Taking appreciation to heart: appreciation at work and cardiovascular risk in male employees.

Introduction: While perceived appreciation at work has been associated with self-reported health and wellbeing, studies considering biological health markers are lacking. In this study, we investigated whether appreciation at work would relate to coronary heart disease (CHD) risk as well as the specificity of this proposed association. Methods: Our study comprised a total of 103 male participants, including apparently healthy, medication-free, non-smoking men in the normotensive to hypertensive range (n = 70) as well as medicated hypertensive and CHD patients (n = 33). CHD risk was assessed by blood pressure [mean arterial pressure (MAP)], the diabetes marker glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood lipids [total cholesterol (TC)/high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio], coagulation activity (D-dimer and fibrinogen), and inflammation [interleukin (IL)-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and C-reactive protein (CRP)]. Perceived appreciation at work, as well as potentially confounding psychological factors (social support, self-esteem, and work strain due to a lack of appreciation), were measured by self-report questionnaires. Results: We found higher appreciation at work to relate to lower overall composite CHD risk (p's ≤ 0.011) and, in particular, to lower MAP (p's ≤ 0.007) and lower blood lipids (p's ≤ 0.031) in medication-free participants as well as all participants. This overall association was independent of confounding factors, including related psychological factors (p's ≤ 0.049). Discussion: Our findings indicate that appreciation at work might be an independent health-promoting resource in terms of CHD risk. Implications include that encouraging appreciation at work may help reduce the development and progression of CHD.

Is your stress my stress? A standardized, randomized-controlled paradigm to study physiological stress contagion based on direct stress observation.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Existing research indicates that not only own stress leads to physiological stress reactions, but also observing stress in others. So far, a standardized paradigm to reliably induce physiological stress contagion based on direct face-to-face stress observation compared to an active placebo-stress observing control condition is lacking. Here, we tested a standardized randomized placebo-controlled experimental paradigm to investigate physiological reactivity to direct stress observation and characterized the stress contagion response of the major endocrine stress systems, including full reactivity kinetics. METHODS: Healthy young male participants were randomly assigned to (1) undergo an adapted version of the Trier Social Stress Test ("TSST participants", n = 20), (2) observe it ("stress observers", n = 36), or (3) observe a corresponding placebo-stress control condition ("placebo-stress observers", n = 30). We repeatedly assessed heart rate, salivary alpha-amylase, salivary cortisol, and salivary aldosterone. RESULTS: Stress observers exhibited greater physiological reactivity to stress observation as compared to placebo-stress observers to placebo-stress observation in heart rate, salivary alpha-amylase, and cortisol (p's ≤ .027), but not in aldosterone. We observed similar reactivity kinetics in TSST participants and stress observers but less pronounced in stress observers. DISCUSSION: Extending previous literature, our findings indicate that independent of secondary effects of the observation setting, direct observation of stress in other individuals induces activation of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis and the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary axis. Moreover, the physiological stress contagion response resembles the physiological reactivity to first-hand stress but is less pronounced. Potential implications of physiological stress contagion regarding health, cognition, or behavior, as well as modulating factors need to be further elucidated.

Do Hypertensive Men Spy With an Angry Little Eye? Anger Recognition in Men With Essential Hypertension - Cross-sectional and Prospective Findings.

BACKGROUND: Higher trait anger has inconsistently been associated with hypertension and hypertension development, but social context in terms of recognition of other persons' anger has been neglected in this context. PURPOSE: Here, we investigated anger recognition of facial affect and trait anger in essential hypertensive and normotensive men in addition to prospective associations with blood pressure (BP) increases. METHODS: Baseline assessment comprised a total of 145 participants including 57 essential hypertensive and 65 normotensive men who were otherwise healthy and medication-free. Seventy-two eligible participants additionally completed follow-up assessment 3.1 (±0.08 SEM) years later to analyze BP changes over time. We assessed emotion recognition of facial affect with a paradigm displaying mixed facial affect of two morphed basic emotions including anger, fear, sadness, and happiness. Trait anger was assessed with the Spielberger trait anger scale. RESULTS: Cross-sectionally, we found that with increasing BP, hypertensive men overrated anger displayed in facial expressions of mixed emotions as compared to normotensive men (ps ≤ .019) while there were no differences in trait anger (p = .16). Prospectively, the interaction between mean anger recognition and trait anger independently predicted BP increases from baseline to follow-up (ps ≤ .043), in that overrating displayed anger predicted future BP increases only if trait anger was high. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate an anger recognition bias in men with essential hypertension and that overrating displayed anger in combination with higher trait anger seems to predict future BP increases. This might be of clinical relevance for the development and progression of hypertension and cardiovascular disease.