Affectionate touch and diurnal oxytocin levels: An ecological momentary assessment study.

Background: Affectionate touch, which is vital for mental and physical health, was restricted during the Covid-19 pandemic. This study investigated the association between momentary affectionate touch and subjective well-being, as well as salivary oxytocin and cortisol in everyday life during the pandemic. Methods: In the first step, we measured anxiety and depression symptoms, loneliness and attitudes toward social touch in a large cross-sectional online survey (N = 1050). From this sample, N = 247 participants completed ecological momentary assessments over 2 days with six daily assessments by answering smartphone-based questions on affectionate touch and momentary mental state, and providing concomitant saliva samples for cortisol and oxytocin assessment. Results: Multilevel models showed that on a within-person level, affectionate touch was associated with decreased self-reported anxiety, general burden, stress, and increased oxytocin levels. On a between-person level, affectionate touch was associated with decreased cortisol levels and higher happiness. Moreover, individuals with a positive attitude toward social touch experiencing loneliness reported more mental health problems. Conclusions: Our results suggest that affectionate touch is linked to higher endogenous oxytocin in times of pandemic and lockdown and might buffer stress on a subjective and hormonal level. These findings might have implications for preventing mental burden during social contact restrictions. Funding: The study was funded by the German Research Foundation, the German Psychological Society, and German Academic Exchange Service.

Stress during the COVID-19 Pandemic Moderates Pain Perception and Momentary Oxytocin Levels.

Self-reported pain levels have been associated with increased stress levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. Less is known about the long-term effects of stress on individuals' physical and emotional pain levels and their associations with the neuropeptide hormone oxytocin. We aimed to predict momentary pain through individual stress levels and momentary oxytocin levels at genuinely high-stress phases, namely during COVID-related lockdowns. In a cross-sectional (n = 254) and a longitudinal (n = 196) assessment during lockdowns in Germany, participants completed a 2-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) protocol (collecting six saliva samples on two consecutive days each and simultaneously reporting on stress, physical, and emotional pain levels) in 2020, as well as one year later, in 2021. Hierarchical linear modeling revealed significant positive associations between individuals' stress levels and physical pain, both cross-sectionally (b = 0.017; t(103) = 3.345; p = 0.001) and longitudinally (b = 0.009; t(110) = 2.025; p = 0.045). Similarly, subjective stress ratings showed significant positive associations with emotional pain on a within-person (b = 0.014; t(63) = 3.594; p < 0.001) as well as on a between-person (b = 0.026; t(122) = 5.191; p < 0.001) level. Participants further displayed significantly lower salivary oxytocin when experiencing higher levels of emotional pain (b = -0.120; t(163) = -2.493; p = 0.014). In addition, high-stress levels significantly moderated the association between physical pain and salivary oxytocin (b = -0.012; t(32) = -2.150; p = 0.039). Based on mechanistic and experimental research, oxytocinergic mechanisms have long been suggested to modulate pain experiences, however, this has not yet been investigated in everyday life. Our data, which was collected from a large sample experiencing continued stress, in this case, during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that individuals experience more intense physical pain and elevated stress levels, as shown by particularly low salivary oxytocin concentrations.

Psychosoziale Belastung und psychosoziale Unterstützung für Fachkräfte im Gesundheitswesen während der COVID-19-Pandemie : Was haben Mitarbeiter*innen einer Universitätsklinik als hilfreich erlebt? Psychosocial distress and psychosocial support for healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemicWhat have employees of a university hospital experienced as helpful?

Hintergrund Ausgangspunkt der Studie ist die hohe psychosoziale Belastung von Fachkräften im Gesundheitswesen bei gleichzeitig geringer Inanspruchnahme eines Beratungs- und Unterstützungsangebots für Mitarbeiter*innen einer Universitätsklinik während der COVID-19-Pandemie. Ziel der Arbeit Die vorliegende Studie untersucht den Grad des psychosozialen Belastungserlebens von Fachkräften im Gesundheitswesen (n = 859) einer Universitätsklinik sowie Kenntnis, Inanspruchnahme und Bewertung innerbetrieblicher psychosozialer Versorgungsstrukturen. Material und Methoden Im Rahmen einer Online-Befragung (21.07.–19.10.2021) wurden die subjektiv empfundene Belastung durch die COVID-19-Pandemie, Depressivität (PHQ-8) des Personals sowie Kenntnis, Inanspruchnahme und Bewertung möglicher Versorgungsangebote der Universitätsklinik erhoben. Zusätzlich wurden qualitative Daten zu Informationsquelle, -vermittlung sowie Art der Kontaktaufnahme der innerbetrieblichen Versorgungsstrukturen erhoben. Ergebnisse Trotz hoher psychosozialer Belastung und überwiegender Kenntnis der Existenz innerbetrieblicher psychosozialer Versorgungsangebote ist deren Inanspruchnahme bei Fachkräften im Gesundheitswesen gering. Insbesondere der Kontakt zu Patient*innen stellte einen Risikofaktor für das psychosoziale Belastungserleben dar. Die qualitative Analyse zeigt, dass die Mitarbeiter*innen mehr über E‑Mails und Newsletters informiert werden möchten sowie eine übersichtliche Darstellung der Angebote vermissen. Diskussion Eine Überarbeitung der Angebotsdarstellung und Kontaktwege gemäß den Wünschen des Personals könnte die Inanspruchnahme innerbetrieblicher Angebote verbessern.

Loneliness and diurnal cortisol levels during COVID-19 lockdown: the roles of living situation, relationship status and relationship quality.

