Discussing a negative event with an ambivalent friend elicited greater systolic blood pressure reactivity and higher resting heart rate compared to a supportive friend.
Observational (n=107)
Does discussing life events with an ambivalent friend increase cardiovascular reactivity in healthy adults compared to a supportive friend?
Interacting with ambivalent friends increases cardiovascular reactivity and resting heart rate compared to supportive friends, suggesting a physiological mechanism for how poor relationship quality negatively impacts cardiovascular health.
BACKGROUND: Social relationships are reliably related to rates of morbidity and mortality. One pathway by which social relationships may influence health is via the impact of relationship quality on cardiovascular reactivity during social interactions. PURPOSE AND METHOD: This study examined the effects of the quality of a friendship on cardiovascular reactivity when speaking about positive or negative life events with an ambivalent or supportive friend. To examine this, 107 healthy male and female adults (and their same-sex friend) were recruited. RESULTS: Results revealed that participants exhibited the greatest levels of systolic blood pressure reactivity when discussing a negative event with an ambivalent friend compared to a supportive friend. We also found higher resting levels of heart rate and lower respiratory sinus arrhythmia among those who brought in ambivalent friends than those who brought in supportive friends. CONCLUSION: Individuals may not be able to fully relax in the presence of ambivalent friends and may not benefit from support during stress. This research may help clarify the health-related consequences of differing types of social relationships.
Holt‐Lunstad et al. (Sat,) conducted a observational in healthy adults (n=107). Ambivalent friend vs. Supportive friend was evaluated on Cardiovascular reactivity (systolic blood pressure, resting heart rate, respiratory sinus arrhythmia). Discussing a negative event with an ambivalent friend elicited greater systolic blood pressure reactivity and higher resting heart rate compared to a supportive friend.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: