Acute stress influences the emotional foundations of executive control: Distinct effects on control-related affective and cognitive processes.

Acute stress is known to influence performance on various task outcomes indicative of executive functioning (i.e., the top-down, goal-directed control of cognition and behavior). The most common interpretation of these effects is that stress influences control processes themselves. Another possibility, though, is that stress does not impair control per se, but instead alters the affective dynamics underlying the recruitment of control (e.g., reducing the extent to which making an error is aversive), resulting in less recruitment of control and thus poor performance. To date, however, no work has examined whether stress effects on executive function outcomes are driven by affective dynamics related to the recruitment of control. In the current study, we found that acute stress influenced-and cortisol responses related to-both executive control-related performance outcomes (e.g., post-error slowing) and control-related affective dynamics (e.g., negative affect following recruitment of control) in a modified Stroop task, but that these effects appeared to be independent of each other: The effects of stress on, and associations of cortisol with, control-related cognitive outcomes were not statistically mediated by task- or control-related affective dynamics. These results thus suggest that although stress influences affective dynamics underlying executive function, the effects of stress on executive function outcomes appear to be at least partially dependent on nonaffective processes, such as control processes themselves.

Writing about a stressful experience improves semantic clustering of memory in men, not women.

Writing about negative experiences can produce multiple benefits, including improvements in mental and emotional health. However, writing about negative experiences potentially be detrimental, as reliving and reexperiencing a negative memory can be painful. Although the emotional effects of writing about negative experiences are well established, the cognitive effects are less heavily explored, and no work to date has examined how writing about a stressful experience might influence episodic memory. We addressed this issue in the present study (N = 520) by having participants encode a list of 16 words that were organised around four semantic clusters, randomly assigning participants to write about an unresolved stressful experience (n = 263) or the events of the previous day (n = 257), and assessing their memory in a free recall task. Writing about a stressful experience did not influence overall memory performance; however, the stressful writing manipulation increased semantic clustering of information within memory for men, whereas the stressful writing manipulation did not influence semantic clustering of information within memory in women. Additionally, writing with more positive sentiment improved semantic clustering and reduced serial recall. These results provide evidence for unique sex differences in writing about stressful experiences and the role of sentiment in the effects of expressive writing.

Lifetime stressor exposure, eating expectancy, and acute social stress-related eating behavior: A pre-registered study of the emotional eating cycle.

Eating behaviors in response to acute stressors are highly variable: whereas many individuals eat more following stressors, others eat less or show no change in food consumption. Understanding factors that predict individual differences in eating behaviors may help elucidate the psychosocial mechanisms underlying obesity, yet few experimental studies on this topic have been conducted to date. To address this issue, we conducted the present pre-registered study, where we investigated how lifetime stressor exposure moderates the extent to which eating expectancies enhance the learned association between stress-induced negative affect and snack intake. Participants were 44 women (30% non-White) between 18 and 50 years old (M = 27.9), with a mean body mass index of 25.6, who completed assessments of lifetime stressor exposure, eating behaviors, and eating expectancies (eating helps manage negative affect); in a subsequent visit, they were given snacks after an acute social stress task (TSST). The moderated moderation model (PROCESS model 3) yielded a significant three-way interaction. When eating expectancies were high, acute social stress-induced negative affect predicted greater M&M intake for women with very high total lifetime stressor exposure but less M&M intake for women with fewer lifetime stressors. These data thus highlight how lifetime stressor exposure interacts with eating expectancies and acute stress-induced negative affect to predict eating behavior. Replications in larger samples may help explain variability in stress-eating as well as how lifetime stressors contribute to obesity.

Why is subjective stress severity a stronger predictor of health than stressor exposure? A preregistered two-study test of two hypotheses.

Subjective stress severity appraisals have consistently emerged as better predictors of poor health than stressor exposure, but the reason for this is unclear. Subjective stress may better predict poor health for one of at least two reasons. First, because stressor exposure measures consider all stressors as equal, stress severity measures-which "weight" stressors by self-reported severity-might better predict poor health simply by not treating all stressors as being equally impactful. Second, subjective stress appraisals may index important individual differences in stress vulnerability. We tested these two possibilities in this preregistered, two-study manuscript. Across these two different studies, subjective stress severity was a better predictor of poor health than independently weighted stress severity or stressor exposure. These results demonstrate that, beyond weighting of stressful experiences, subjective stress severity indexes health-relevant individual differences. Moreover, the results suggest that subjective stress severity may be the preferred stress summary metric even when derived from imprecise stress assessment instruments.

Neural and peripheral markers of reward during positive social evaluation are associated with less clinician-rated depression symptom severity in adolescence.

Although blunted sensitivity to reward is thought to play a key role in promoting risk for depression, most research on this topic has utilized monetary reward paradigms and focused on currently depressed adults. To address this issue, we analyzed neural reward and ß-endorphin data from the Psychobiology of Stress and Adolescent Depression (PSY SAD) Study, which recruited a well-characterized sample of adolescent girls at high vs. low risk for major depressive disorder (MDD) (N = 52, M age = 14.90, SD = 1.35) based on their mothers' lifetime history of MDD. As hypothesized, greater striatal activity while receiving positive (vs. neutral) social evaluation was associated with lower depression symptom severity as independently assessed by the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS). This association was present for girls at high but not low risk for MDD, suggesting that this neural response may represent a pre-clinical marker of risk for depression. Consistent with these results, higher post-social evaluation levels of a peripheral marker of reward sensitivity, ß-endorphin, were related to lower clinician-rated depression symptom severity. Together, these results indicate that neural and peripheral markers of responsivity to social reward are both related to depression severity, which may have implications for understanding the pathophysiology of depression.