Cited by 188Stress Responses and CortisolTryptophan and brain disordersHealth disparities and outcomes

Affective reactivity to daily stressors is associated with elevated inflammation

Open access
Sin, Nancy L., Graham-Engeland, Jennifer E., Ong, Anthony D., Almeida, David M.·2015·Health Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Inflammation increases the risk of chronic diseases, but the links between emotional responses to daily events and inflammation are unknown. We examined individual differences in affective reactivity to daily stressors (i.e., changes in positive and negative affect in response to stressors) as predictors of inflammatory markers interleukin-6 (IL-6) and C-reactive protein (CRP). METHODS: A cross-sectional sample of 872 adults from the National Study of Daily Experiences (substudy of Midlife in the United States II) reported daily stressors and affect during telephone interviews for 8 days. Blood samples were obtained at a separate clinic visit and assayed for inflammatory markers. Multilevel models estimated trait affective reactivity slopes for each participant, which were inputted into regression models to predict inflammation. RESULTS: People who experienced greater decreases in positive affect on days when stressors occurred (i.e., positive affect reactivity) had elevated log IL-6, independent of demographic, physical, psychological, and behavioral factors (B = 1.12, SE = 0.45, p = .01). Heightened negative affect reactivity was associated with higher log CRP among women (p = .03) but not men (p = .57); health behaviors accounted for this association in women. CONCLUSIONS: Adults who fail to maintain positive affect when faced with minor stressors in everyday life appear to have elevated levels of IL-6, a marker of inflammation. Women who experience increased negative affect when faced with minor stressors may be at particular risk of elevated inflammation. These findings add to growing evidence regarding the health implications of affective reactivity to daily stressors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/hea0000240

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Either high negative or low positive affect in response to minor daily stressors, measured each evening over at least a week (interpreted as poor recovery from daily stress), predicts worse long-term mental and physical health.

    “Specifically, either high negative or low positive affect in response to minor daily stressors, measured each evening over at least a week (interpreted as poor recovery from daily stress) predicts worse long-term mental and physical health (Mroczek et al., 2015; Piazza et al., 2013; Sin et al., 2015).”

    From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Sin et al., 2015

    The Introduction (Emotional reactions to daily stressors) reports that affective reactivity is associated with mental disorders, chronic medical conditions, and mortality up to a decade later. This paper measured affect across eight days, but its own findings concern inflammation, not long-term mental or physical health; its Limitations section calls the design cross-sectional. It also defines reactivity as the difference between stressor and nonstressor days, rather than establishing that the evening reports measure poor recovery. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sin, N. L., Graham-Engeland, J. E., Ong, A. D., & Almeida, D. M.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2015-12
Volume
34
Issue
12
Pages
1154-1165
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W2188292488
Cited by
188
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 2
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (F32AG048698, P01-AG020166)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Biological Psychiatry › Tryptophan and brain disorders
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
emotional reactivity, daily hassles, inflammation, interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, positive affect, negative affect, sex differences, health behavior, chronic disease risk
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Aged, C-Reactive Protein, Chronic Disease, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Individuality, Inflammation, Male, Middle Aged, Sex Factors, Stress, Psychological, United States, Biomarkers, Interleukin-6

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review