Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Cardiovascular response to agreement and disagreement: towards explaining the beneficial effect of social… Lenz, Joseph William 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1995-059987.pdf [ 2.72MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0088355.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088355-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088355-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088355-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088355-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088355-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088355-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

CARDIOVASCULAR RESPONSE TO AGREEMENTAN]) DISAGREEMENT:TOWARDS EXPLAINING THE BENEFICIALEFFECT OF SOCIAL SUPPORTBYJOSEPH WILLIAM LENZB.A., THE UNWERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO, 1970M. S., WESTERN WASHINGTON UMVERSITY, 1990A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYINTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGYWE ACCEPT THIS THESIS AS CONFORMINGTO THE REQUIRJED STANDARDTHz UNIVERSITY OF BRrnsH COLUMBIAAUGUST, 1995© JoSEPH WILLIAM LENz, 1995Signature(s) removed to protect privacyIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.Department of 0’ O\The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate / Ao% Idjt.S_DE-6 (2188)Signature(s) removed to protect privacySignature(s) removed to protect privacySignature(s) removed to protect privacyLenz Response to Audience AgreementABSTRACTSocial support has been associated with reduced mortality and morbidity from anumber of causes. To assess possible mechanisms of action relating to cardiovascular(CV) responsiveness, 90 male and female university students delivered a five-minutespeech on a controversial topic to a same-sex laboratory confederate. Subjects wererandomly assigned to one of three conditions in which the confederate either (a) agreedwith the subject, (b) remained impassive (neutral), or (c) disagreed with the subject. Bloodpressure (SBP and DBP) and heart rate (HR.) were monitored throughout the experiment.Self-report measures of state self-esteem and affective state were taken pre- and post-task,and reactions to the task were assessed with post-task self-report measures.Subjects reported strong differences in supportiveness of the confederate in the threeconditions. Self-report data indicated increase in arousal during the speech (a findingsynchronous with CV data), and they reported the Disagree condition to be less pleasantthan the Agree condition. CV data were analyzed as a 2 x 3 (sex by experimentalcondition) repeated measures ANOVA assessing changes from baseline to speech task.Sex differences on CV measures matched patterns generally reported: Men had higherSBP and lower HR than women. All CV measures increased significantly and substantiallyduring the speech task. HR was higher in the Disagree and Neutral conditions than in theAgree condition. SBP and DBP did not differ by condition. There were no sex bycondition interactions; however, there was a trend towards men’s HR increasing more inthe neutral condition and women’ more in the disagree condition.— 11 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementThese data partially support earlier findings in similar experiments while suggestingthat subtleties of context, task selection, and content of supportive interaction may havesignificant impact on the degree to which social support attenuates CV response to socialstressors. Unanswered questions for future research are delineated, and implications fordesigning and implementing interventions that enhance social support are discussed.— 111—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACTTABLE OF CONTENTS ivLIST OF TABLES viLIST OF FIGURESLIST OF APPENDICES viiiACKNOWLEDGMENT xDedication xLITERATURE REVIEW 1Introduction 1Levels of Analysis 3Measurement 4The Epidemiology of Social Support and Mortality 6Interpreting Epidemiological Findings 10Prospective Studies of Social Support and Cardiovascular Measures 11The Experimental Investigation of Social Support 13Laboratory Studies of Cardiovascular Response to Social Support 15Goals and Import of the Present Study 25METHOD 31Overview 31Subjects 31— iv —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementSelf-report Measures 33Procedure 40Analytic Strategy 51RESULTS 54Manipulation Check 54Other Self-report of Response to the Speaking Task 56Cardiovascular Reactivity to the Task 58Pre- and Post-task Subjective Measures 67Correlates of Self—reported Social Support 73DISCUSSION 76Summary of Findings 76Internal Validity 76Evaluation of Specific Hypotheses 78Cardiovascular Response to Support 86Explanations of Differences Between Findings 88Directions for Future Research 94Conclusions 95I1.EFER.ENCES 98APPENDIX A — QUESTIONNAIRES AND SCRIPTS 109APPENDIX B — STATISTICAL TABLES 132—v—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementLIST OF TABLESTABLE 1. MEANS AND (STANDARD DEVIATIONS) OF RATINGS OF CONFEDERATESUPPORTWENESS BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION 55TABLE 2. CORRELATIONS AMONG CARDIovAscuLAR MEASURES 59TABLE 3. MEANS AND (STANDARD DEVIATIONS) OF SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE BYEXPERIMENTAL CONDITION AND SEX 62TABLE 4. MEANS AND (STANDARD DEVIATIONS) OF DIAsToLIc BLOOD PRESSURE BYEXPERIMENTAL CoNDITIoN AND SEX 63TABLE 5. MEANS AND (STANDARD DEVIATIONS) OF HEART RATE BY EXPERIMENTALCONDITION AND SEX 65TABLE 6. CORRELATIONS AMONG SELF-REPORT MEASURES AT PRE-TASK 68TABLE 7. CORRELATIONS AMONG SELF-REPORT MEASURES AT POST-TASK 68TABLE 8. MEANS AND (STANDARD DEVIATIoNs) OF PLEASANTNESS RATING ON THEAFFECT GRID BY EXPE1UMENTAL CONDITION 70TABLE 9. MEANs AND (STANDARD DEVIATIONS) OF PERFORMANCE RATING ON THESSES BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION 73TABLE 10. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ISEL Ar’ CHANGE IN CARDIOVASCULAR ANDSELF-REPORT MEASURES BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION 75TABLE 11. ESTIMATES OF TASK- AND SUPPORT-RELATED EFFECT SIZES FORCARDIOVASCULAR MEASURES IN STUDIES USING SOCIAL INTERACTIONTASKS 87— vi —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementLIST OF FIGTJRESFIGuRE 1. Systolic Blood Pressure at all Measurement Points by Sex 60FIGuRE 2. Diastolic Blood Pressure at Baseline and Speech by Sex 64FIGuRE 3. Heart Rate at Baseline and Speech by Experimental Condition 66FIGuRE 4. Change in Heart Rate by Sex and Experimental Condition 81— vii—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementLIST OF APPENDICESAPPENIMX A— QUESTIONNAIRES AND SCRIPTS 1091. Recruitment Poster 1092. Telephone Screening Guide 1103 Consent Form 1124. Collection Form for Demographic Data 1145. State Self-Esteem Scale (Current Thoughts) 1166. Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) 1177. Affect Grid 1208. Important Topics Questionnaire 1219. Reactions to Speaking Questionnaire 12210. Speech Helper Form 12511. Debriefing Form (Given to all participants) 12712. Debriefing Script 129APPENDIX B — STATISTICAL TABLES 1321. Oneway ANOVA Table for Rating of Confederat&s Supportiveness byExperimental Condition 1322. Item Descriptions and Correlations among Items in the Distress Scale 1333. Tables for Multivariate and Univariate Oneway ANOVAs of Distress andPerformance Ratings 1344. ANOVA Tables for Systolic Blood Pressure 1355. ANOVA Tables for Diastolic Blood Pressure 1366. ANOVA Tables fo Heart Rate 1377. ANOVA Tables for the Arousal Subscale of the Affect Grid 138— viii—Lenz Response to Audience Agreement8. ANOVA Tables for the Pleasantness Subscale of the Affect Grid 1399. ANOVA Tables for the Appearance Esteem Subscale of the SSES 14010. ANOVA Tables for the Social Esteem Subscale of the SSES 14111. ANOVA Tables for the Performance Esteem Subscale of the SSES 14212. Means and (Standard Deviations) of Change in Cardiovascular and Self-reportMeasures by Experimental Condit4on 143— ix —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementACKNOWLEDGMENTI want to express my deep appreciation to the team at the Linden laboratory for whatmust have seemed like never-ending help with this research project. First, I want expressmy deepest appreciation to Jeff Maurice who did everything from scheduling to acting asconfederate, to running subjects, and to Carmen Stossel who always made herselfavailable to solve scheduling problems—and any other problem that happened to come up.Thank you to those who acted as confederates: Susan Bauld, Tammy Brumwell, MarkHignell, Sean Richardson, and Liz Rocha. In their performances as confederates, everyonehad td learn how others perceived their responses, and the learning process challengedeveryone. Being non-responsive and disagreeing with subjects did not come easy for theconfederates at first, and I can only hope that breaking the habit of being habitually “nice”has broadened everyone’s interpersonal repertoires. Finally, I want to thank ProfessorLinden himself for the inspiration, the resources, the guidance, and the prodding heprovided. Most importantly, I want to thank him for the support he gave me during thisproject—support that was generally (but not invariably) expressed in terms of agreement.Dedication:This project is dedicated to the memory ofmyfather, Russell Lenz.It was his dreamfrom my birth that I would get a university degree,but he never expected—or probably even wished-that it would go thisfar.Still, without the drive and confidence he worked to instill in me,I may never have had the faith to follow my curiosity into research.—x—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementLITERATURE REVIEWIntroductionDuring the past two decades, there has been a proliferation of research on therelationships between social support and health. Although researchers in healthpsychology have demonstrated much interest in the links between health and socialsupport, research and theoretical work have been by no means limited to healthpsychology or even to psychology. The breadth of interest in social support is illustratedby the variety of disciplines that have published extensively on the topic. Majorcontributions to knowledge and application of social support principles have occurred injournals primarily concerned with epidemiology, cardiology, gerontology, oncology, socialwork, nursing, rehabilitation, community medicine, and community psychology.This broad and energetic interest has been spurred largely by epidemiological findingsthat social support is robustly associated with reduced all-cause mortality, is consistentlyassociated with reduced morbidity from a number of specific causes—including coronarydisease and hypertension—and with reduced risk of psychopathology. To date, little isknown about the mechanisms of action, but the associations between social support andhealth are stable and the direction of causation is reasonably well established and generallyaccepted: It appears that strong social networks actually protect health and are not simplythe result of good health (Berkman & Syme, 1979; Blazer, 1982; Cohen, S. & Wills,1985; Kaplan et al., 1988; Welin et al., 1985). In spite of a lack of understanding ofmechanisms, interventions purporting to increase well being by increasing social support—1—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementhave been proposed for a variety of health-related problems. Thus, application currentlyruns ahead of understanding of underlying processes and, therefore, the risk is high thatinefficient or ineffective interventions may be implemented.Given the variety of fields researching phenomena related to health and socialsupport, it is hardly surprising that conceptual and methodological inconsistenciescomplicate our ability to draw reliable conclusions. Social support itself has been definedin various—and at times conflicting—ways. Berkman and Syme (1979) defined theconcept globally, constructing a composite index of support from self-report of a widevariety of social interactions and memberships. Numerous epidemiological studies havefollowed this lead with variations in the types of social connections sampled for inclusiOnin their indices. Actual statements of definitions of social support are rare in the literature,probably due to both the vagueness of theoretical underpinnings and the generallyaccepted every-day meaning of the term “social support.” Cassel’s (1976) originalformulation defined social support as including elements of social organization,acculturation, and availability of psychosocial resources. Others have simplified andthereby broadened the definition to include social ties and relationships (e.g., Berkman &Syme, 1979; House, Robbins, & Metzner, 1982).More recently, the tendency has been away from global, general definitions andtowards situation-specific definitions. Coyne and Bolger (1990) recommended abandoningthe term and the concept of general social support in favor of more operationally definablecomponents. They prefer to designate and to research specific behavioral and interactionalpatterns and to address functional aspects of the relationship between health and social—2—Lenz Response to AudEence Agreementsupport rather than to describe structurally supportive networks. This recommendationemphasies the utility of specifiing types of support and components of supportivenessthat can be targeted for research separately or in combination. The body of research mostclosely related to the present study, generally proceeds by examining the impact of specificsupportive behaviors on their recipients. In keeping with Coyne and Bolger’srecommendation, reference should be made to actual types of behaviors and exchangesunder investigation rather than to the general concept of “social support”. This conventionis followed when referring to operationalized components of the present study.However—because the impetus for investigation of these component elements has arisenfrom theory and data with a wider conceptual base—the term “social support” will beretained when referring to conceptually related issues.Levels ofAnalysisThe differing views on how social support should be defined make it apparent thatthere are several levels at which social support can be analyzed and researched. First,social support can be discussed at the global or general level. The global construct islinguistically convenient but admits of considerable imprecision in that it refers to a broadset of poorly defined and loosely related constructs. This approach to social support hasbeen apparent in epidemiological studies in which composite measures tap various aspectsof the general construct. At a slightly more detailed level of analysis, it is possible todiscriminate different types of support. For example, Wills’s (1985) typology includesesteem support, social companionship, instrumental support, informational support, and—3—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementseveral others. It would be possible to examine the independent contributions of each ofthese broad types of support, but to date that type of investigation has not beenundertaken in any systematic manner. Instead, it appears that the specification of types ofsupport has had largely a heuristic value. The utility of typing support is in leading to a stillmore detailed level of analysis at which specific types of supportive behaviors orsupportive transactions are examined for the purpose of identifying functional aspects ofsupport.. Research focusing on this last and most detailed level of analysis targets specificsupportive interactions as the unit of analysis. At this level, it is important to examinecognitive, emotional, and physiological concomitants of supportive interactions, and thesupport giver’s behaviors must be specified. This last level of analysis is essential inexperimental laboratory procedures, and it is at this last level that the present studyoperates. The present investigation is also intended to respond to calls by numerouswriters for research that is directed towards examination of potential processes or towardsidentification of mechanisms of action of social support on health (e.g., Cohen,. S. & Wills,1985; Waliston, Alagna, DeVellis, & DeVellis, 1983).MeasurementThere are numerous approaches to measuring social support. Obviously, thedefinitional issues previously explained have major impact on measurement strategies.Practical problems associated with operationalizing definitions for application lead toadditional variety and inconsistency in measurement. Additional issues include thefollowing: (a) emphasis on actual versus perceived support, (b) emphasis on quantity—4—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementversus quality of support, (c) emphasis on utilization versus availability of support, and(d) emphasis on social connections or “membership’ versus types and quality of socialinterchanges.Prospective epidemiological studies of social support have generally utilized indices ofsupportive connections composed of a number of discrete self-report measures of socialconnections. The earliest study (Berkman & Syme, 1979) used an index composed ofmeasures of marriage, contacts with friends and extended family, church membership, andother formal and informal affiliations. The derived measure weighted the first two of thesekinds of contact—the intimate connections—more heavily than the other kinds.Replications of the Berkman and Syme study and later epidemiological work used avariety of different combinations of measures. House et al. (1982) included in theircomposite index measures of formal organizational involvement outside work andmeasures of leisure activities involving social contact. Blazer (1982) added measures ofperceived adequacy of social support and frequency of social interactions to counts ofavailable supportive connections.In response to positive findings with composite measures, numerous investigatorshave developed scales for measurement of network size and satisfaction with socialsupport. Psychometric properties of 23 such scales were reviewed by Heitzmann andKaplan (1988). Scales vary widely in approach, in length, and especially in availability ofdata on reliability and validity, but several among those reviewed were found to havesatisfactory psychometric properties. Among the most psychometrically sound and mostcommonly used is the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) (Cohen, S.,—5—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementMermeistein, Kamarck, & Hoberman, 1985). This instrument is of particular interest forthe present study for a number of reasons. It measures perceptions of available support, anaspect of support most appropriate for evaluation through self-report and an aspect ofsupport frequently considered to be most closely associated with health (Cohen. S. &Wills, 1985; Helgeson, 1993). In addition, the ISEL has subscales measuring appraisal ofsupport and esteem support—elements of support that are particularly relevant to aspectsof the present investigation.The Epidemiology ofSocial Support and MortalitySyme, Hyman, and Enterline (1964) reported evidence that patterns of socialinteraction may be in part responsible for differences in prevalence of a variety of diseasesacross a wide variety of cultural settings. These and other early findings prompted anumber of theoretical papers suggesting empirical examination of links between health andsocial activity (Cassel, 1976; Cobb, 1976; Syme, 1974). Syme’s formulation has provedproductive over time. He recommended investigation along the lines of what he called a“social epidemiological approach.” In general, Syme recommended epidemiologicalmethodology that enables researchers to uncover existing relationships between two verybroadly conceptualized areas: social support (or availability of social resources) andhealth. It was inherent in this early understanding that the approach was largelyexploratory precisely because health and social support were both multifaceted concepts.A number of prospective epidemiological studies have been conducted using mortalityas an outcome measure. Berkman and Syme (1979) reported on the first large-scale—6—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementprospective study indicating an association between social integration and mortality. Theyfollowed a 4725-subject probability sample of male and female residents of AlamedaCounty, California, over a 9-year period. Four types of social involvement were tracked(marriage, contact with extended family and friends, church membership, and other groupaffiliations), and each contributed independently to prediction of mortality. A compositeindex of the extent of social ties was a significant predictor of mortality after controllingfor the following known predictors: physical health status, socioeconomic status, cigarettesmoking, alcohol consumption, level of physical activity, obesity, race, life satisfaction,and use of preventive health services. The strength of their findings and the indication of agraded response to social involvement (i.e., increasing social support was associated withdecreasing risk of mortality) encouraged numerous replications in North America and laterelsewhere.The Alameda County study was replicated and extended with 2754 men and womenin Tecumseh County, Michigan, by House et al. (1982). In this study, composite measuresof social activity and social relationships somewhat different from those used by Berkmanand Syme (1979) were inversely related to mortality over a 10- to 12-year follow-upperiod independent of a variety of biomedical risk factors (e.g., blood pressure,cholesterol, respiratory function, and electrocardiograms). In Tecumseh County, unlikeAlameda County, the effects were a good deal stronger for men than for women. InDurham County, North Carolina, a sample of 331 elderly subjects (age 65 and over) werefollowed for a 30-month period (Blazer, 1982). Based on a broadly defined measure ofsocial support much like Berkman and Syme’s, associations between mortality and social—7—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementinvolvement were evident after controlling for ten variables normally associated withmortality. In Evans County, Georgia, 2059 older adults (mean age = 54) were followedover a 11- to 13-year period (Schoenbach, Kaplan, Fredman, & Kleinbaum, 1986). Usinga social activity index similar to Berkman and Syme (1979), Schoenbach et al. found socialactivity predictive of mortality in a proportional hazards model independent of age andmajor biomedical and self-reported risk factors. Although the trend was the same acrossall races and genders and ages, the effect was most evident in older white men, and therewas no indication of a gradient of risk.Replications elsewhere have contributed to a more complex view of the linkagebetween social support and health. A 9-year study of men in GOttenburg, Sweden,indicated a strongly graded effect of social contact in two different cohorts (Welin et al.,1985). These results linked broadly defined social support with all-cause mortality and,therefore, replicated the body ofNorth American findings for men. In Hawaii, Reed,McGee, and Yano (1984) followed 4251 men of Japanese ancestry for seven years. Theyreported no association between social support and stroke, cancer, all diseases combined,or mortality (Reed et al., 1984). In spite of these negative findings that contrasted stronglywith numerous other studies, strong associations were found between social support andcoronary heart disease (Reed, McGee, Yano, & Feinleib, 1983). One possible explanationof differences between the Reed, McGee, and Yano (1984) findings and other studies isthat in Hawaii a highly homogenous group was sampled—a group that may in fact differfrom earlier populations in both social behavior and susceptibility to disease (Orth-Gomer& Johnson, 1987; Reed et al., 1984). In an attempt to reduce error due to sampling—8—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementhomogenous groups, Orth-Gomer and Johnson (1987) constructed a huge (17,433)national sample of the Swedish population and followed them for six years, trackingmortality due to cardiovascular disease in addition to all-cause mortality. They controlledfor health risks such as age, smoking, exercise, and chronic illness and found that below acritical level, reduced social support was associated with increased risk of mortality forboth men and women. This increase in risk was similar for all-causes pooled and for deathdue to cardiovascular disease.Another large study in North Karelia, Finland, also examined mortality due tocardiovascular disease separately from all-cause mortality (Kaplan et a!,, 1988). In thisstudy, as in Tecumseh, Michigan (House et al., 1982), and in Evans County, Georgia(Schoenbach et al., 1986), it was men who showed the strongest influence of socialcontact on mortality. For men only, Kaplan, et a!. found strongly graded associationsbetween social activity and death due to all causes, cardiovascular disease, and ischemicheart disease. Unlike other epidemiological studies, the North Karelia study includednumerous measures of health status at the outset of the study. Subjects were questionedconcerning history of myocardial infarction, angina, emphysema, chronic bronchitis,asthma, diabetes, cardiac insufficiency, and hypertension. Of these variables, onlyhypertension proved to be a significant moderator of the effects of social support onmortality. In men with higher blood pressure at the outset. of the study, the associationbetween social support and mortality was stronger than in normotensives.9Lenz Response to Audience AgreementInterpreting Epidemiological FindingsDirection of causality. It is always problematic to infer causality from findings inepidemiological and correlational investigations. In social support theory, in fact, there arereasons to suspect bi-directional causality. That is, it appears likely that people who arenot well or who perceive themselves as unwell may fail to make social contacts. In thiscase, low social support may be a result of and not a cause of poor health. This common-sense alternative explanation has led a number of investigators to address the issue in theiranalyses. Several different strategies have been employed to tease out causal direction.One of the most direct was the utilization of cross-lagged panel and structural equationmodeling in a longitudinal, 12-month follow-up of post-myocardial infarction patients(Fontana, Kerns, Rosenberg, & Colonese, 1989). These data supported the generalhypotheses that social support ameliorated cardiac symptomatology during the first halfyear following myocardial infarction while alternative causal hypotheses were supportedonly at the level of chance. Other investigators have generally addressed issues of causalityin a less direct manner, but findings have consistently indicated that the major causaldirection is for social support to protect health (Blazer, 1982; Kaplan et al., 1988; Welin eta!., 1985).General findings. The overall picture from the prospective studies indicates aconsequential relationship between social support and physical health, but there areinconsistencies concerning strength of effects and sex differences. Differences in findingsmay be accounted for in part by differences between the populations studied. In addition,measurement of social support has been inconsistent across studies, and these variations—10—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementmay partially explain differences in magnitude of risk across studies (Orth-Gomer &Johnson, 1987). Reviews of the epidemiological research on social support and health byCohen and Wills (1985) and later by House, Umberson, and Landis (1988) led to thefollowing conclusions: (a) The findings are more consistent and the effects larger for all-cause mortality than for various measures of morbidity; (b) since the outcome measuresshowing the strongest effects are mortality from all causes, the effects of social support onhealth are apparently non-specific.Directions f future research. Since mortality is clearly not without cause, and sincemortality can logically be seen as an indication of advanced morbidity, stronger findingsfor mortality than for morbidity is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Such findings appearto indicate incomplete identification and measurement of morbidity, and these failuresprobably center around the difficulties in precisely identif,ring etiologic pathways for manydiseases. Based largely on this line of reasoning, Cohen and Wills (1985) recommendedimplementation of studies designed to test hypotheses concerning the effects of socialsupport on specific organ systems and the linkages between social support and specificdiseases.Prospective Studies ofSocial Support and Cardiovascular MeasuresThe trend in epidemiological studies has been away from simple all-cause mortality asan outcome measure and towards a number of specific measures of morbidity. Numerouswriters have indicated a need to identi,r the various mid-range health measures—that is,indications of health state somewhere between weilness and mortality—that are responsive—11—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementto social support and that are likely to be eventual precursors of mortality (Berkman,1985; Berkman, Vaccarino, & Seeman, 1993; Cohen, S. & Wills, 1985; Germ, Pieper,Levy, & Pickering, 1992; Kaplan et al., 1988; Lepore, Allen, & Evans, 1993). To date,investigations of cardiovascular disease have been productive in filling in this gap inunderstanding the linkages between health and social support. The data from Finland(Kaplan et al., 1988), Sweden (Orth-Gomer & Johnson, 1987), and Hawaii (Reed et al.,1983) all suggest that cardiovascular diseases may be especially influenced by socialintegration.The relation of social support to cardiovascular measures other than mortality hasalso been studied at length. The most programmatic investigations of the effects of socialsupport on cardiovascular health have been conducted in Sweden in response to the strongimplication of cardiovascular disease in the Gottenburg epidemiological study (OrthGomer & Johnson, 1987). One extensive Swedish study of hemodynamics and socialsupport (Knox, Theorell, Svensson, & Wailer, 1985) was conducted as a 10-year follow-up of hypertensives, normotensives, and hypotensives. Repeated measures of a number ofphysiological parameters related to cardiovascular function were analyzed for theirrelation to social support. Path analysis and linear regression techniques revealed that asubstantial proportion of the variance in systolic blood pressure was accounted for byplasma adrenaline level which was in turn related to levels of attachment and to thenumber of social contacts. Diastolic blood pressure was positively correlated with heartrate, and heart rate was in turn negatively correlated with number of social contacts. Thesedata provide strong indication of the role of social support (defined as integration in a—12—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementsocial network) in both immediate cardiovascular measures and in the development ofsigns iefated to the onset of cardiovascular disease.Ambulatory monitoring of blood pressure has also been utilized to examinerelationships between social support and health. Unden, Orth-Gomer, and Elofsson (1991)monitored electrocardiograms, blood pressure, and heart rate over a 24-hour period for148 working men and women. It was found that low reported social support in the workenvironment was associated with increased heart rate and increased systolic bloodpressure over the entire 24-hour monitoring period. These associations were strengthenedwhen statistical controls for other known cardiovascular risk factors were included in thedata analysis. A similar ambulatory monitoring study in Canada produced similar—butslightly weaker—results (Linden, Chambers, Maurice, & Lenz, 1993). Ambulatory bloodpressure and heart rate monitoring of a sample of 129 university students over an 8-hourperiod during their school day, showed social support to be an independent predictor ofambulatory blood pressure for women but not for men.The Experimental Investigation ofSocial SupportThe weight of evidence in prospective studies leaves little doubt that social support(variously conceptualized) has a positive impact on cardiovascular health. Experimentalinvestigations need not address this issue. Instead, there are two sets of questions thathave not been—and probably caimot be—addressed adequately in prospective or crosssectional studies that need to be addressed experimentally. The first has to do withmechanisms of action, and the second refines the concept of social support. First, what are— 13 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementthe physiological pathways through which social support exerts its effects oncardiovascular health? Secondly, which of the broad assortment of behaviors andperceptions associated with social support or social integration are in fact essential and“activet’ingredients? The present study proposes to address the second of these questionsdirectly and the first indirectly through the identification of arousal patterns.Rationales for conducting research on phenomena related to human stress have beenproposed and debated repeatedly over the past decade or more (e.g., Cohen, S. &Matthews, 1987; Krantz & Manuck, 1984; Pickering & Germ, 1990). Conflict in this fieldappears to revolve around the difficulty of identif,ring specific etiologic links betweenstress reactivity observed in the laboratory and the development of disease (cf. Manuck,1994; Pickering & Germ, 1990). In spite of the difficulty in establishing specific linksbetween cardiovascular reactivity in the laboratory and disease processes, it has been wellestablished that numerous physical and psychological stressors elicit short-termcardiovascular and neuroendocrine reactions in human subjects during laboratory stressprocedures (Schneiderman & McCabe, 1989). Prospective studies have associated highlevels of cardiovascular response to stress with a variety of cardiovascular diseases(Manuck, Kasprowicz, & Muldoon, 1990). It has also been shown that individuals at riskfor development of hypertension exhibit heightened cardiovascular response to laboratorystressors prior to development of clinically elevated blood pressure (Manuck, Kasprowicz,& Muldoon, 1990). Since hypertension and other forms of cardiovascular disease areassociated with heightened cardiovascular responsiveness to a variety of stressors—14—Lenz Response to Audience Agreement(Fredrikson & Matthews, 1990; Pickering & Germ, 1990), it is possible that social supportmay protect cardiovascular health by reducing cardiovascular responsiveness to stressors.Numerous laboratory procedures have utilized the high levels of control possible inlaboratory research to successftully assess specific deleterious aspects of stress reactivity.Probably the