No abstract

a b s t r a c tStress is an established risk factor for negative health outcomes, and responses to everyday stress can interfere with health behaviors such as exercise and sleep. In accordance with the Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program, we apply an experimental medicine approach to identifying stress response targets, developing stress response assays, intervening upon these targets, and testing intervention effectiveness. We evaluate an ecologically valid, within-person approach to measuring the deleterious effects of everyday stress on physical activity and sleep patterns, examining multiple stress response components (i.e., stress reactivity, stress recovery, and stress pile-up) as indexed by two key response indicators (negative affect and perseverative cognition). Our everyday stress response assay thus measures multiple malleable stress response targets that putatively shape daily health behaviors (physical activity and sleep). We hypothesize that larger reactivity, incomplete recovery, and more frequent stress responses (pile-up) will negatively impact health behavior enactment in daily life. We will identify stress-related reactivity, recovery, and response in the indicators using coordinated analyses across multiple naturalistic studies. These results are the basis for developing a new stress assay and replicating the initial findings in a new sample. This approach will advance our understanding of how specific aspects of everyday stress responses influence health behaviors, and can be used to develop and test an innovative ambulatory intervention for stress reduction in daily life to enhance health behaviors.

Mind wandering-mentation unrelated to one's current activity and surroundings-is a ubiquitous phenomenon, but seemingly competing ideas have been proposed regarding its relation to executive cognitive processes. The control-failure hypothesis postulates that executive processes prevent mind wandering, whereas the global availability hypothesis proposes that mind wandering requires executive resources, and thus an excess of such resources enables mind wandering. Here, we examined whether these hypotheses could be reconciled by considering the moderating influence of daydreaming style. We expected that executive resources would be positively related to mind wandering in those who typically experience positive mind wandering mentation, but negatively related in those who typically experience negative mentation. One hundred eleven participants reported mind wandering over 4 days using experience sampling and completed the sustained attention to response task (SART), the symmetry span task, and the Stroop task. There was a significant interaction between working memory and negative, but not positive, daydreaming style on mind wandering: Working memory related positively to mind wandering in those with a low negative style, but negatively in those with a high negative style. In contrast, poor Stroop performance significantly predicted increased mind wandering, but only in those with a low positive style. SART responses did not predict mind wandering although the relation was suggestively enhanced as the difficulty of daily life activities increased, indicating that the SART is more generalizable to high-demanding than low-demanding activities. These results suggest that the content and context of mind wandering episodes play important roles in the relation between executive processes and mind wandering.

Despite widespread interest in variance in affect, basic questions remain pertaining to the relative proportions of between-person and within-person variance, the contribution of days and moments, and the reliability of these estimates. We addressed these questions by decomposing negative affect and positive affect variance across three levels (person, day, moment), and calculating reliability using a coordinated analysis of seven daily diary, ecological momentary assessment (EMA), and diary-EMA hybrid studies (across studies age = 18-84 years, total N = 2,103, total N = 45,065). Across studies, within-person variance was sizeable (negative affect: 45% to 66%, positive affect: 25% to 74%); in EMA more within-person variance was attributable to momentary rather than daily level. Reliability was adequate to high at all levels of analysis (within-person: .73-.91; between-person: .96-1.00) despite different items and designs. We discuss the implications of these results for the design of future intensive studies of affect variance.

Advancing age is often characterized by preserved or even enhanced emotion regulation, which is thought to manifest in terms of age-related reductions in the within-person association between stressors and negative affect. Existing research from ecological momentary assessment and end-of-day daily diary studies examining such age-related benefits have yielded mixed results, potentially due to differences in samples, design, and measurement of everyday stressors and negative affect. We conducted a coordinated analysis of 5 ecological momentary assessments and 2 end-of-day daily diary studies to examine adult age differences in the within-person association between everyday stressors and negative affect. Reported stressor occurrences are robustly associated with higher negative affect, regardless of study design and sample characteristics. Across studies, interactions between age and everyday stressors predicting negative affect revealed a pattern of age-related decreases in the stressor–negative affect association, but this interaction was only significant for 2 studies. Further, examination of statistical power of the included studies suggests that, despite differences in the number of repeated assessments, power to detect within-person stressor–negative affect associations is quite good. In contrast, despite possessing wider age ranges, observed age differences were relatively small in magnitude, and studies are potentially underpowered to detect age differences in these within-person associations. We discuss the importance of study design, interval of repeated assessments and number of participants for examining age differences in everyday stressors and negative affect, as well as the virtue of coordinated analyses for detecting consistent direction of associations, but inconsistent patterns of statistical significance.