Social Integration and Diurnal Cortisol Decline: The Role of Psychosocial and Behavioral Pathways

Abstract

Objective A growing number of studies have associated various measures of social integration, the diversity of social roles in which one participates, with alterations in hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) functioning. The pathways through which social integration may be linked to HPA functioning, however, are as yet unknown. The present study examined whether daily social interactions, affective responses, health behaviors, and personality help explain the association between social integration and diurnal cortisol slope. Methods A sample of 456 healthy, employed adults (53.9% female, 82.0% white, 72.2% bachelor’s degree or greater, mean age of 42.86 years) completed a 4-day ecological momentary assessment protocol that measured cortisol, social interactions, affect, sleep, and physical activity at frequent intervals throughout the day. Social integration was measured at baseline. Results Regression results controlling for age, sex, race, and education indicated that more socially integrated individuals showed steeper cortisol slopes (B = −0.00253, p = .006). Exploratory analyses suggested that the consistency (i.e., reduced variability) in nightly sleep midpoint partially explained this association (B = −0.00042, 95% confidence interval = −0.00095 to −0.00001). Personality, mood, social interaction patterns, and nonsleep health behavior differences did not account for the association between social integration and HPA activity. Conclusion This study replicates previous findings linking social integration and HPA functioning, and it examines patterns of nightly sleep as possible pathways through which the association may operate. Results have implications for understanding mechanisms for health risk and for development of future interventions.

Sleep and Daily Social Experiences as Potential Mechanisms Linking Social Integration to Nocturnal Blood Pressure Dipping

“…Less socially integrated individuals had greater variability in sleep timing, an effect that was associated, in turn, with attenuated BP dipping. This observation is consistent with another report that regularity in sleep timing accounts for the effect of social integration on diurnal cortisol rhythms (16), another biological process associated with CVD risk (27). One promising future direction for this research is to test whether improving sleep regularity subsequently promotes nocturnal BP dipping.…”

Covariation of psychobiological stress regulation with valence and quantity of social interactions in everyday life: disentangling intra- and interindividual sources of variation

“…In summary, this elucidates the complexity of the field and highlights challenges for future research because, to disentangle these mechanisms, large sample sizes and an even larger number of sampling occasions are needed. Yet, the present study helps to explain some of these mechanisms and adds to the broad body of evidence in which measures of social contact had been assessed as standalone person-level or retrospectively assessed day-level variable (Armstrong-Carter and Telzer 2021 ; Birditt et al 2017 ; Dickman et al 2020 ; Doane and Zeiders 2014 ; Evans and Steptoe 2001 ; Evolahti et al 2006 ; Giesbrecht et al 2013 ; Karb et al 2012 ; Luecken et al 1997 ; Rosal et al 2004 ; Sayal et al 2002 ; Sladek and Doane 2015 ; Sladek et al 2017 ) by showing that quantitative characteristics and the valence of social interactions can attenuate biological and subjective stress in real-time during everyday life routines, but also on average across days. Importantly, they also provide scarce ecologically valid evidence for a stress-buffering role of social interactions on biological stress axes.…”

“…Correspondingly, there is evidence showing specific influences of leadership (Herr et al 2019 ), friendship (Keneski et al 2017 ) or couple relationships (Doerr et al 2018 ) on sCort in everyday life. In addition, contact often happens in groups, where different characters interact based on a variety of conditions, such as social roles, which themselves could be a measure of social integration (Dickman et al 2020 ). In summary, this elucidates the complexity of the field and highlights challenges for future research because, to disentangle these mechanisms, large sample sizes and an even larger number of sampling occasions are needed.…”

“…Likewise, positive social interactions were shown to be associated with reduced stress (e.g., Bernstein et al 2017 ). Consequently, positive social interactions and social support were shown to be of major relevance for buffering stress and its deleterious effects on mental and physical health (Dickman et al 2020 ; Ditzen and Heinrichs 2014 ; Uchino and Way 2017 ), which have been well documented and replicated during the last few decades (Chrousos 2009 ; McEwen 2017 ).…”

“…While these results clearly show support for the effects of social support and positive social interactions on the reactivity of the biological stress axes, studies which aimed at testing the underlying hypotheses outside the laboratory in people’s everyday lives yielded inconsistent results. These studies included the assessment of daily levels of ‘provision of prosocial behavior’ (Armstrong-Carter and Telzer 2021 ), daily positive or negative social interactions (Birditt et al 2017 ), general levels of social integration (Dickman et al 2020 ), general levels of social support by family and friends (Doane and Zeiders 2014 ), work social support (Evans and Steptoe 2001 ), social support as part of the psychosocial work environment (Evolahti et al 2006 ), general levels of social support from a romantic partner (Giesbrecht et al 2013 ), general levels of neighborhood social support (Karb et al 2012 ), general levels of interpersonal social support (Luecken et al 1997 ), general levels of social support (Rosal et al 2004 ), daily levels of social support (Sayal et al 2002 ), general levels of seeking social support as a coping style (Sladek et al 2017 ), and ‘daily social connection scores’, composed of time spent interacting with others as well as of interaction quality (Sladek and Doane 2015 ). Of note, none of these studies investigated the within-person associations of social interactions and HPA- or SAM axis activation in everyday life, where they occur and exert their effects.…”