best rationale for this work has been articulated by Taylor (1991). Sheproposed that positive and negative emotions exert unequal (asymmetrical) effects onstress reactivity and on health in general. Negative emotions require more intense short-term mobilization of the organism than do positive emotions, and—once mobilized—theorganism attempts to find ways to effectively minimize stress-related arousal. Negativesocial events have, in fact, been found more predictive of health outcome than pOsitiveevents (Helgeson, 1993). The self-regulatory mechanisms posited by Taylor lead directlyto three conclusions relating to laboratory stress procedures. First, the impact of anegative event may extend beyond the duration of the event itself. Secondly, the effect ofemotional and stress-related events depends on patterns of response, not on simple arousallevels. And finally, given the arousal levels often observed in laboratory stress procedures,there is little reason to assume that patterns of reactivity and self-regulation would not beobservable in the laboratory as well as in a subject’s natural environment.Laboratory Studies of Cardiovascular Response to Social SupportA small body of experimental studies suggests that social support attenuatescardiovascular responsiveness to stress. It is useflul for more detailed examination, togroup experimental approaches to the relationship between cardiovascular reactivity and— 15 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementsocial support by the type of laboratory stressor and by the type of social support variableutilized. Most simply, social suppOrt can be either manipulated as a part of theexperimental protocol, or subjects can be selected on the basis of level of self-reportedsocial support or social network size. Laboratory stress tasks can also be of two generaltypes: (a) cognitive challenges or (b) tasks involving social interaction. Designating studytype, or sorting studies by approach is useful because each type of study addressessomewhat different issues and the data from each type of study contribute slightly differentpieces of the puzzle of how social support may protect cardiovascular health.Social support selection variable. Studies of this type generally ask how self-reported levels of social support or integration into social networks is related tocardiovascular responses to laboratory stressors. Only three studies to date have addressedthis issue, and results are mixed. Married couples (aged 25-44) and caregivers forAlzheimer Disease victims (ages 30-84) showed attenuated systolic blood pressure inresponse to laboratory stressors when they reported high levels of social support(Kamarck, Peterman, & Marco, 1992; Uchino, Kiecolt-Glaser, & Cacioppo, 1992). Athird study (Boyce & Chesterman, 1990) found no association between levels of socialsupport and cardiovascular reactivity to. either social or cognitive tasks in a sample ofadolescent boys. Differences in findings between studies may be a function of populationsunder investigation or of methods of assessing social support. It is noteworthy that thestudies by Kamarck et a!. and by Uchino et al. used instruments to assess social supportthat were developed according to accepted psychometric principles; in contrast, the Boyceand Chesterman study measured social support on the basis of an interview in which—16—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementsubjects reported number of best friends, frequency of contact with friends and family,membership on teams and so forth. The interview-derived data may have been lesseffective in identifying valid levels of social support than the Social Network Index and theSocial Support Index used in the other studies. Alternatively, adolescent boys may react tosocial stressors and to social support in different ways than adults.Findings from the two studies with positive outcome (Kamarck et al., 1992; Uchino etal., 1992) are far from conclusive, especially when it is noted that only systolic bloodpressure and not diastolic blood pressure or heart rate were associated with levels of socialsupport. On the other hand, it must be noted that the very design of such experimentswould lead one to predict less than dramatic effects because they are examining protectivecarry-over effects of social support and not the protective effects of support presentduring the stressor.Manipulation Qf social support. A number of other studies have brought support itselfinto the laboratory. Generally, findings in studies where social support is manipulated arestronger than those in which it is utilized as a selection variable. By the nature of theexperimental designs, studies with laboratory stress tasks and manipulated social supportexamine the stress buffering aspects of social support, That is, this type of experimenthypothesizes that the presence of social support (however operationalized) attenuatescardiovascular response to stress. As described at length previously, many writers havefound the concept of social support to be poorly defined and vague (e.g., Cohen, S. &Wills, 1985; Coyne & Bolger, 1990). In fact, this very lack of conceptual clarity poses theexperimentalist a difficult challenge. How can a broadly-defined concept such as social—17—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementsupport—one that by its very nature comprises a broad array of loosely related socialevents, perceptions, and behaviors—be operationally defined for controlled study in alaboratory? As will be described shortly, experimentalists have met this challenge in avariety of ways. Given the array of behaviors and perceptions surveyed by epidemiologists(e.g., Berkman & Syme, 1979; Blazer, 1982) in their examinations of the relationships ofsocial support with mortality and disease, it is clear that each laboratory paradigm willinvolve itself with only a small fragment of what is conceptualized as “social support”.Operationalization of constructs always constitutes the crux of experimentalapproaches, and nowhere is this more apparent than in social support research where theimportance of operationalization can hardly be overemphasized. The challenge for theexperimentalist is to extract elements from the rather fhzzy concept of social support thatcan be independently investigated and thereby differentiate active elements from inactiveones. The end result of successfiul approaches will be to simultaneously clarifj the natureof social support and to begin to define mechanisms by which it exerts effects on health.Operationalizing strategies that fail to add to our understanding of the functions of socialsupport may appear reductionist; whereas strategies that differentiate active versusinactive elements of support—however simple—may make small but importantcontributions to our collective understanding. Because of the breadth of the concept andthe necessity for experiments to address operationalized “chips” of the larger issues, thisparticular area of research relies heavily on accumulations of data from related studies.In designing research on support, investigators need to remain cognizant of animportant caveat explained by Cohen and Wills (1985) and by Wills (1985). The buffering— 18—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementeffect of social support will only be detected if the measure of social support assessesresources that are relevant to the needs elicited by stressful events in the individuals’ lives.They were writing about measurement issues, but the point is every bit as valid whenapplied to the experimental manipulation of support. The application of Cohen and Wills’sprinciple to laboratory studies suggests that social support will be found to attenuate task-related stress reactions if and only if the experime’ntally provided support providesresources that are relevant to the needs elicited by the laboratory stress task. A simpleexample may serve to indicate the consequences of ignoring this principle during researchdesign. It has been found that being touched while performing mental arithmetic has noimpact on perception of support or on performance (Edens, Larkin, & Abel, 1992). Thisfinding is less than surprising when it is considered how little physical touch relates toperformance of this task. Similarly, in another study (Lepore et al., 1993), subjects wereoffered a glass of water by a laboratory confederate intending to be supportive. Not onesubject accepted the offer, and this uniformity of refusal may indicate that the offer wasirrelevant to the needs evoked by the speech task. In keeping with Cohen and Wills’principle, it is considered vital that support provided or offered in experimentalmanipulations ought to fulfill a need related to the task at hand.Presence/absence studies. Some studies have examined the impact of the presence ofa person or a pet during a stress task (Allen, Blascovich, Tomaka, & Kelsey, 1991; Edenset al., 1992; Germ, Mimer, Chawla, & Pickering, 1995; Kamarck, Manuck, & Jennings,1990; Sheffield & Carroll, 1994). Although the mere presence or absence of someone (orof a pet) is inadequate as a general operationalization of social support (Sheffield &—19—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementCarroll, 1995), these studies examine the impact of a specific type of support best calledcompanionship support (Wills, 1985). Judging from the mixed findings in these studies,companionship appears to have a variable impact on cardiovascular response. Response toa stress task in the presence of a friend has been contrasted with a number of otherconditions, including response to the following: (a) performing alone (Allen et al., 1991,Edens et al., 1992; Germ et al., 1995; Kamarck et al., 1990; Lepore et al., 1993; Sheffield& Carroll, 1994); (b) performing in the presence of a stranger (Edens et al., 1992;Sheffield & Carroll, 1994); (c) and performing in the presence of the subject’s dog (Allenet a!., 1991). Allen et al. compared response in the presence of a beloved dog to responsealone or with a friend. Compared to response while alone, the dog reduced cardiovascularreactivity to the stressor while the presence of a friend increased it. In contrast, Edens,Abel, and Larkin compared the presence of a friend with that of a stranger and found thestranger’s presence unrelated to cardiovascular reactivity while the friend’s presenceattenuated cardiovascular response to the stressor. Preliminary data suggest thatdifferences between these findings may be related to incompletely controlled perceptionsof competition with the subjects’ friends (Kors, Linden, & Germ, 1995). At this time,however, the only clear conclusion is that the impact of the presence of someone during astress task can be expected to vary. This variability may be due to the task, the personperforming it, who the “supportive” other is, and to the perceptions of the performer.Studies examining the impact of specific supportive actions. Several specificsupportive behaviors have been examined for impact on cardiovascular response. Beingtouched by a companion appears largely unrelated to cardiovascular responsivity; but if—20—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementthe person offering supportive touch is a stranger to the subject, cardiovascularresponsivity is increased (Edens et al., 1992). Kiecolt-Glaser and Greenberg (1984)operationalized high and low supportiveness as personally warm versus neutral interviewerbehavior during a pre-experimental interview. They found a supportive interviewassociated with less responsiveness to the succeeding cognitive tasks event though theinterviewer was no longer present during the stress task.Two studies most closely related to the present study deserve description in moredetail. Germ et al. (1992) operationalized support as a stranger (lab confederate) eitheragreeing (support) with the subject on a topic of discussion or saying nothing (nosupport). Further, the agreeing (supportive) confederate continued to smile, nod, andmake eye contact during the subjects speech, and the non-supportive confederateexhibited little facial expression and few non-verbal responses to the subject’s speech. Dataanalysis indicated that subjects in the non-supportive condition exhibited morecardiovascular response to the speech task than those in the supported condition. Largedifferences between conditions were observed on all cardiovascular indices (heart rate,systolic and diastolic blood pressure).In a closely related study, Lepore et al. (1993) operationalized support during aspeech task as an observer’s carefhlly rehearsed statements of encouragement. Thestatements included the following comments at prescribed times during the speech: (a)“Remember, it will be over in a few minutes,” (b) “That’s good!”, and (c) “You did fine.”In contrast, the observer in the non-supportive condition did not initiate any verbalbehavior and remained inattentive and reserved throughout the speech. If asked a direct—21—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementquestion by the subject, the non-supportive observer responded minimally by saying “Idon’t know,” or “Do your best.” The observer’s posture was described as open in thesupport condition and reserved in the non-support condition. Findings in this study werevery similar to those of Genn et a!. (1 992)—that is, cardiovascular reactivity was greaterin the condition without support than in the condition including supportive observerbehaviors. Like Germ and colleagues, Lepore et al. interpreted findings as evidence thatsocial support may protect cardiovascular health by reducing reactivity to stressful socialsituations.Alternative interpretations. The results of these two studies have been taken as strongevidence that supportive interpersonal behaviors attenuate cardiovascular response tospeech-related stressors (Germ Pieper, Levy, et al., 1992; Lepore et al., 1993; Sheffield &Carroll, 1994). However, an alternative interpretation is possible and needs to be ruled outbefore these findings can be taken at face value. This alternative view centers around thefact that both studies used a non-responsive observer in the non-supportive condition. Itmay be that when the observer is neither supportive nor antagonistic but merely silent andnon-communicative, a situation of uncertainty or unpredictability is created for the subject.The subject is in a socially ambiguous situation and does not know the silent confederate’sposition, nor can the subject tell for sure whether that silent member will suddenly becomea strident adversary (or ally, for that matter). The ambiguity of the observer’s reactionsleads to unpredictability and perceived lack of control, and these two factors are knownstressors. By contrast, subjects in the “support” condition of both studies knew theobserver to be largely supportive and helpful. In short, the experimental intent in both— 22—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementstudies was to construct groups contrasting on only one dimension, the supportiveness ofthe observer. This goal was not achieved because experimental conditions also variedalong another dimension related to stress: the clarity and predictability of the observer’sbehavior.Not knowing the opinion or response of a non-communicative audience couldaccentuate cardiovascular responsiveness to the speech task through three differentmechanisms—none of which is directly tied to social support. First, unsupported subjectsin the Germ et al. study (1992) may have worried that the silent member would eventuallyjoin in the discussion in concert with the subject’s attackers. This would be, in general, afear or worry response and, as such, would likely increase cardiovascular responsiveness.A second possibility—one applicable to both studies in question—is that the subjectscould increase intensity of their arguments in order to win over the “undeclared” or noncommittal observer. This would be an expectancy response and could increasecardiovascular responsiveness through effort or involvement. A third possibility—andprobably the most likely of the three—is that the undeclared position of the silentparticipant may create an ambiguous situation for the subject. It is unclear to the subjectwhether to defend against, win over, or ignore the silent listener. Not knowing the silentparticipant’s position or intent may create social ambiguity in the situation and therebydecrease the subjects’ sense of control over the situation and decrease the subjects’appraisal of their ability to predict situational outcome. Since ambiguity, low confidence inpredictability, and lack of control are all known to be potent stressors (Burger, 1992;Germ, Pieper, Marchese, & Pickering, 1992; Katz & Wykes, 1985; Weiss, 1968), it is—23—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementessential that these factors be controlled during the stress induction procedure. Withoutcontrols on factors related to social ambiguity, the two groups cannot be regarded asequivalent in all respects except presence or absence of social support. It is the major goalof the present study to gather data to evaluate the possible validity of this alternativeinterpretation of the Germ et al. (1992) and the Lepore et al. (1993) findings.Differences between laboratory stress tasks. Experimental examination of the impactof supportive behavior on cardiovascular reactivity requires a stressor capable of evokinga substantial cardiovascular response. Stress tasks used to date have been either cognitiveor psychosocial. Cognitive tasks include performance of mental arithmetic (Allen et al.,1991), playing a video game without interference from others (Germ et al., 1995), a verbalanagram task (Uchino et al., 1992), and the Stroop color-naming task (Kamarck et al.,1992). Stress tasks with psychosocial components have included giving a speech on acontroversial topic (Germ, Pieper, Levy, et al., 1992; Lepore et al., (1993); Allen, &Evans, 1993), playing a video game in a competitive setting (Germ et al., 1995), andidentifying the artist of paintings while an art expert watched and commented (Sheffield &Carroll, 1995). Of these approaches, the strongest cardiovascular response to the stresstasks has been reported in those requiring subjects to prepare a speech on a strongly-heldpersonal opinion in front of two laboratory confederates expressing opposing views(Germ Pieper, Levy, et al., 1992) and in front of a video camera and one laboratoryconfederate (Lepore et a!., 1993). Other investigators have determined speech tasks of thisgeneral type to be the most potent of stress tasks currently in use in stress research(Blumenthal et al., 1992; Fredrikson & Matthews, 1990). For this reason, and because the—24 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementpresent study built on previous research using similar tasks, subjects in the present studywere asked to give a speech on a controversial topic.Goals and Import of the Present StudyThe line of inquiry in this study was intended to encourage development of socialinterventions effective in the reduction of cardiovascular—and to some extent other—stress-related diseases. The general approach was to close conceptual gaps left byprevious research and to replicate and extend earlier findings in a manner that could leadto more reliable interpretation.In summary form, the three major goals of the present study were as follows: (a) toclarif,’ an interpretive difficulty regarding the role of ambiguous audience response inheightening stress levels, (b) to extend the generalizability of the experimental reactivitywork on social support by including male subjects and by making direct gendercomparisons in reactivity, and (c) to examine whether differences in cardiovascularreactivity are associated with differences in levels of self-esteem. These three goals andthree additional minor goals are explained in detail below.Clarify the effect of ambiguous audience response. Two of the previous studies(Germ, Pieper, Levy, et al., 1992; Lepore et al., 1993) involving speech tasks as stressorsand audience agreement as a socially supportive behavior both found the following: (a)The speech tasks themselves evoke substantial cardiovascular response, and (b) thisresponse is significantly lessened when the audience expresses agreement relative toconditions in which the audience is non-committal and largely non-responsive. The—25—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementfindings have been taken to indicate the buffering or protective effects of one element ofsocial support (supportive agreement) on cardiovascular responsiveness. In short, theresults have been interpreted to mean that social support buffers the reactivity to thelaboratory stress procedures. Although these findings are intriguing and potentiallyimportant, a thorough review of the literature suggests that they are far from conclusive.The literature on active coping and informational control offers an alternativeinterpretation of these results. The social awkwardness or ambiguity that results fromspeaking to a non-responsive audience may heighten reactivity. To the extent that this isso, a non-responsive audience may be an inappropriate control or comparison conditionfor identifying the reduced cardiovascular response due to social support. It is apparentthat if a comparison group increases reactivity, then the apparent attenuation due to socialsupport would be exaggerated. In order to address this issue of interpretation, the presentstudy includes conditions in which the audience (a) clearly disagrees with the subject, (b)clearly agrees with the subject, or (c) remains non-committal and non-responsive to thesubject’s expression. Comparison of cardiovascular response in these three conditionsallows conclusions to be drawn concerning the independent contributions of (a) clarity ofthe audience’s reaction to the subject’s speech and (b) the favorableness of the reaction(i.e., whether the audience agrees or disagrees with the subject). Only when these twocontributions are separated can conclusions be drawn relating to the impact of socialsupport on cardiovascular reactivity.Examine sex differences. In spite of sex differences in cardiovascular response and inutilization of social resources (Berkman et al., 1993), most previous experiments on— 26—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementcardiovascular response to social support have used only female subjects. No reason forthis selective approach has been given by researchers for this selective approach, butsampling convenience may have played a role in some studies. For example, at least twostudies using female subjects were conducted at all-women colleges using students assubjects (Germ et al., 1995; Germ Pieper, Levy, et al., 1992). The exceptions are Leporeet al. (1993) who found sex differences in reactivity to the stress task but not in responseto social support and Sheffield and Carroll (1993, 1995) who reported generally negativefindings in relation to social support but who found men more reactive than women.Evidence thus exists that men and women may respond differently to stressors and mayrespond differently to social support. To date, however, experiments involving aspects ofsocial support and cardiovascular reactivity have seldom been designed explicitly to assesssex differences. The present study proposes to fill this gap in the literature.Examine the relationship between agreement and self-esteem. Three types of socialsupport identified by Wills (1985) that are salient to the present study are esteem support(also referred to as emotional support), social companionship, and appraisal support.Companionship was provided to subjects in all conditions. Of all types of supportdelineated by Wills, it appears most appropriate to consider agreement or disagreementwith a speaker’s opinion as related to a combination of appraisal and esteem support. Onelikely hypothesis concerning the action of social support is that the agreement of anotherperson with a strongly held opinion may decrease the stress of self-declaration byincreasing self-esteem and the concomitant belief in the value of one’s opinions. Thepresent investigation examined these proposed relationships by measuring state self—27—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementesteem prior to and following engagement in the speech task. It was predicted that thesupp6hve (or agreement) condition would have a less deleterious effect on self-esteemthan the other two conditions—or perhaps it may even augment self-esteem. It was also ofinterest to determine whether a non-committal or non-responsive audience led to largerdecrements in self-esteem than open disagreement. Such an outcome would be in keepingwith basic tenets specified in Pragmatics of Human Communication (Watzlawick, Bavelas,& Jackson, 1967) because acknowledgment of an individual’s expression (regardless ofwhether it is believed or accepted) is regarded as more satisfactory and less threatening toself-esteem than a failure to respond.Additional minor goals. Previous laboratory examinations of effects of social supporton cardiovascular reactivity have failed to find substantive relationships betweenpsychophysiological measures and self-report of stressfullness of the laboratoryprocedures. This desynchrony is a common finding in laboratory stress research as well asin examination of anxiety-related phenomena both in the clinic and in the laboratory (e.g.,Rachman, 1990). Though a common finding, dissociation between self-report andphysiological measures frequently presents interpretive difficulties in psychophysiologicalresearch. It is not clear to what extent this phenomenon relates to the subject’s lack ofawareness of emotional and other physiological states and to what extent it is the result ofinadequacy of assessment. Since it is typical for post-experimental questionnaires to besomewhat ad hoc, assessment failures may well predominate. Several steps were taken toaddress this problem in the present study. Subjects were asked to complete the Affect Grid(Russell, Weiss, & Mendelsohn, .1989), a measure chosen because it is a simple,—28—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementpsychometrically sound way of assessing arousal and positive versus negative emotionaltone. Analysis of subjective response to the experiment as measured on the Affect Gridand comparison of these reports with cardiovascular reactivity may contribute to ourunderstanding of the general desynchrony between self-report and physiological measures.The study also included a number of self-report ratings of the subjects’ experiencesduring the experimental procedures. Questions incorporated features of self-reportmeasures that have been found associated with either experimental condition or withcardiovascular reactivity in previous research. They can be categorized in the followingways: (a) reports of the subjects’ perceptions of their own emotional states during thespeech task, (b) reports of the subjects’ perception of their own performance in the speechtask, (c) reports of the subjects’ perception of the behavior and intentions of others. Theseself-report data were used to check the impact of experimental manipulations and toexamine cognitions related to appraisal of the experimental procedures.Finally, the study explored the relationship between (a) subjects’ reports of the extentand adequacy of their existing social network and (b) response to experimentally providedsupport. There is evidence that report of supportiveness outside the experimental setting isassociated with reduced cardiovascular response to laboratory stressors (e.g., Kamarck etal., 1992; Kiecolt-Glaser & Greenberg, 1984; Uchino et al., 1992) and with lowerambulatory blood pressure (Linden et al., 1993). There is also evidence that supportduring the laboratory stress procedures leads to attenuated cardiovascular response (e.g.,Edens et al., 1992; Germ, Pieper, Levy, et al., 1992; Lepore et al., 1993). It has not beeninvestigated whether report of a satisfactorily supportive social network outside of the— 29 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementlaboratory is associated with response to provision of support in the laboratory. Any suchrelationships are likely to be complex, and it was beyond the scope of the present study toprovide definitive data on the question. The intent was to explore possible relationshipsand suggest directions for future research. To this end, subjects were asked to completethe Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) (Cohen, S. et al., 1985) at the beginningof the study, and correlations between the ISEL and self-report and cardiovascularresponses were examined.Summary of goals. The present study undertook the following three major goals: (a)to clarify the impact of using a non-responsive audience as a control group, (b) to examinesex differences in response to experimentally provided social support, (c) to assess theimpact of experimentally provided support on self-esteem. In addition, two minor goalswere addressed. Self-report measures of affective state and reaction to the experimentalprocedures were refined to overcome frequently reported difficulties in interpretingdesynchrony between cardiovascular and subjective responses. Finally, a measure ofexisting environmental social support was included to enable exploration of therelationships between subjects’ existing social support and their response toexperimentally provided support.—30—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementMETHODOverviewMale and female university students were asked to deliver a five-minute speechdeclaring and defending their position on a controversial topic. The speech was made infront of a same-sex lab confederate introduced as another subject and in front of a videocamera. Confederates acted in one of the three following manners: 1) The confederateexpressed agreement with the subject and a pleasurable response to the speech; 2) theconfederate gave no feedback concerning his or her own position or reaction to thesubject’s performance; or 3) the confederate expressed disagreement with the subject anddispleasure with the subject’s speech. The training of lab confederates emphasizedequating the following non-verbal communications across conditions: posture, initiation ofeye contact, and proximity to the subject. Blood pressure and heart rate were monitoredcontinuously prior to, during, and after the speech task. Self-report measures of state self-esteem and affective state were taken before and after the speech task. A measure of socialnetwork size and satisfaction was taken prior to the speaking task, and a variety of self-report measures were taken after the speech to assess reactions to the task, to theexperimental manipulation, and to assess self-report of stressftilness of the situation.SubjectsThe final data analysis included measures from 90 undergraduate university students(45 women; 45 men) recruited for participation from the University of British Columbia,Department of Psychology subject pooi. Participating subjects received class credit for—31—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementparticipation in the study. Mean age was 19.18 (SD = 2.13; Minimum = 17,Maximum 34), and there was no age difference between men and women in the sample(t(87) = —0.79, p = .43).Ethnicity. The ethnic backgrounds of these 90 subjects were as follows: 68 were bornin North America (75.6%), 15 in Asia (16.7%), four in Europe (4.4%), and three in otherplaces (3.3%). Forty-three subjects reported speaking only English (47.8%) while 40reported fluency in two languages (44.4%) and seven reported fluency in three or morelanguages (7.8%). The favored language was reported as English by 88 (97.8%) of thesubjects with one subject reporting preference for Cantonese and another for Japanese.Self-described ethnicity was Canadian for 45 of the subjects (50%), and some variant ofAsian-Canadian for 33 (36.7%). Four (4.4%) described themselves as a variety ofEuropean-Canadian, and eight (8.9%) indicated national identities that were not easilycategorized as ethnic groups.Recruitment. A call for subjects was posted on the subject notice board (Appendix A-1), and invitations to participate were delivered in appropriate undergraduate classes.Volunteers indicating interest in the study were telephoned to determine suitability and, iffound appropriate, to schedule participation. Potential subjects were excluded from thestudy if they acknowledged diagnosis of any of the following physical conditions:hypertension (i.e., blood pressure greater than 145/90 mmHg), cardiac disease, liver orkidney disease, or diabetes; two subjects were excluded for medical reasons. Because theadded effort of speaking in an unfamiliar language could cause increased blood pressurefor subjects who were not fluent in English, it was decided to exclude subjects whose—32—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementmajor language of instruction was other than English after age ten. The largc immigrantpopulation in Vancouver resulted in numerous exclusions for this last reason. Fullyqualified subjects were asked to refrain from caffeine, alcohol, and vigorous exercise for atleast two hours prior to their scheduled participation. (See Appendix A-2 for screeninginstructions.)Attrition. Although complete data sets were available for the 90 subjects describedabove, fifteen additional subjects came to the laboratory and participated in portions of theprotocol. Two subjects were excluded for failing to meet language fluency requirements.One subject requested that the experiment be stopped when she was selected to be thespeaker. The experiment was stopped on two occasions because the confederate wasmistakenly chosen to be the speaker. Three subjects were unable to speak for the entirefive-minute period; of these, two were in the Disagree condition, one in the Agreecondition. Two subjects were dropped after they reported suspecting that the assignmentof the role of speaker was rigged. The most common cause of interruption of the protocolwas failure of the subject to declare a clear opinion with which the confederate coulddisagree. Data from five subjects were omitted from analysis for this reason. All datadescriptions and analyses include only the 90 subjects completing the entire protocol.Self-report MeasuresSelf-esteem. Self-esteem was measured twice with the State Self-Esteem Scale(SSES) (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). The first measure was taken before the subject—33—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementknew whether he or she would be assigned the role of listener or speaker. The second wasafter the speech was completed and after the post-task recovery period.The SSES consists of 20 self-statement items. The subject rates the truth of each itemat the present moment on a five-point Likert-type scale. Anchors for the scale are asfollows. 1 = not at all, 2 a little bit, 3 = somewhat, 4 = very much, 5 = extremely. TheS SES yields a total score and scores on three factor- analytically derived subscales—performance self-esteem, social self-esteem, and appearance self-esteem.The SSES has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of clearly definedaspects of self-esteem that are subject to change over time. Because state self-esteem is bydefinition variable over time, test-retest measures of reliability are inappropriate.Reliability of the instrument is based largely upon a high degree of internal consistency(coefficient a = .92) (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). Construct validity of the scale wasestablished in a series of studies examining the relationships between SSES total andsubscales and a variety of other conceptually related measures. SSES total score wasfound to be positively correlated with global self-esteem, social desirability, andsatisfaction with body shape and to be negatively correlated with hostility, depression,anxiety, and likelihood of being currently on a diet (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991).Subscales were found to exhibit appropriate associations with these other constructs. Forexample, the performance self-esteem subscale was most highly correlated with depressionand anxiety (both negative correlations), the social self-esteem subscale was most highlycorrelated with social self-esteem as measured by the Janis-Field Feelings of InadequacyScale (Janis & Field, 1959); and the appearance self-esteem subscale was most highly—34—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementcorrelated with satisfaction with current figure, dieting behavior, and body size estimation(Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). Discriminant validity of the SSES subscales is supported byexperimental evidence (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). Students told they would be facing avery difficult test registered decreases in performance self-esteem but no changes inappearance or social self-esteem. (See Appendix A-5 for the complete SSES.)Social support. Levels of social support in subjects’ everyday life were assessed withthe Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) (Cohen, Set al., 1985). The ISEL is a40-item questionnaire in true/false format intended as a measure of perception ofavailability of social support. Subjects are asked to indicate whether each statement is“probably true” or “probably false” about them. The instrument produces a total score andscores on each of the following four subscales: appraisal, belonging, tangible, and self-esteem. The appraisal subscale measures the availability of others whose opinions andperceptions are trusted. The belonging scale evaluates the extent to which subjects feelthat they are integrated into a social network. The tangible subscale assesses availability ofphysical help. Finally, the self-esteem scale gauges availability of individuals who helpsubjects feel good about themselves. Each of the subscales contains 10 items.The general population version of the ISEL used in the present study wasstandardized on four samples. Test-retest reliability is considered adequate at r = 87 overa two-day period and r = .70 over a six-week period. Six month test-retest data indicategeneral stability of the measure (r = .74). Internal consistency is strong (coefficientcc = .88 to .90). Examinations of consistency of subscale scores have yielded cc rangingfrom .62 to .82 depending on the scale and the sample in question. In brief, test-retest data—35—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementand internal consistency measures of the ISEL indicate adequate reliability (Cohen, Seta!., 1985).The validity of the ISEL has been investigated in a number of ways. It is uncorrelatedwith the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, an important indication that responsebias does not interfere with subjects scores on the ISEL. As with many measures of socialsupport, face validity and construct validity have been emphasized. In addition, ISELscores have been compared to a number of other measures of social support with resultingmoderate correlations. Subscales have been compared extensively with other measuresproviding strong indications of discriminant and convergent validity. The reliability andvalidity of the ISEL have been supported by comparison of psychometric properties of theISEL with other measures of social support (Heitzman & Kaplan, 1988).The authors ofthe ISEL have published correlations between subscales for fourdifferent samples. In the largest of these samples (154 men and 62 women) thecorrelations range from r = .64 (Belonging / Self-esteem) to r = .48 (Appraisal / Self-esteem). Correlations of this magnitude between subscales may limit the validity ofconclusions drawn from individual scale scores, and as a result only the total score is usedin the present study. (See Appendix A-6 for the complete ISEL.)Affective state. To assess changes in report of the subject’s general affective stateduring the speech, subjects were asked to complete the Affect Grid pre- and post-speechtask. The Affect Grid is a single-item scale assessing affect along the dimensions ofpleasure-displeasure and arousal-sleepiness. It is intended for simplicity and validity ofrepeated administration (Russell et al., 1989). The instrument was developed in—36—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementaccordance with prevailing theories indicating that affect is most parsimoniouslyrepresented by the two orthogonal factors measured by the grid (e.g., Russell, 1979;Watson & Tellegen, 1985). The Affect Grid is presented to subjects as a nine-by-nine grid,and subjects are asked to indicate “how you are feeling right now” by placing an “X” in thegrid. Polar opposites are labeled “High Arousal” and “Sleepiness” on the verticaldimension and “Unpleasant Feelings” and “Pleasant Feelings” on the horizontal. Inaddition, corners of the grid are labeled to assist subjects in identifying affective states thatare extreme on both dimensions.Because of the single-item format, internal consistency measures are not possible, andbecause the affective states measured by the Affect Grid are assumed to be temporallyunstable, test-retest strategies are inappropriate. Reliability was—for these reasons—assessed indirectly and report of psychometric properties centered on issues of validity.Comparisons have been made between Affect Grid ratings of emotion-related words andfacial expressions and ratings of similar materials by means of a more time-consumingsemantic-differential method with established high internal consistency (Mehrabian &Russell, 1974). Correlations generated by this technique were universally high (r from 91to .97) for related scales and non-significant for scales hypothesized to be orthogonal(Russell et a!., 1989). Using a sample of 162 university students, comparisons betweenself-report of current mood as measured by the Affect Grid and the semantic differentialtechnique produced correlations of .77 for the pleasure component and .80 for arousal.These correlations are taken as evidence of adequate convergent validity. (See AppendixA-7 for the Affect Grid.)—37--Lenz Response to Audience AgreementSpeech topics. Topical issues of concern to the subject were identified by means ofthe Important Topics questionnaire, an instrument designed for the present study. Subjectswere asked to rank the three most important topics from a list of 11 current issues. Thefollowing is a list of Issues named on the questionnaire with number of subjects speakingon each topic in parentheses: abortion rights (28), death penalty (11), physician-assistedsuicide (10), the Young Offenders’ Act (10), clear-cut logging (8), the use of UnitedNations “peacekeeping” forces (6), legal handling of pedophiles (4), animalexperimentation (3), refhgee status for immigrants (2), first nations land claims (1), andpenalties for environmental protesters (0). Response lines labeled “Other topics” wereincluded to allow subjects to name their own topics (7 subjects chose to do this).Instructions indicated that rankings should be based on personal belief about theimportance of the topics and on personal knowledge of the issue. Instructions finished asfollows: “You should care strongly about and know a good deal about your number onechoice.” (See Appendix A-8 for the Important Topics questionnaire.)Subjective response to the experiment. A questionnaire entitled “Reactions toSpeaking” was designed for use in the present study. Each question was accompanied by a10-centimeter line with labeled ends, and subjects were asked to “mark each line toindicate how you think or feel.” Items were arranged into three sets. The first set assessedthe general stressfl.ilness of the speaking experience by asking subjects to mark lines atappropriate positions between the following pairs of adjectives: stressed/relaxed,safe/unsafe, uncomfortable/comfortable, anxious/not anxious, calm/excited,worricd/content, and not nervous/nervous. The second set consisted of nine items which—38—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementwere presented in question format. The subjects were asked to mark a line somewherebetween “Not at all” and “Very Much” to indicate an answer. Questions in this setassessed two separate issues: (a) the subjects’ perceptions of their performance during thespeech task, and (b) appraisals of the behavior of the listening student. In addition, twoitems in this section rated the general aversiveness of the experience. These items wereclosely related to the only self-report items correlating with cardiovascular measures in theGerm et al. (1992) study. Questions in the final set were intended as a manipulation check.Subjects were asked to describe the listening student by marking a 10-centimeter linebetween the following pairs of adjectives: supportive/unsupportive, close/distant,rejecting/accepting, ffiendly/unfriendly, warm/cold, and helpful/unhelpful. Like items in thefirst set, these were adapted from the manipulation check used successfully in a relatedstudy by Lepore et al. (1993).An additional set of twelve items was appended to the “Reactions to Speaking”questionnaire for approximately the last half of data collection. These items asked subjectsto rate features of the study, indicating “how upsetting (that is, bothersome or anxiety-provoking)” each feature was for them. As with the other items in the questionnaire,ratings were made by marking a position on a 10-centimeter line. Anchors for these itemswere “Not at all upsetting” and “Very upsetting”. The items listed experimental featuresnew in the present study and other features shared with the Lepore et al. study (1993).The added questions were exploratory in nature. Observation of subjects’ responsesin the laboratory and preliminary data analysis showed that subjects were evidencinggreater cardiovascular response to the speaking task than had been anticipated. The—39—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementadditional items were included in an attempt to identi1,r environmental and proceduralfeatures accounting for high levels cardiovascular reactivity. A brief analysis of theseadditional items is presented in the Discussion section to aid in explaining the divergenceof responses in the present study from those in the study by Lepore et al. (1993).(Reactions to Speaking, including the added twelve items, is included in Appendix A-9.)Instrumentation. Blood pressure and heart rate were monitored repeatedly atapproximately two-minute intervals using a Dinamap 845 sphygmomanometer. Thisinstrument uses an oscillometric method that determines arterial pressure by measuringcuff pressure oscillations as pressure in an automatically inflated arm cuff is reduced bydiscrete increments. A built-in micro-processor tests oscillation data for artifacts, averagesobtained values and then displays heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and systolic anddiastolic values in digital format. A single blood pressure determination cycle is completedin 40 to 60 seconds. Blood pressure readings by the Dinamap 845 have been shown tocorrelate highly with manual Baumanometer readings performed by the standardauscultatory method (systolic: r .95; diastolic: r = .92; and heart rate: r = .99; (Linden &Zimmermann, 1984).ProcedureInstructions to subjects. On arriving at the laboratory, subjects were introduced to thesame-sex experimental confederate as another subject, and instructions were given to thesubject and confederate together. They were told that the study dealt with physiologicchanges during speaking and listening. The experimental tasks were described as follows:—40—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAccording to a random draw, you will be assigned to be either the speaker or thelistener in this experiment. The one of you that is chosen to speak will be askedto prepare and deliver a brief talk- expressing your opinions to the other on atopic about which you care deeply. If yoi are chosen to be the listener, you willbe asked to listen as silently as possible to the opinions of the other. Bloodpressure and heart rate will be monitored throughout the experiment for both ofyou—including a preparation period and a resting period after the speech. Thespeaking/listening portion of the session will be recorded on videotape so we cananalyze it later.Subjects were then asked to complete a consent form (Appendix A-3), the first SSES,a demographics questionnaire (Appendix A-4), the ISEL, the first Affect Grid, and theImportant Topics sheet. The order of these questionnaires was varied to avoid systematicimpact of order. Confederates completed matched sets of questionnaires. Subject andconfederate were asked not to speak to each other except during the portion of theexperiment designated for speaking. The subjects were asked to complete thequestionnaires, check their work for completeness, and then lay their clipboard down tosignal they were finished. They were told that 15 minutes were allotted for questionnairesand following that time period there would be a five-minute rest period to relax and lookat cartoon books provided within easy reach.Cardiovascular baseline. After completing the consent form and before thequestionnaires, the subject and confederate were fitted with cuffs of the Dinamap 845 on—41—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementtheir non-dominant arms. The operation of the machine was explained, and they wereasked to relax their arms whenever measures were being taken. The experimenter left theroom and initiated two blood pressure readings within the first three minutes of formcompletion. No further measures were taken until the rest period following completion ofthe questionnaires.An adaptation period of at least 20 minutes was maintained before initiation of thespeech preparation. This period allowed subjects to adapt to the room and theexperimental situation. Accordingly, a minimum of 15 minutes was allotted for formcompletion and five minutes for ensuing rest period, during which baseline cardiovascularmeasures were taken. If subjects finished form completion in less than 15 minutes, the restperiod was increased to make a total of 20 minutes of adaptation. Subjects took anaverage of 13 minutes, 15 seconds to complefe the forms (minimum 8:3 0;maximum = 19:50). When forms were complete, the experimenter told the subject andconfederate over an intercom the length of the rest period, reminded them to relax, andindicated that three more blood pressure measures would be taken during the rest period.Proximity and room arrangement. Throughout the experiment—including formcompletion, rest periods, and throughout the speech task—subjects remained seated in thesame position. Subject and confederate sat faeing each other at an oblique angle.Measuring from the nearest point, chairs were 75 centimeters apart and positioned at anangle of approximately 135 degrees. The room measured 2.7 by 3.3 meters. Directlyacross from the subject was a one by one meter one-way mirror, and subjects wereinformed that the experimenter observed the experiment through the mirror and could hear—42—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementspeech on an intercom. A video camera was placed on a tripod in the far corner of theroom aimed at both the subject and confederate.Speech preparation. After the five-minute (minimum) rest period, the experimenter reentered the room and took clipboards holding completed forms from the subject and fromthe confederate. While removing the Important Topics form from each clipboard, theexperimenter said, “Now, I would like each of you to prepare a speech. on the topic youranked highest on this form.” The experimenter showed the subject and the confederateeach the form they had completed, and pointing to the highest ranked topic, said to each,‘This is the topic you are to prepare to speak on,” The experimenter then gave thefollowing instructions for the speech preparation:You will be given five minutes to prepare a statement that is to be five minuteslong. In this speech, please explain exactly how you feel about the topic you areassigned. Don’t pull any punches in your statement. Please express your opinionsand feelings as strongly as you can. Your goal is not to convince your listener butrather to simply do as good a job as you can in expressing your position clearlyand strongly. You may use this paper and pen to make notes to focus your talk(laid clipboard andpen infront of the subject). Of course, with only fiveminutes to prepare, you will not have time