaluation did not influence SBP reactivity when a companion was present.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Mean change scores (±1 standard deviation) in cardiac index (CI) (L/min/m2) elicited by the stressor, by experimental condition. A significant main effect for evaluation level (p = .03) demonstrates that those in the evaluative conditions exhibited significantly greater CI reactivity than did those in the nonevaluative conditions.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Mean change scores (±1 standard deviation) in preejection period (PEP) (ms) elicited by the stressor, by experimental condition. A significant main effect for evaluation (p = 0.01) indicates that those in evaluative conditions exhibited significantly greater PEP reactivity than did those in the nonevaluative conditions.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Mean change scores (±1 standard deviation) in total peripheral resistance index (TPRI) (dynes-sec/cm5) elicited by the stressor, by experimental condition. A main effect for companion condition (p = .04) was seen with those in the alone conditions exhibiting significantly greater TPRI reactivity than those in the companion present conditions.