Suchergebnisse

Abstract. The brain and peripheral bodily organs continuously exchange information. Exemplary, interoception refers to the processing and perception of ascending information from the body to the brain. Stress responses involve a neurobehavioral cascade, which includes the activation of peripheral organs via neural and endocrine pathways and can thus be seen as an example for descending information on the brain-body axis. Hence, the interaction of interoception and stress represents bi-directional communication on the brain-body axis. The main hypothesis underlying this review is that the dysregulation of brain-body communication represents an important mechanism for the generation of physical symptoms in stress-related disorders. The aims of this review are, therefore, (1) to summarize current knowledge on acute stress effects on different stages of interoceptive signal processing, (2) to discuss possible patterns of abnormal brain-body communication (i.e., alterations in interoception and physiological stress axes activation) in mental disorders and chronic physical conditions, and (3) to consider possible approaches to modify interoception. Due to the regulatory feedback loops underlying brain-body communication, the modification of interoceptive processes (ascending signals) may, in turn, affect physiological stress axes activity (descending signals), and, ultimately, also physical symptoms.

Abstract. Studies provide support for the notion of increased vulnerability to upper respiratory track infections (URIs) with exposure to psychological stress, but only few have examined whether optimism and self-efficacy might moderate this relationship. The purpose of the present study was to examine (a) the influence of academic exam stress on susceptibility to URIs and (b) the extent to which these personality characteristics buffer against stress-related vulnerability to URIs. Using a repeated-measures design, URI infection status was measured in a sample of 80 college students with self-reports both during an exam period and outside such a period. Results suggested that optimism may protect from the adverse influence of heightened stress and that pessimistic, low self-efficacious participants may be at elevated risk for the development of URIs at times of increased stress.

The economic shutdown and national lockdown following the outbreak of COVID-19 forced families to take on tasks themselves that were previously outsourced, like child care and housecleaning. These tasks were, and to a degree still are, traditionally performed by women. The concern is that the pandemic placed these burdens again primarily on their shoulders. In this study, we examine how the lockdown-imposed difficulties to the outsourcing of essential household tasks affected views on who in the family should sacrifice their career to cope with new challenges, and how these views interacted with ideological commitments. Analyzing data collected from an experiment embedded in a representative survey of nearly 4,000 residents from five West European countries, we find that the pandemic reduced the ideological polarization between the political left and right with regards to gender roles and household tasks. However, this reduced polarization is primarily found among female respondents.

This article is a response to Arai (2003) `British policy on teenage pregnancy and childbearing: The limitations of comparisons with other European countries' ( Critical Social Policy 23: 89—102). It discusses the arguments put forward by Arai there that cross-cultural comparisons in the area of teenage pregnancy are often problematic due to the unique demographics of the UK. While Arai's considerations are important for cross-cultural research, they need to be more sensitive to the differences between countries included in these comparisons. Our article illustrates the potential value of cross-cultural research, using Germany as an example, and concludes that, as long as countries for such comparisons are chosen carefully, the merit of cross-cultural research on topics such as teenage pregnancy far exceeds its limitations.

The role of twins in research is evolving as we move further into the post-genomic era. With the re-definition of what a gene is, it is becoming clear that biological family members who share a specific genetic variant may well not have a similar risk for future disease. This has somewhat invalidated the prior rationale for twin studies. Case co-twin study designs, however, are slowly emerging as the ideal tool to identify both environmentally induced epigenetic marks and epigenetic disease-associated processes. Here, we propose that twin lives are not as identical as commonly assumed and that the case co-twin study design can be used to investigate the effects of the adult social environment. We present the elements in the (social) environment that are likely to affect the epigenome and measures in which twins may diverge. Using data from the German TwinLife registry, we confirm divergence in both the events that occur and the salience for the individual start as early as age 11. Case co-twin studies allow for the exploitation of these divergences, permitting the investigation of the role of not only the adult social environment, but also the salience of an event or environment for the individual, in determining lifelong health trajectories. In cases like social adversity where it is clearly not possible to perform a randomised-controlled trial, we propose that the case co-twin study design is the most rigorous manner with which to investigate epigenetic mechanisms encoding environmental exposure. The role of the case co-twin design will continue to evolve, as we argue that it will permit causal inference from observational data.

PurposeThe authors track the well-being of individuals across five European countries during the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and relate their well-being to working from home. The authors also consider the role of pandemic-policy stringency in affecting well-being in Europe.Design/methodology/approachThe authors have four waves of novel harmonised longitudinal data in France, Italy, Germany, Spain and Sweden, covering the period May–November 2020. Well-being is measured in five dimensions: life satisfaction, a worthwhile life, loneliness, depression and anxiety. A retrospective diary indicates whether the individual was working in each month since February 2020 and if so whether at home or not at home. Policy stringency is matched in per country at the daily level. The authors consider both cross-section and panel regressions and the mediating and moderating effects of control variables, including household variables and income.FindingsWell-being among workers is lower for those who work from home, and those who are not working have the lowest well-being of all. The panel results are more mitigated, with switching into working at home yielding a small drop in anxiety. The panel and cross-section difference could reflect adaptation or the selection of certain types of individuals into working at home. Policy stringency is always negatively correlated with well-being. The authors find no mediation effects. The well-being penalty from working at home is larger for the older, the better-educated, those with young children and those with more crowded housing.Originality/valueThe harmonised cross-country panel data on individuals' experiences during COVID-19 are novel. The authors relate working from home and policy stringency to multiple well-being measures. The authors emphasise the effect of working from home on not only the level of well-being but also its distribution.

We investigated the effects of recreational exposure to the natural environment on mood and psychophysiological responses to stress. We hypothesized that walking in nature has restorative effects over and above the effects of exposure to nature scenes (viewing nature on TV) or physical exercise alone (walking on a treadmill in a gym) and that these effects are greater when participants were expected to be more stressed. Healthy university students ( N = 90) were randomly allocated to one of three conditions and tested during an exam-free period and again during their exam time. Mood and psychophysiological responses were assessed before and after the interventions, and again after a laboratory stressor. All interventions had restorative effects on cortisol levels ( p < .001), yet walking in nature resulted in lower cortisol levels than did nature viewing ( p < .05) during the exam period. Walking in nature improved mood more than watching nature scenes ( p < .001) or physical exercise alone ( p < .05).