to write the whole speech. Instead,concentrate on making notes that will remind you of major points as you speak.It is important that you begin your talk by stating your position in a clear andstraight-forward manner. Right at the beginning, please tell what your topic is—43—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementand where you stand on it. After your position is clear, explain why you feel thisway or how you arrived at this conclusion. Whenever possible give examples andarguments that support your opinion. In addition, you may choose to attackarguments that are typically leveled against your point of view. The next page onyour clipboard is the “Speech Helper. It is intended to help you generate ideas.You may use it however you like and may write notes on it and on the blanksheet. (See Appendix A-b for the complete Speech Helper form.)Again, you will have five minutes to prepare a five minute speech. Please prepareyourself to speak the entire five minutes with minimal pausing. Your bloodpressure and heart rate will be monitored repeatedly as you prepare and also asyou speak. If you take notes as you prepare, please be careful not to move yourleft (or right f left-handed) arm or hand; movement disturbs the recording. Ifyou have any questions before beginning to prepare your speech, I can answerthem now.The experimenter offered brief answers to the subject’s questions and then left the roomonce again.Role assignment. At the end of the five-minute speech preparation period, theexperimenter returned to the room carrying two unmarked envelopes. After explainingthat the preparation time was over, the experimenter said, “Now we will find out who willspeak and who will listen.” Holding the envelopes for all to see, the experimenter said,“One of these says ‘Speaker’ inside and the other says ‘Listener’.” The experimenter then—44 -.Lenz Response to Audience Agreementshuffled the envelopes, keeping track of their position while appearing to mix them up.The “huffle” was stopped with the ‘Listener” role in a pre-arranged position, and theexperimenter said, “Now I’d like you to choose your roles.t’The two envelopes were thenheld out towards the confederate, who was seated closest to the experimenter. Acting as ifconsidering the choice carefully, the confederate chose the envelope in the pre-arrangedposition, and the other was offered to the subject. Both were asked to open theirenvelopes and show the contents.At this point, the experimenter said to the subject, “You got the harder role today,”and to the confederate, “and you got the easy one. Now, I need to give you both someadditional instructions before you begin.”Speaking task. The confederate “listener” was instructed within the hearing of thespeaking subject as follows:Even though you have an easy role, there are some particular things I would likeyou to do. First, please put your clipboard down and try to put the speech youhave been preparing out of your mind entirely. Your job is to listen closely towhat— (subject’s name) has to say. Please try to listen as naturally as you can.As we listen, most of us feel the urge to comment from time to time, and if thishappens, you are asked to keep your comments brief and to the point.Remember, this is _‘s (subject’s name) talk, and we don’t want you to take thefloor from her (or him) or turn the speech into a discussion.The speaking subject was instructed as follows:—45—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementYour task, as I described before, is to speak for five minutes on the topic of_(the chosen topic is named). You are to start out by declaring your position veryclearly and to continue for the rest of the speech by expressing your opinions andyour feelings on this topic as clearly and as forcefully as possible. You may useany notes you have written. Please speak directly to — (confederate’s name),telling her (or him) exactly how you think and feel. If you find yourself runningout of things to say, it is fine to repeat something you have already said. It ismore important for our purposes that you continue to speak than for the speechto be perfectly structured. If you find yourself at a loss for words, repeating youropening statement would be a good idea.Both were given these final instructions:Because this monitoring equipment is sensitive to movement, we ask that youboth remain as still as possible while you are speaking and listening. It is veryimportant that you do not move the arm or hand that is attached to themonitor—especially while the cuff is deflating.I am going to turn on this video camera now (she or he turns it on) and let itknow where we are in the experiment (experimenter holds infront of the cameraa sheet ofpaper with subject number on it). After I leave the room, it will take afew seconds to start the timer. I will signal you on the intercom when to beginspeaking. Please wait for the cue; I will let you know again when the speech timeis up.—46 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAfter leaving the room, the experimenter behaved exactly as described, cueing thesubject over the intercom at the beginning and end of the speech period.Experimental conditions. Subjects were randomly assigned within gender to one ofthree experimental conditions differing only in the behavior of the confederate during thesubject’s speech (n 15 for each gender in each condition). Confederates were careftullytrained to respond in a prescribed manner. Posture, proximity to the subject, gaze, andinitiation of eye contact were controlled through extensive training in order to equatethese behaviors across conditions. Descriptions of the three conditions follow:1) Agreement. Confederates expressed, general agreement with the subject&opinions and approval of the presentation of them. In this condition, confederateslistened to the instructions and to the very outset of the subject& speeches withan attentive but neutral expression. As the subjects declared their positions, theconfederates expressed pleasant surprise by widening eyes and smiling slightly.Immediately after the initial declaration of position—at first opportunity to speakwithout intermpting—the confederates nodded in agreement and said, “I feel thesame way.t’ Throughout the remainder of the speech, the confederates listenedattentively, and returned eye contact initiated by the subject as in all threeconditions. The confederates’ facial expressions ranged from serious and neutralto approving; at no point was disagreement portrayed. Major points in the• subjects’ speeches or illustrative examples were met with nods, smiles and onthree occasions with situationally appropriate comments chosen from thefollowing list: “Yes. Right. Exactly. That’s really good. I never thought of that—47 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementbefore. So true. Good point. “If subjects asked for help at any point, theconfederates replied, “You’re doing fine on your own,” or “You’re saying it betterthan I could.”2) Neutral. In this condition, confederates did not speak and expressed neitheragreement nor disagreement with non-verbal signs. Confederates were trained toexhibit a generally impassive facial expression in this condition and to remainneutral and non-committal throughout the speeches. The intent of the trainingwas to convey neither pleasure nor displeasure while listening. Eye contact wasreciprocated as in the other two conditions. In this condition, if the subjectsasked or made a non-verbal bid for help or assistance, the confederates siñiplyshrugged or said, “I don’t know.”3) Disagreement. In this condition, confederates expressed disagreement withthe subjects’ opinions. As in all conditions, the confederates listened to theinstructions and to the very outset of the subjects’ speeches with an attentive butneutral expression. As the subjects declared their positions, the confederatesexpressed displeasure and surprise by squinting slightly and frowning.Immediately after the initial declaration of position—at first opportunity to speakwithout interrupting—the confederates shook their heads slightly and said, “Icouldn’t disagree more.” Throughout the remainder of the speeches, theconfederates listened attentively and returned eye contact as in all threeconditions. The confederates’ facial expression ranged from serious and neutral to—48--Lenz Response to Audience Agreementdisapproving; at no point was agreement portrayed. Major points or illustrativeexamples in the subjects’ speeches were met with head shakes, slight frowns, andon three occasions with situationally appropriate comments chosen from thefollowing list: “No. That’s wrong. That can’t be. You’re not looking at the bigpicture. That doesn’t make sense. I can’t believe that.” If subjects asked for helpat any point—an infrequent event in this condition—the confederates replied,“You’re on your own here,” or “I can’t help with this.”Recovery period. At the end of the five-minute speech period, the experimenter saidover the intercom, “OK, that’s fine. You may stop now.” Re-entering the room, theexperimenter turned off the video camera and said, “Now I’d like you both to fill in a formright away.” The second Affect Grid was presented, and the subjects were instructed to fillit in describing how they felt while speaking. The confederates were instructed to fill it indescribing how they felt while listening to the speech. Both participants were theninstructed to try to put the speech out of their minds and to rest for the next five minutesby sitting still or by reading cartoon books as at the beginning to the study.Post-speech questionnaires. At the end of the five-minute recovery period, theexperimenter returned to the room and announced that no more blood pressure measureswould be needed. Cuffs were removed from the subject’s and confederate’s arms. At thistime, the self-esteem scale (SSES) and the Reactions to Speaking questionnaires wereintroduced. While instructions for filling out the last questionnaire were given, theconfederate was told, “Since you did not speak, we have a different questionnaire for youcalled Reactions to Listening. It is on the table in the other room, and you can fill it out—49—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementthere since you no longer have to be fastened to the blood pressure machine. Your form isjust like this one, so please listen to these instructions,” Instructions on marking the analogscale were then given. At the end of the instructions, the confederate was led to theadjoining room and the subject left to complete the final set of questionnaires alone.Debriefing. Subjects were debriefed orally and given a printed debriefing thatexplained the purposes of the study. (See Appendix A-il for the written study explanationform and Appendix A-12 for the complete script for the oral debriefing.) The forminformed subjects how to contact the laboratory at a later time if they so desired andexplained how to write or phone for a summary of the findings when data analysis wascomplete. Subjects were informed that a major hypothesis of the study is that bloodpressure and heart rate are affected by our perception of others’ responses to us in socialsettings. It was then explained that the “other subject” was in fact an employee of thelaboratory who was trained to act in a particular way. All subjects were asked whetherthey suspected the deception or the purposes of the study. At the end of the debriefing,subjects were introduced to the confederates and were encouraged to ask questions aboutthe way they really felt about the speech topic or about the subject’s performance. Beforethey left the laboratory, subjects were told the general pattern of their own cardiovascularresponses. In so far as possible, subjects were assured of the normality of their reactionsduring the study.—50—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAnalytic StrategyANOVA designs. The major analysis was conducted with a repeated measuresanalysis of variance with two between-subjects factors, sex and experimental condition(agree, neutral, and disagree), and one within-subjects factor referred to as “task”(baseline versus speech). Means of CV measures at two time periods constituted therepeated measures: The first (baseline) was the mean of the last two measures during therest period; the second (speech) was the mean of the three measures taken during thespeech task.For analyses of self-report data (affect and self-esteem), pre- and post-task measuresconstitute the within-subjects factor (task) rather than baseline and speech. Other self-report data were analyzed with oneway ANOVAs using the experimental condition as thesole independent variable.Evaluation of assumptions for statistical procedures. Data were evaluated forconformity with assumptions of statistical tests following procedures recommended byStevens (1992) for the repeated measures ANOVAs and Howell (1987) for the onewayANOVAs. The procedures specified in this section were followed as appropriate for eachanalysis, and only violations of assumptions are reported in the analyses that follow. Forall analyses, independence of observations was assumed on the basis of the integrity of theexperimental design and its controlled implementation.For the repeated measures ANOVAs, univariate rather than multivariate normalitywas examined due to sample sizes under 20 (Stevens, 1992). For all analyses, normality ofdistributions of the dependent variables at various levels of each independent variable was—51—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementscreened by (a) visually inspecting normal and detrencled normal probability plots and by(b) computing the Shapiro-Wilk statistic. Where deviations from normality were indicatedby the Shapiro-Wilk test (that is, when p < .0 1), skewness and kurtosis coefficients wereexamined in order to specify characteristics of non-normal distributions. Deviations fromthe assumption of normality, expected impact on consequent inferential statistics, and anysteps taken to adjust distributions are reported with each analysis in which they occur.For repeated-measures ANOVAs, the assumption of homogeneity of covariancematrices across levels of the between-subjects factors was tested for each of the dependentvariables utilizing the F approximation to the Box test (Stevens, 1992). The equality ofcell sizes in the present experiment reduces concern with homogeneity of variance(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989), but deviations from the assumption and expected impact onresults are reported with the analyses in which they occur. Because there are only twolevels for the repeated-measures factor in the present design, sphericity and homogeneityof mean square errors are not of concern (Glass & Hopkins, 1984).For oneway ANOVAs, homogeneity of variance was tested by the Levene test.Although equal cell sizes make ANOVAs quite robust to violations of homogeneity ofvariance (Howell, 1987), positive results of the Levene test and the expected impact onthe ANOVA are presented with each analysis where lack of homogeneity is a potentialproblem.Mukivariate versus univariate analysis. Wherever multivariate analysis appeared aviable alternative to univariate analysis, suitability of the data for multivariate analysis wasassessed. First, intercorrelations among the dependent variables were examined. Where—52—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementlogic and correlations suggested a multivariate approach, the suitability of the data formultivariate analysis was assessed by testing homogeneity of the covariance matrices usingthe F approximation of the Box test. Correlations among dependent variables and otherreasons for resulting decisions are presented with each analysis.Control of Type I error. Because univariate treatment of the cardiovascular dataproduces three separate ANOVAs, it was decided to control the familywise rate for Type Ierror for cardiovascular data by applying a correction to alpha. Accordingly, alpha wasset at .0 18, maintaining an approximate familywise alpha of .05 for the three omnibusANOVAs and for simple effects analysis on cardiovascular data. For single degree-of-freedom post hoc analyses, Tukey’s honestly significant difference was utilized throughoutwith a familywise alpha of .05. Similar familywise corrections were utilized in the analysesof self-report data with adjusted alpha levels reported in each. While the strategy utilizedmaintains Type I error for groups of closely related analyses at approximatelyp = .05, thenumber of separate analyses increases experimentwise error well beyond that level. It wasdetermined that stringent experimentwise error control would result in a tendency to misspotentially meaningftil effects. To preserve information, exact p values are presentedwhenever available in the analyses that follow.Missing data. Because additional subjects were run when major errors occurredduring data collection, there were very few missing data. In most situations, cases withmissing data were excluded from related sets of analyses. Handling is reported separatelyin each analysis where data were missing.