Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan:104:41-47.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.11.002. Epub 2017 Nov 6.

When is affect variability bad for health? The association between affect variability and immune response to the influenza vaccination

Brooke N Jenkins  1 , John F Hunter  2 , Marie P Cross  3 , Amanda M Acevedo  4 , Sarah D Pressman  5
Affiliations

When is affect variability bad for health? The association between affect variability and immune response to the influenza vaccination

Brooke N Jenkins et al. J Psychosom Res. 2018 Jan.

Abstract

Objectives: This study addresses methodological and theoretical questions about the association between affect and physical health. Specifically, we examine the role of affect variability and its interaction with mean levels of affect to predict antibody (Ab) levels in response to an influenza vaccination.

Methods: Participants (N=83) received the vaccination and completed daily diary measures of affect four times a day for 13days. At one and four months post-vaccination, blood was collected from the participants to assess Ab levels.

Results: Findings indicate that affect variability and its interaction with mean levels of affect predict an individual's immune response. Those high in mean positive affect (PA) who had more PA variability were more likely to have a lower Ab response in comparison to those who had high mean PA and less PA variability. Although it did not interact with mean negative affect (NA), NA variability on its own was associated with Ab response, whereby those with less NA variability mounted a more robust immune response.

Conclusion: Affect variability is related to immune response to an influenza vaccination and, in some cases, interacts with mean levels of affect. These oscillations in affective experiences are critical to consider in order to unpack the intricacies of how affect influences health. These findings suggest that future researchers should consider the important role of affect variability on physical health-relevant outcomes as well as examine the moderating effect of mean affect levels.

Keywords: Affect variability; Antibody response; Immune function; Negative affect; Positive affect.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Two individuals with the same mean level of negative affect but different negative affect variability.
Figure 2
Figure 2
PASD and PAMEAN interaction on antibody (Ab) titers at one month post-vaccination. Low PAMEAN is one SD below the mean on PAMEAN while high PAMEAN is one SD above the mean on PAMEAN. Lines represent adjusted predictions. Shaded regions are the 95% confidence intervals around the predictions. Regions of PAMEAN (low vs. high) that do not overlap are significantly different from one another in terms of the predicted Ab level. Possible predicted values are between 0 and 1024 titers. However, confidence intervals exceed this range.
Figure 3
Figure 3
PASD and PAMEAN interaction on antibody (Ab) titers at four months post-vaccination. Low PAMEAN is one SD below the mean on PAMEAN while high PAMEAN is one SD above the mean on PAMEAN. Lines represent adjusted predictions. Shaded regions are the 95% confidence intervals around the predictions. Regions of PAMEAN (low vs. high) that do not overlap are significantly different from one another in terms of the predicted Ab level. Possible predicted values are between 0 and 1024 titers. However, confidence intervals exceed this range.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Chida Y, Steptoe A. Positive psychological well-being and mortality: A quantitative review of prospective observational studies. Psychosom Med. 2008;70:741–56. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e31818105ba. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pressman SD, Cohen S. Does positive affect influence health? Psychol Bull. 2005;131:925–71. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.925. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Prather AA, Marsland AL, Muldoon MF, Manuck SB. Positive affective style covaries with stimulated IL-6 and IL-10 production in a middle-aged community sample. Brain Behav Immun. 2007;21:1033–1037. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2007.04.009. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Suls J, Bunde J. Anger, anxiety, and depression as risk factors for cardiovascular disease: The problems and implications of overlapping affective dispositions. Psychol Bull. 2005;131:260–300. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.260. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Larsen RJ, Diener E. A multitrait-multimethod examination of affect structure: Hedonic level and emotional intensity. Pers Individ Dif. 1985;6:631–636. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(85)90013-3. - DOI

Publication types