INTRODUCTION

1. BLOOD PRESSURE DIFFERENCES DURING BODY POSITIONING • TASKS IN HIGH AND LOW WORRYING WOMEN Michael M. Knepp, PhD. Maggie K. Mooney,& Bruce H. Friedman, PhD. INTRODUCTION METHOD (Laboratory) RESULTS • Epidemiologic studies show anxiety to be an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) (Haines et al., 1987; Kawachi et al., 1994a,b) • Anxiety in its clinical, trait, and state forms is associated with low cardiac vagal control, as indexed through heart rate variability (HRV) analysis (Friedman, 2007) • Worry may be a risk factor for CVD via its relation with perseveration and delayed CV recovery (Brosschot et al., 2006) • Longitudinal data indicate that social worry in men is associated with increased CVD risk (Kubzansky et al., 1997) • Dependent CV measures: • HR, low (0.04–0.15 Hz) and high (0.15–0.40 Hz) frequency HR spectral power, pre-ejection period (PEP), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) • Electrocardiogram, Impedance cardiogram recorded with Ambulatory Monitoring System v4.4 • BP recorded with IBS SD-700A automated monitor • Procedure • Task Epoch: • (1) Pretask Period: Watching a neutral stimulus video • (2) Task Period: One of two body positioning tasks • (3) Posttask Period: Sitting with eyes closed • Three-minute CV recording periods: baseline, task, and recovery plus initial anticipatory baseline upon arrival at lab • Task order counterbalanced within, but not across task sets • Tasks: • (1) Orthostatic Position: Standing upright with arms down at the side and eyes closed • (2) Supine Position: Lying down in a reclining chair near horizontal with eyes closed Systolic Blood Pressure Across All Epochs HYPOTHESES • Aim: to replicate the findings of Knepp and Friedman (2008) • Primary Hypotheses: High worriers will have • increased HR across all epochs • increased HR reactivity and recovery • Alternate Hypotheses: High worriers will have • decreased vagal tone and HRV across epochs • increased blood pressure to task • Exploratoryvariables: Included stroke volume and heather index from ICG Diastolic Blood Pressure Reactivity/Recovery Change Scores CONCLUSIONS RESULTS • There were no significant findings for HR, rMSSD, LF, or HF spectral powers of ECG (all p values > .10). • There were no reactivity or recovery change score-based effects related to any of these ECG variables as well. • Systolic blood pressure: • Worry group by epoch interaction (F(6,288)=2.89, p<.01). • In all epochs, high worriers showed higher systolic blood pressure than low worriers. • The interaction takes place because this difference is more pronounced in the orthostatic and supine task phases. • Diastolic blood pressure: • There was a trend towards significance in the worry group by task epoch interaction (F (6, 288) =1.90, p=.081). • None of the individual epochs had significant differences except for a trend at supine baseline • The interaction was due to reactivity and recovery change differences benefiting good CV health in low worriers. • Benefits • Evidence for worry group differences in blood pressure supporting possible sympathetic and vascular influences rather than parasympathetic differences. • Matthews et al. (2004) found that the larger increases in blood pressure to stress tasks predicted earlier onset of hypertension. • Limitations • Findings applicable only to young adult women • Low temporal sensitivity may mask recovery findings • Implications & future studies • Cognitive trait impacting mechanical function such as body positioning • Use of clinical samples (Generalized anxiety disorder) • Replication in men and other age groups METHOD (Online) • Recruitment phase • Subjects took part in an online screening phase using the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) in order to create low and high worry groups. • 785 women took the online screener of which 58 eligible undergraduate women came into the lab. • 31 women were considered to have high trait worry (PSWQ M=66.74, SE=1.00) and 27 women were low trait worriers (PSWQ M=37.67, SE=1.08). Correspondence to: Kneppy@vt.edu Presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Boston, MA, May 2010