4.5 Article

Multiple aspects of the stress response under social evaluative threat: An electrophysiological investigation

期刊

PSYCHONEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 41-53

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.09.007

关键词

stress; cortisol; ERN; anterior cingulate; social evaluative; threat; emotion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Affective traits and states may be important moderators of stress reactivity, providing insight into stress-related consequences on cognitive functioning. This study assessed cognitive control processes using response-related brain electrical activities-the error-related negativity (ERN) and error positivity (Pe)-that are sensitive to trait and state affect. To assess the role of cognitive control in affective and cortisol reactivity to social evaluative threat, 55 undergraduates first completed a standard task designed to elicit the ERN in order to index 'baseline' error monitoring. Participants then performed a difficult mathematical task designed to elicit the ERN under conditions of exposed failure and social evaluation. Baseline ERN amplitude predicted future cortisol reactivity to social evaluative threat in highly punishment-sensitive individuals (high self-reported Behavioral Inhibition System: Carver and White [1994. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psych. 67, 319-333], although the presence of outliers suggest the need for replication. The math stress ERN amplitude was diminished in direct relationship to trait (punishment sensitivity) and state (fear and shame) negative affect. Individuals high in punishment sensitivity also showed specific deficits in task performance following error feedback under stress. High state affect related to a larger Pe amplitude. Results are interpreted as consequences of different motivational and affective reactivities under social evaluative threat. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据