—53—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementRESULTSManipulation CheckSubjects’ ratings of the supportiveness of the confederates’ behavior were analyzed tocompare the intended level of experimentally manipulated support with perceivedsupportiveness of the confederate. The mean of the last six items from the “Reactions toSpeaking” questionnaire were used as the dependent variable for this analysis. In theseitems, subjects were asked, “How would you rate the student who listened to yourspeech?” Response was indicated by marking a position on a visual analog scale.The score for items was the distance between the left end of the line and the center ofthe subject’s mark. Response direction was mixed on the questionnaire, so responses werearithmetically adjusted so a higher number indicated the more supportive (more positive)end of the scale for all items. The six scores were then averaged. Responses ranged from16.0 to 98.5 with the mean rating across all experimental conditions at 56.39(SD 21.32). Means and standard deviations of responses for individual items (afterequating response direction) and for the composite scale are presented for eachexperimental condition in Table 1. A score of 100 is the maximum and indicates uniformreporting of a perfectly warm and supportive listener. Note that each individual itemexhibited the same pattern of means as the composite scale: That is, confederates in theAgree condition were rated as most supportive, those in the Disagree were leastsupportive and Neutral was between the extremes.— 54—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementTable. 1. Means and (Standard Deviations) of Ratings of ConfederateSupportiveness by Experimental ConditionITEMS*.. AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREEUnsupportive/Supportive 84.80 54.67 26.70(8.29) (17.22) (18.67)Distant/Close 72.83 48.63 39.13(11.77) (16.71) (23.20)Rejecting/Accepting 79.90 53.87 19.73(10.75) (14.13) (15.81)Unfriendly/Friendly 83.27 58.83 51.30(9.82) (16.32) (14.61)Cold/Warm 78.37 54.43 41.30(13.47) (16.13) (14.10)Unhelpful/Helpful 75.97 47.53 43.73(14.66) (18.55) (21.38)Mean of6 items: 79.19 52.99 36.98(9.66) (13.92) (13.00)N = 30 in all groups. . Response direction equated for all items— 55—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementThe rated supportiveness of the confederate was analyzed in a oneway ANOVA withexperimental condition as the independent variable, and subjects were found to rate thesupportiveness of their listener in accordance with their assigned experimental condition.The ANOVA indicated significant differences between conditions (F(2,87) = 89.62,p < .00 1), and post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s honestly significant differencesindicated that all groups differed (p <.05; see Appendix B-i for the ANOVA table.) Theextent of the differences in ratings is apparent in the spreads between the 95% confidenceintervals for group means that follow: the Agree condition was 75.6 to 82.8; the Neutralcondition was 47.8 to 58.2; the Disagree condition was 32.1 to 41.8.Other Self-report ofResponse to the Speaking TaskTo examine whether subjects’ subjective response to the speaking task varied byexperimental condition, oneway ANOVAs were conducted on two other indicescalculated from responses on the “Reactions to Speaking” questionnaire. These indices arenamed “Distress,” and “Performance.” Scales were constructed on the basis of facevalidity and refined by examining interitem correlations.The Distress scale was the mean of eight items with interitem correlations rangingfrom .31 to .76. (See Appendix B-2 for item descriptions and for intercorrelations amongthe eight items comprising the scale.) The Performance scale was the mean of two closelyrelated items. One asked “Did you explain your opinions and your feelings clearly?” and—56—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementthe other, “Did you present your arguments and opinions in an interesting manner?” Theseitems were correlated .60 (p < .001). A high score indicated better performance.Results indicated that subjects in the Agree condition reported less distress and ratedtheir own performance as better than subjects in the Disagree condition. Ratings ofdistress and performance did not differ between Neutral and Disagree. Because thePerformance and Distress scales correlated —.60 (p < .00 1) and produced homogenousvariance/covariance matrices, the multivariate test was used; it showed differencesbetween the experimental conditions (Wilk’s F(4,172) = 3.56, p = .008). Two univariatetests (with alpha at .025) were then conducted with Tukey’s honestly significant differencetest to locate differences between pairs of cells. For distress, the univariate test wassignificant (F(2,87) = 6.88, p = .002), and Tukey’s test indicated that distress ratings in theAgree condition were significantly lower than in the Neutral and Disagree conditions(p < .05). Group means and standard deviations follow: AgreeM= 36.70, SD 15.03;NeutralM=49.57,SD= 19.21; DisagreeM 52.12, SD= 17.27.The univariate ANOVA for performance also indicated significant differencesbetween conditions (F(2,87) = 4.36, p = .016). The Tukeypost hoc showed thatperformance ratings in the Agree and Disagree condition differed (p < .05) significantlywhile ratings in the Neutral condition did not differ from either. Group means and standarddeviations follow: AgreeM= 54.12, SD 19.69; NeutralM= 44.48, SD 14.69;Disagree M =41.72, SD = 16.46. Multivariate and univariate ANOVA tables arepresented in Appendix B-3.—57—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementCardiovascular Reactivity to the TaskUmvariate versus multivariate analysis. Correlations between the three cardiovascularmeasures were examined to determine whether data were more suitable for univariate ormultivariate analysis. Correlations among SBP, DBP, and HR were calculated at baselineand speech. At baseline, SBP and DBP were moderately correlated, and HR wascorrelated slightly with DBP but uncorrelated with SBP. During the speech task, however,the pattern of correlations was different: Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were morehighly correlated than at baseline (t(87) = 3.67, p < .01) and heart rate was uncorrelatedwith either SBP or DBP. (For comparisons between correlations, the t-test for differencesbetween non-independent correlations was calculated in accordance with Williams.revision to Hotelling’s procedure (Howell, 1987). Since the correlation between SBP atbaseline and speech was higher than that of DBP (.63 versus .43, respectively), the SBPintercorrelation was used as the correction factor.) Correlations among CV measures atbaseline and speech are presented in Table 2.Although absolute levels of SBP and DBP are moderately correlated, hypotheses ofthe present investigation concern task-related changes in CV indices, and there is evidencethat changes in CV indices are substantially less correlated than absolute levels.Lamensdorf and Linden (1992) examined the effects of stress tasks on CV measures andfound that when task-related changes are adjusted for baseline levels, the highestcorrelations between changes in CV measures are less than r = .40. This would indicatethat no more than 20% of the variance of task-related change is shared between any twoCV measures. On a more theoretical level, recent work utilizing autonomic blockade— 58 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementtechniques has identified independent pathways of neural activation and modulation thatbegin to explain the frequently observed desynchrony between stress related changes inblood pressure and heart rate (Berntson et al., 1994; Cacioppo et al., 1994). Although therelationships between cardiovascular measures are far from understood at this time, it isclear that cardiovascular arousal cannot be treated as a unitary phenomenon. For thesereasons, and because generally low correlations and inconsistent patterns of correlationsacross measures and across time were observed in the present data, it was determined thatthe data were better suited for univariate analyses than for multivariate. This decision isconsistent with typical handling of cardiovascular measures in the cardiovascularpsychophysiology literature.Pearson product-moment correlations. N 90 in all cases.Table 2. Correlations among Cardiovascular MeasuresBASELINE Diastolic Heart RateSystolic .42 .13(p=.000) (p=.23)Diastolic .34DURING SPEECHSystolicDiastolicDiastolic.67(p=.OO1)Heart Rate.15(p=.000) (p=.l7).03(p=. 80)—59—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementCV response to the experimental tasks. A total of 14 measurements were made ofeach of the three CV indices. Because hypotheses of the present study involve only task-related .change from baseline, the analyses that follow include only five of the measures—two at the end of the baseline and three during the speech. Measures were also taken whenthe subject first began filling in forms, during the speech preparations period, and duringthe recovery period following the speech. The pattern of cardiovascular response observedduring the experiment was similar to that observed during most laboratory stressprocedures. Figure 1 shows SBP for men and women at each of the fourteen time points.Figure 1. Systolic Blood Pressure at all Measurement Points by Sex150: 145140135125• 120C115; 110C105100Al A2 Bi B2 B3 P1 P2 P3 Sl S2 S3 Ri R2 R3Measurement PointsMeasurement points: A = Adaptation period, B = Baseline, P = Speech preparation period,S = During the speech, R = Recovery period. Measurements initiated as follows:1 = minute 0:30, 2 = minute 2:30, 3 = minute 4:00.— 60—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementNote that SBP levels were lowest in the baseline and recovery periods, highest duringthe speech, and between these extremes during the preparation period. Note also thefrequently observed adaptation response within each time period: SBP was highest at thebeginning of each new time segment and fell as subjects adapted to the new task orsituation. Although responses varied somewhat for DBP and HR. these measuresexhibited patterns similar to SBP with respect to relative elevation of the time segmentsand adaptation within each time-period.Systolic blood pressure. Systolic blood pressure was found responsive to the speechtask but unaffected by the supportiveness of the experimental confederate. The predictedinteraction between the repeated-measures factor, task, and experimental condition failedto reach significance (F(2,84) = 1.93, p = . 15). As generally reported, men had highersystolic blood pressure than women. The main effect for sex (F(1,84) = 37.40, p < .00 1)indicated that when subjects’ systolic blood pressure was pooled across experimentalcondition and across baseline and speech measures, men’s systolic blood pressure was10.12 mmHg higher than women’s (MenM= 133.56, SD = 7.66; WomenM= 123.44,SD = 7.92). Means and standard deviations of SBP for both sexes in each condition arepresented in Table 3. The significant main effect for the within-subjects factor task(F(1,84) = 681.60, p < .00 1), was due to a rise in systolic blood pressure from baseline tospeech task of over 24 mmHg (Baseline M = 116.34, SD = 9.94; During speechM= 140.65, SD = 10.58). (The ANOVA table is presented in Appendix B-4.)—61--Lenz Response to Audience AgreementTable 3. Means and (Standard Deviations) of Systolic Blood Pressure byExperimental Condition and Sex.Condition Sex BASEIJNE1 SPEECH2 CHANGEAgree Men 122.50 (8.88) 143.40 (10.46) 20.90 (10.76)Women 113.23 (9.23) 136.91 (8.84) 23.68 (6.49)Neutral Men 120.97 (9.83) 144.73 (7.50) 23.77 (6.90)Women 109.07 (7.77) 133.11 (11.30) 24.04 (11.23)Disaree Men 121.73 (7.15) 148.00 (10.11) 26.27 (9.95)Women 110.57 (7.61) 137.73 (8.33) 27.17 (6.11)Mean of the last two measures in the rest period. 2 Mean of the three measures takenduring the speech task. 3N= 15 in all cases. Change scores may vary from cross-table computations due to rounding.Diastolic blood pressure. Diastolic blood pressure also increased during the speechtask and—like SBP—was unaffected by the supportiveness of the experimentalconfederate. Men’s DBP increased slightly but significantly more in response to the speechtask than women’s. The ANOVA for DBP indicated significant main effects for sex andtask. In addition, there was a significant interaction between sex and task. The predictedinteraction between task and experimental condition was not significant (F(2,84) 1.06,p = .35). As with SBP, diastolic increase from baseline to speech was large (over 23— 62—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementmm/Hg) and produced a significant main effect for task (F(I,84) = 853,54, p < .001;BaselineM= 68.60, SD 6.86; During speechM= 92.36, SD = 7.90). Means andstandard deviations of DBP for both sexes in all experimental conditions are presented inTable 4. Overall differences between men’s and women’s diastolic blood pressure weresmall and not statistically significant (F(1,84) = 5.02, p = .028). The presence of amarginally significant interaction between sex and task (F(1 ,84) = 5.78, p < .018) indicatedthat men and women may have responded somewhat differently to the speech task; or,more specifically, differences between men’s and women’s diastolic blood pressure weregreater during the speech than at baseline.Table 4. Means and (Standard Deviations) of Diastolic Blood Pressure byExperimental Condition and Sex.Condition Sex BASELiNE1 SPEECH2 CHANGEAgree Men 70.70 (6.07) 96.58 (9.07) 25.88k (6.51jWomen 69.53 (6.40) 93.04 (7.06) 23.51 (7.05)Neutral Men 68.23 (9.17) 93.93 (7.46) 25.70 (6.98)Women 68.03 (6.54) 86.51 (6.92) 18.48 (9.68)Disagree Men 68.23 (6.40) 93.80 (7.05) 25.57 (7.55)Women 66.87 (6.63) 90.29 (6.74) 23.42 (8.11)Mean of the last two measures in the rest period.2Mean of the three measures takenduring the speech task. 3N = 15 in all cases. Change scores may vary from cross-table computations due to rounding.— 63—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementA simple effects analysis was conducted to determine whether men and womenexhibited different DBP levels at baseline and during the speech task. At baseline, DBPwas not different by sex (F(1,88) = 0.39, p .53). In fact at baseline, DBP for men wasonly 0.92 mmHg higher than that for women (MenM= 69.06, SD = 7.28; WomenM= 68.14, SD = 6.47). During the speech task, however, men’s DBP was 4.82 mmHghigher than women’s (MenM= 94.77, SD = 7.83; WomenM= 89.95, SD = 7.27), andalthough this difference is not of practical importance, it was statistically significant(F(1,88) 9.16, p < .003). This interaction is presented in Figure 2. Visual inspectionindicates that the magnitude of task-related change in DBP is far greater than sexdifferences. (ANOVA tables and simple effects analysis are presented in Appendix B-5.)Figure 2. Diastolic Blood Pressure at Baseline and Speech by Sex.959085802 75_____________—CSpeechHeart rate. Examination of the distribution of the HR data produced a significantShapiro-Wilk test (p = .049) for women’s HR during the speech task; as a result,-Men—0— WonnBaseline Experimental Task— 64—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementskewness, kurtosis, and stem and leaf plots were examined. Departure from normality wasdue to positive skewness with no kurtosis evident. Because the repeated-measuresANOVA is generally robust to skewed distributions and the non-normality was found inonly in one level of one of the independent variables, impact on power and error rate wasdetermined to be negligible (Stevens, 1992). No adjustment was made to the data.Heart rate increased during the speech task in all conditions but increased less whenconfederates agreed with subjects than when they remained neutral or disagreed. Therewas no difference between the Neutral and the Disagree conditions. The ANOVA for FIRproduced main effects for sex and task and an interaction between task and experimentalcondition. Means and standard deviations of HR for both sexes are presented in Table 5.Table 5. Means and (Standard Deviations) of Heart Rate by ExperimentalCondition and Sex.Condition Sex BASELINE’ SPEECH2 CHANGEAgree Men 68.17 (7.82) 81.36 (11.98) 13.19k (5.87)Women 72.57 (12.55) 89.60 (14.40) 17.03 (8.76)Neutral Men 71.57 (12.64) 92.67 (16.73) 21.10 (16.29)Women 77.03 (15.19) 94.91 (17.77) 17.88 (14.16)Disagree Men 64.67 (10.15) 88.78 (13.71) 24.11 (12.75)Women 71.70 (10.65) 105.53 (14.73) 33.83 (17.14)‘Mean of the last two measures in the rest period. 2 Mean of the three measures takenduring the speech task. 3N = 15 in all cases. Change scores may vary from cross-table computations due to rounding.