| Description |
A growing body of evidence suggests that individual differences in religiousness and spirituality (R/S) predict important health outcomes; however, the processes explaining these effects are not well understood. Specific physiological stress mechanisms have been hypothesized as potential mediators of the R/S - health relationship. Provided there has been exposure to a stressful event or stimulus, R/S may influence reactivity in the cardiovascular and neuroendocrine systems. A number of studies have found that some aspects of R/S attenuated or potentiated physiological responses to stress, but they have not used a conceptual perspective from which to organize and understand the effects of taxing social circumstances. Using social self-preservation theory and the interpersonal theory of personality, social, and clinical psychology, the present study examined the association of various aspects of R/S with emotional and physiological reactivity and recovery in response to social-evaluative threats involving agency (i.e., striving for achievement and status) and communion (i.e., striving for connection with others). Multiple aspects of R/S were assessed (and reduced via factor analysis) to examine their moderating effect on emotional and physiological responses during and after two types of social-evaluative threat. Emotional responses included self-reported anxiety and shame. Physiological iv responses included salivary cortisol, heart rate, and systolic/diastolic blood pressure, all of which are widely studied mechanisms in studies of psychosocial vulnerability. Overall, social evaluative threat led to psychophysiological reactivity (e.g., increased anxiety, increased self-conscious emotions), and increased cardiovascular and neuroendocrine (i.e., cortisol) reactivity, all of which is consistent with social self-preservation theory. Contrary to predictions, the R/S factors generally did not predict emotional and physiological responses, and did not moderate the effects of stress. These results are somewhat surprising given the warm interpersonal style associated with R/S. Possible reasons for these null findings are discussed. These include the use of self-report to assess R/S, the limited relevance of the stressor to R/S individuals, and other considerations. R/S could influence health and well-being more so through day-to-day stress exposure, which was not assessed in the present study. Future studies are recommended such as daily diary protocols in which day-to-day stress exposure can be assessed. |