Loneliness and social isolation have become increasing concerns during COVID-19 lockdown through neuroendocrine stress-reactions, physical and mental health problems. We investigated living situation, relationship status and quality as potential moderators for trait and state loneliness and salivary cortisol levels (hormonal stress-responses) in healthy adults during the first lockdown in Germany. N = 1242 participants (mean age = 36.32, 78% female) filled out an online questionnaire on demographics, trait loneliness and relationship quality. Next, N = 247 (mean age = 32.6, 70% female) completed ecological momentary assessment (EMA), collecting twelve saliva samples on 2 days and simultaneously reporting their momentary loneliness levels. Divorced/widowed showed highest trait loneliness, followed by singles and partnerships. The latter displayed lower momentary loneliness and cortisol levels compared to singles. Relationship satisfaction significantly reduced loneliness levels in participants with a partner and those who were living apart from their partner reported loneliness levels similar to singles living alone. Living alone was associated with higher loneliness levels. Hierarchical linear models revealed a significant cross-level interaction between relationship status and momentary loneliness in predicting cortisol. The results imply that widowhood, being single, living alone and low relationship quality represent risk factors for loneliness and having a partner buffers neuroendocrine stress responses during lockdown.

Social Support as a Stress Buffer or Stress Amplifier and the Moderating Role of Implicit Motives: Protocol for a Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research shows that providing social support in socioevaluative stress situations reduces participants' stress responses. This stress-buffer effect, however, does not hold for everybody, and some studies even found a stress-amplifying effect of social support. Motive disposition research suggests that social motives (affiliation and power) lead to differential and sometimes even opposing affective and physiological responses to interpersonal interaction processes. We here integrate both lines of research and hypothesize that participants with strong affiliation motives benefit, while participants with strong power motives do not benefit from social support in terms of psychobiological responses to a given stressor. Further, participants with strong affiliation and power motives are expected to respond to social support with the arousal of motive-specific affects and reproductive hormone responses (affiliation: progesterone; power: estradiol and testosterone). In addition, we test sex differences in the response to social support and in the strengths of social motives. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study is to test whether social motives and participants' sex moderate the effects of social support in stressful situations. METHODS: We aim to collect data from 308 participants recruited at our local university. Participants' social motives are assessed using a standardized measure in motive research (Picture Story Exercise). Then, the Trier Social Stress Test for Groups (TSST-G) is used to experimentally induce psychosocial stress. One group of participants receives social support from an associate of the experimenter, while the control group does not receive social support. Stress responses will be assessed by a modified version of the state anxiety scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and by physiological indicators of stress (cortisol and α-amylase from saliva samples) at 7 measurement points. Reproductive hormones will be analyzed in 4 of these 7 saliva samples. Heart rate and heart rate variability will be assessed continuously. We will additionally measure participants' performance in an interview (part of the TSST-G) using a self-developed categorization system. RESULTS: The Ethics Committee of the University of Constance approved the application to conduct the study on December 18, 2018. Furthermore, the study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DKRS; ID: DRKS00028503) on March 09, 2022. The start of the experiment was planned for the beginning of 2019, but was postponed to June 2021 due to COVID-19. Publication of the first results is planned for spring 2023. CONCLUSIONS: Our theory-driven integration of social motives in social support research and the precise analysis of sex differences might disentangle inconsistent findings in TSST research. The more faceted view on individual differences has direct implications for applied contexts as it provides a framework for tailored conceptualizations of social support programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00028503; https://tinyurl.com/5a87x4da. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/39509.

Self-soothing touch and being hugged reduce cortisol responses to stress: A randomized controlled trial on stress, physical touch, and social identity

Background Being touched by others improves stress coping. However, when touch from others is unavailable, feels uncomfortable, or is not considered to be safe (as in the COVID-19 pandemic), self-touch gestures, like placing a hand on the heart, may provide an alternative way to experience less strain. Methods and materials In this study, 159 healthy participants (96 women, 62 men, and 1 non-binary person), aged 18–35 years, were exposed to a standardized psychosocial stressor (Trier Social Stress Test) to investigate whether self-soothing touch or receiving a hug from others has a buffering effect on their stress responses. In addition, the study explored whether the effectiveness of these interventions is moderated by participants' assignment to a “personal” or “social” identity condition. Participants provided salivary cortisol samples, wore an ECG to record their heart rate, and completed self-report measures on stress-related subjective-emotional states during the study. Results For cortisol, mixed-effects regression models with Touch and Identity as between-subject factors and Time as the within-subject factor yielded a significant main effect for touch and a significant interaction of Touch x Time indicating that cortisol levels differed between the experimental touch interventions. Post-hoc contrast tests showed that participants in both touch conditions had lower cortisol levels after the stressor than those in the control conditions. Heart rates and self-reported measures of stress neither differed across touch nor identity conditions. The three-way interaction for Touch x Identity x Time was non-significant for either outcome measure. Discussion These results are in line with previous work indicating that physical touch has protective effects on physiological stress responses but not necessarily on self-reported stress and suggest that self-soothing touch and receiving hugs are simple and yet potentially powerful means for buffering individuals' resilience against stress. Graphical CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram Image 1 Highlights • Self-soothing touch gestures reduce cortisol responses to psychosocial stress.• Receiving hugs also reduces cortisol responses to psychosocial stress.• Benefits from receiving hugs are independent of social identification.• Self-soothing touch might reduce stress-responses in times of limited social resources.