This research explores vagal flexibility— dynamic modulation of cardiac vagal control—as an individual-level physiological index of social sensitivity. In 4 studies, we test the hypothesis that individuals with greater cardiac vagal flexibility, operationalized as higher cardiac vagal tone at rest and greater cardiac vagal withdrawal (indexed by a decrease in respiratory sinus arrhythmia) during cognitive or attentional demand, perceive social-emotional information more accurately and show greater sensitivity to their social context. Study 1 sets the foundation for this investigation by establishing that vagal flexibility can be elicited consistently in the laboratory and reliably over time. Study 2 demonstrates that vagal flexibility has different associations with psychological characteristics than does vagal tone, and that these characteristics are primarily social in nature. Study 3 links individual differences in vagal flexibility with accurate detection of social and emotional cues depicted in still facial images. Study 4 demonstrates that individuals with greater vagal flexibility respond to dynamic social feedback in a more context-sensitive manner than do individuals with less vagal flexibility. Specifically, compared with their less flexible counterparts, individuals with greater vagal flexibility, when assigned to receive negative social feedback, report more shame, show more pronounced blood pressure responses, and display less sociable behavior, but when receiving positive social feedback display more sociable behavior. Taken together, these findings suggest that vagal flexibility is a useful individual difference physiological predictor of social sensitivity, which may have implications for clinical, developmental, and health psychologists.

We examined individuals' tendencies to exaggerate their positive responses toward stigmatized others (i.e., overcorrect) and explored how overcorrection, because of its fragile nature, could be disrupted. The first 2 studies demonstrate overcorrection: White participants paired with Black partners (Experiment 1A) smiled, laughed, and showed more positive behavior than those paired with same-race partners. Experiment 1B replicated the general effect with a physically stigmatized sample (i.e., facial birthmarks) and then demonstrated that overcorrection is moderated by bias; participants who exhibited more positive behavior toward their partner showed the most physiological "threat" during a stressful task with their partner. We then examined the idea that if overcorrection requires cognitive resources and is effortful, then it may be fragile when resources are taxed. In Experiments 2 and 3, we observed that overcorrection was easily disrupted when resources were compromised (e.g., with stress or cognitive load). Taken together, these studies suggest that positive biases toward stigmatized and outgroup members are fragile and can be undermined when resources are taxed.

People frequently make decisions under stress. Understanding how stress affects decision making is complicated by the fact that not all stress responses are created equal. Challenge states, for example, occur when individuals appraise a stressful situation as demanding, but believe they have the personal resources to cope, and are characterized by efficient cardiovascular reactivity and approach motivation. Threat states, in contrast, occur when situational demands are perceived to outweigh resources and are characterized by less efficient cardiovascular reactivity and withdrawal motivation. We randomly assigned participants to social-feedback conditions (i.e., positive or negative feedback) designed to engender challenge or threat, or a no-stress condition. Participants then completed an anchoring-and-adjustment questionnaire. Those assigned to the challenge condition adjusted more from self-generated anchors than those assigned to the threat condition. Cardiovascular responses mediated the relationship between condition and adjustment. This study demonstrates the importance of considering profiles of cardiovascular reactivity when examining the influence of stress on decision making.

Prior research has revealed racial disparities in health outcomes and more health-compromising behaviors, such as smoking and drug abuse. It has been suggested that discrimination may contribute to such disparities, but the mechanisms through which this occurs are not well understood. Here, we examined whether the experience of discrimination affects acute physiological stress responses and increases risk-taking behavior. Black and White participants received rejecting feedback from partners who were either the same race (in-group rejection) or a different race (out-group rejection/discrimination). Physiological (cardiovascular and neuroendocrine) changes, cognitive processes (memory and attentional bias), and risk-taking behavior were assessed. Significant participant-race by partner-race interactions were observed.Cross-race, compared to same-race, rejection was associated with lower cortisol, increased cardiac output, decreased vascular resistance, greater anger, and more risk-taking behavior.These data suggest distinct profiles of physiological reactivity, cognitive processing, and risktaking in response to discrimination implicating direct and indirect pathways to health disparities. Discrimination and risk-taking, 3Experiencing discrimination increases risk-taking Being rejected is a powerful aversive experience. In the short-term it affects emotions, thoughts, and behavior (Williams, 2001), and in the long-term can influence physical (Cacioppo, Hawkley, & Berntson, 2003) and mental health (Williams, 2001). However, not all types of social rejection affect us similarly. Rejection by out-group members (persons from different social categories) can be interpreted as discrimination, which may set in motion a distinct set of attributions, emotions, and behaviors compared to when rejection comes from in-group members (Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991; Mendes, Major, McCoy, & Blascovich, 2008). We explored the effects of in-group compared to out-group social rejection with two specific goals.The first goal was to measure the physiological consequences of in-group compared to out-group rejection. The second goal was to examine how rejection influenced risk-taking behavior with the prediction that because discrimination typically evokes anger and approach-motivation, outgroup rejection would lead to more risk-taking relative to in-group rejection.Several lines of research have examined the physiological consequences of discrimination in an attempt to understand health disparities between European-and AfricanAmericans (Pascoe & Smart-Richman, 2009). In large scale epidemiological studies, for example, African-Americans tend to have higher resting blood pressure than their age-matched European-American counterparts (Krieger & Sidney, 1996), and Black and lower socioeconomic status adults, on average, have flatter (more dysregulated) diurnal cortisol cycles than Whites and higher socioeconomic status adults (Fuller-Rowell, Doan, & Eccles, 2011). Laboratory based studies have shown that participants who e...

Social rejection can create powerful changes in our brains and bodies. Here, we examined brain-based individual differences associated with buffering against cardiovascular threat responses to social rejection. Using electroencephalographic source localization techniques, we examined differences in intracortical asymmetry with the prediction that individuals with greater left relative to right dorsolateral prefrontal activity would show a more approach motivated response to social rejection. Eighty-four female participants were randomly assigned to stressful situations characterized by either social rejection, social evaluation without rejection, or self-evaluation. Among those assigned to social rejection, the greater the left prefrontal intracortical activity at baseline, the more participants had adaptive cardiovascular profiles and the more participants reported approach-oriented emotions. Social evaluation without rejection and self-evaluation did not show these relationships. These data are the first to show that social context matters when attempting to link individual neural differences in cortical asymmetry with approach-related cardiovascular and emotional outcomes.