—65—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAveraging across baseline and speech task, women’s HR were 7.35 beats per minutehigher than men’s (F(1,84)=8.80,p < .004; MenM= 77.87, SD = 12.73; WomenM= 85.22, SD 12.73). Heart rates during the speech were on average 21 beats perminute faster than at baseline (BaselineM= 70.95, SD = 12.03; SpeechM 92.14,SD = 16.33). Although this difference produced a significant main effect (F(1,84) = 234.63,p < .00 1), the presence of an interaction between task and experimental conditionindicated that the amount of increase in heart rate from rest to speech task varied acrossgroups (F(1,84) = 8.74, p < .001). Figure 3 illustrates this differences by showing mean HRfor each experimental condition at baseline and during the speech task.Figure 3. Heart Rate at Baseline and Speech by Experimental Condition100 -95 -85-80-7517065Baseline SpeechA simple effects analysis was conducted to determine if the HR varied byexperimental condition at baseline and during the speech. These analyses indicated that nogroup differences existed at baseline (F(2,87) = 2.04, p = .13.6) but that the groups differedExperimental Task— 66 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementsignificantly during the speech (F(2,87) = 4.37, p = .0 16). Tukeys procedure was used tocompare means of experimental conditions during the speech. Observed mean differenceswere compared to a critical difference of 5.69 (p < .05). Mean HR during the speech wasfound to be lower for subjects in the Agree condition than for subjects in the other twoconditions; Neutral and Disagree did not differ significantly from each other. (TheANOVA table and simple effects analysis are presented in Appendix B-6.)Pre- and Post-task Subjective MeasuresAnalyse of pre- and post-task subjective measures followed the same design as theanalysis of CV measures: measurement at two time points (pre- and post-task) constitutedthe repeated-measures factor task, and the two between-subjects factors were sex andexperimental condition.Affect Grid. The Affect Grid produces separate scores for arousal and pleasantness.Correlations between the two scores were computed at both pre- and post-task to assesssuitability of the data for multivariate analysis. In keeping with reports by the developersof the measure (Russell et a!., 1989), the two scores were uncorrelated. At pre-task,correlation between the scores was r = —.02 (p = .87), and the post-task correlation wasr = —.12 (p = .27). Because of lack of correlation and because neither arousal norpleasantness was substantially correlated with self-esteem subscales, the Affect Gridscores were analyzed in two separate univariate ANOVAs. Intercorrelations among allpre- and post-task subjective measures are presented in Table 6.— 67 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementTable 6. Correlations among Self-report Measures at Pre-taskMeasure Subscale 2 3 4 5Affect Grid 1. Pleasantness —.02 .09 .29** 25*2. Arousal .01 .13 .11SSES 3. Appearance 54*** .50***4. Performance5. SocialPearson product-moment correlations. N = 89 for all correlations. * p < .05, **p<.o’, ***p<.OOlTable 7. Correlations among Self-report Measures at Post-taskMeasure Subscale 2 3 4 5Affect Grid 1. Pleasantness —.12 .22* .19 .22*2. Arousal —.02 —.06 —.14SSES 3. Appearance .65*** •55***4. Performance 74***5. SocialPearson product-moment correlations. N = 89 for all correlations. * p < .05,p < .001— 68—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementSubjects reported more arousal after the speech task than before, but the experimentalcondition did not affect level of reported arousal. Pre- to post-task change was indicatedby the main effect for task (F(1,84) = 105.71; p < .001; see Appendix B-7 for the ANOVAtable). Means and standard deviations follow: pre-taskM= 5.29, SD = 1.49; post-taskM = 7.11, SD 1.32. Lack of effect of experimental condition on response was evidencedby the non-significant task by condition interaction (F(2,84) = 0.69, p = .51).Subjects also reported less pleasant affect after the speech task than before, and thistendency was more pronounced in the Neutral and Disagree conditions than in the Agreecondition. There was a significant main effect for the repeated-measures factor task(F(1 ,84) = 10.75; p = .002); ratings of pleasantness of affect were higher prior to the task(Pre-taskM= 5.60, SD = 1.53; Post-taskM= 4.79, SD = 2.03). The main effect forexperimental condition was also significant (F(2,84) = 6.25; p = .003). Although theinteraction between task and condition was not significant (F(2,84) = 6.67, p = .095), itsuggested a trend that affected decisions regarding post hoc analysis. Means and standarddeviations of the pleasantness scores for each of the conditions are presented in Table 8.Note the differences between groups in magnitude of change.In order to examine whether differences between conditions were evident at both preand post-task, a simple effects analysis was conducted. Results indicated that mean ratingsof pleasantness differed by experimental condition at post-task (F(2,87) = 6.82 ; p = .002)but not at pre-task (F(2,87) = 1.13; p = .3 3). The tables for the omnibus ANOVA andsimple effects analysis are presented in Appendix B-8. Tukeytsprocedure was used tocompare mean ratings between conditions at post-task; observed mean differences were— 69 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementcompared to a critical difference of 1.12 (p < .05). Mean reported pleasantness at post-task found to be lower for subjects in the Disagree and Neutral conditions than forthose in the Agree condition; reports for Disagree and Neutral did not differ significantly.These results and group means are presented in Table 8.Table 8. Means and (Standard Deviations) of Pleasantness Rating on the AffectGrid by Experimental ConditionAGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREEPre-task 5.93 5.37 5.50(1.68) (1.33) (1.55)Post-task 5.80a 453b(2.02) (1.85) (1.85)Change —0,13 —0.84 —1.47(2.49) (2.29) (2.21)Means in the same row with different superscripts differ, p < .05.State Self-Esteem Scale. The State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES) yields a total score andsubscale scores for appearance esteem, social esteem, and performance esteem. Becauseanalysis of the total scores could obscure potentially meaningful differences in patterns ofsubscale scores, subscale scores were analyzed. Moderate to high intercorrelationsbetween subscales of the SSES suggested that multivariate analysis was more appropriate—70—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementthan univariate. As shown in Tables 6 and 7, correlations between SSES subscales at pretask ranged from r = .50 to .61, and at post-task correlations were between .55 and .74(for all correlations, p < .001).Tests of assumptions for the MANOVA indicated two problems with scores from theperformance subscale: The scores were not normally distributed in three cells, andcovariance matrices for the planned MANOVA were non-homogenous (Box Mapproximate F = 1.33, p = .01). It was decided to analyze subscale scores separately in aunivariate model using an alpha with a familywise correction (.018) for all three tests.Because one SSES questionnaire was missing, N = 89 for all analyses of SSES data.When analyzed separately, subscale scores for SSES met criteria for homogeneity ofvariance/covariance matrices (i.e., for Box M approximate F, p> .05). For theperformance subscale only, there were indications of non-normal distribution of scores.The screen for normality of distributions using the Shapiro-Wilk test indicated potentialviolations of the assumption for three groups (p < .0 1). Stem and leaf plots and skewnessand kurtosis coefficients were examined to specify types of deviations from normality. Formen in the disagree condition at pre-task, performance esteem scores were distributedbimodally, but skewness and kurtosis were within normal limits. Significant skewness orkurtosis was found in only two groups. Men’s post-task performance esteem scores in theneutral condition were found to be negatively skewed (skewness = —1.57, p < .01), andalthough the distribution was leptokurtotic, this characteristic was not significant(kurtosis = 2.21, p> .0 1). Women’s post-task performance scores in the neutral conditionwere found to be significantly negatively skewed and leptokurtotic (skewness —2.56,—71—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementp < .01, kurtosis=8.58,p < .01). Following the rationale of Stevens (1992), it wasdecided not transform the distributions. The negative skewness was expected to have littleimpact on power in the ANOVA. Although kurtosis may have more potential impact onpower, it occurred in only one group, and leptokurtosis is in general less problematic thanplatykurtosis (Stevens, 1992). Although impact of non-normal distributions on power inan ANOVA can be difficult to predict, the anomalies in distributions of SSES performancesubscale were expected to result in slightly increased power in the analysis.The subsequent univariate analyses indicated no significant effects for any of theSSES subscales. (See Appendices B-9, -10, and -11 for complete ANOVA tables.) Taskby condition interactions were non-significant for all three scales. Statistics for the task bycondition interactions are as follows:Social esteem F(2,83) = 0.80, p = .45Appearance esteem F(2,83) = 2.06, p = .14Performance esteem F(2,83) = 2.37, p = .10.Because the power of the ANOVA may have been affected by lack of normaldistribution of the performance scores, means and standard deviations of the SSESperformance scores for each of the conditions are presented in Table 9. Visualexamination shows that pre- to post-task changes in mean ratings vary only slightly acrossexperimental conditions and that mean changes from pre- to post-task are small relative topre- and post-task standard deviations.— 72—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementTable 9. Means and (Standard Deviations) of Performance Rating on the SSES byExperimental ConditionNo means differ,p < .05.Correlates ofSelf—reported Social SupportThe final set of analyses was exploratory in nature. It involved examining existingsocial support as measured by the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) and itsrelationship with response to the experimental procedure. The general question guidingthis exploration was whether report of pre-existing social support had any discernibleimpact on subjects’ response to the support provided during their speech. For thisexploration, change scores were computed for the CV and self-report indices. (SeeAppendix B- 12 for CV change scores and standard deviations by experimental condition.)Fisrt the ISEL scores themeselves were examined. The distribution of ISEL scoreswas normal with a tendency towards a slight negative skew. Women reported higher levelsPre-taskPost-taskChangeAGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE27.80 27.20 26.47(3.60) (5.22) (5.35)28.24 27.20 25.63(3.81) (5.28) (6.20)+0.44 0.00 —0.84(2.06) (2.99) (2.56)— 73 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementof social support than men. Women’s mean ratings on the ISEL were 36.22 (SD = 298)and men’s were 32.20 (SD = 6.5); these scores were significantly different (t(62) = -2.84,p = .006, df adjusted for non-homogeneity of variance). There was a wider variation inmen’s ISEL scores than in women’s. -Correlations between CV change scores and the ISEL were then calculated. Becausesubjects rated the supportiveness of the confederates differently in each experimentalcondition, it was necessary to examine differences between correlations in theexperimental conditions. While this approach resulted in small number of subjectscontributing to each correlation (n = 30) and in an increased number of correlations, it wasdetermined to be necessary to avoid overlooking potentially meaningful relationships.More specifically, it was of interest whether existing social support correlated differentlywith response to the speech task in the Agree condition (when support was present) thanin the other two conditions (when there was no support). Although there were numerousother potential effects, it could be anticipated that someone used to high levels of supportmay have decreased arousal in the somewhat familiar Agree condition and increasedarousal in the unfamiliar non-supportive conditions.Correlations between the ISEL and changes in CV and self-report measures arepresented in Table 10. There is only one significant correlation, and that is between theISEL and social self-esteem in the Agree condition (r .36, p = .05). This is a relativelysmall correlation and is marginally significant even without error correction. With 24correlations, chances are above 1.00 that one would be found significant at p = .05.—74—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementTable 10. Correlations between ISEL and Change in Cardiovascular and Self-report Measures by Experimental ConditionAGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREESBP —.06 —.01 .15DBP —.18 .03 —.18HR .23 .12 .20AFFECT GRID-Arousal -.18 .07 -.13-Pleasantness —.19 .26 —.01SSES-Performance .09’ —.14 —.04-Social .3612 —.01 .04-Appearance .23’ —.14 —.09Pearson product-moment correlations. n = 29; for all other correlations, n = 30. 2P = .05; for all other correlations, p> .05.—75—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementDISCUSSIONSummary ofFindingsNinety undergraduate students gave a speech on a topic they cared deeply about.Subjects were randomly assigned to receive one of three types of feedback from alaboratory confederate: (a) agreement with the. sujject, (b) non-responsive listening, or (c)disagreement. Blood pressure and heart rate were monitored before and during the speechtask, and measures of affective state and self-esteem were taken before and after thespeech. Subjective response to the speech task was measured post-task.Findings indicated that subjects whose audience agreed with them had significantlyless increase in heart rate during the speech task than subjects whose audiences disagreedor remained non-responsive. No condition-related effects were observed on measures ofblood pressure, but men in all conditions were found slightly more responsive to thespeech task than women. A number of self-report measures indicated that subjects foundaudience disagreement to be more aversive than agreement. Reaction to the non—responsive audience varied by measure but it was generally more aversive than agreementand less aversive than disagreement.Internal ValidityBecause the hypotheses of the present study postulate a stress buffering mechanismfor social support, evaluation of the adequacy of the experimental procedure must addresstwo related manipulations, both of which are necessary to the integrity of the experiment.First, the stress task itself—the speech task—must be shown adequately evocative of— 76 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementstress responses in subjects. Secondly, the behavior of the confederates must vary in amanner that leads to different levels of perceived supportiveness between experimentalconditions. The relevant manipulation checks converge to indicate that the experimentalprocedures clearly accomplished both of these goals.Response to the task. First, the speech task evoked a strong and consistent stressresponse. The repeated-measures analyses showed significant task-related changes in SBP,DBP, HR, and in subjective report of increased arousal and decreased pleasantness ofaffect. The consistency and the magnitudes of these effects across measurement modalityargues for the adequate provocation of stress response. The effect sizes (using baseline orpre-task SD) for task-related changes for the pooled data for all subjects follow:SBP d= 2.45, DBP d= 3.46, HRd= 1.76, Affect Grid Arousald= 1.22, Affect GridPleasantness d = 0.53. (CV effect sizes for Agree and Neutral are compared to effect sizesin similar experiments below.) There is little doubt that consistent task-related changes ofthese magnitudes demonstrate stress induction at a level adequate to detect experimentallyrelated attenuation if it is present.Ratings of support. Secondly, there are strong indications that the experimentallyprovided support was both credible and socially appropriate. As for credibility of themanipulation, only two subjects (both excluded from analysis) reported suspecting that theconfederates were assigned a role in the study. Most subjects responded with genuinesurprise when told of the experimental deception. They generally mentioned the drawingof lots and asked how they could have been preassigned as speaker when they drew theirrole themselves “at random.” It appears that the process of assigning roles was particularly— 77 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementconvincing to subjects. Finally, subjects rated the supportiveness of the confederatesdifferently in each of the three experimental conditions, and their ratings were in keepingwith the intended levels of support. This indicator was compiled from six individual items,all of which were related semantically to supportiveness and all of which produced thesame ordering of mean ratings between conditions: Agree was most supportive, Disagreewas least, and Neutral was between the other two. This pattern of findings indicates thatsubjects in different experimental conditions perceived confederates’ behavior inaccordance with the intent of the experimental design and that they believed thesedifferences to have occurred naturally.Evaluation ofSpecfic HypothesesConclusions relating to each area of investigation in the present study are presentedseparately below. Discussion of each hypothesis includes (a) a synopsis of relevantfindings, (b) analysis of the strength and reliability of the findings, (c) generalization offindings, and (d) comparisons with findings in closely related studies.The effects of neutral controls. The primary question addressed in the present studywas whether the use of a neutral or non-responsive control constitutes an adequatecomparison group in studies of response to experimentally provided support. The issuewas defined as follows: The ambiguity of a non-communicative social interaction couldconceivably increase stressfulness of an interaction and thereby inflate the relativeprotective effect of a supportive interaction. This question was addressed by including aDisagreement condition in the present study—a condition intended to be both non— 78—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementsupportive and unambiguous. Direct comparison of the effects of audience disagreementwith both supportive and non-responsive interactions allowed assessment of the relativecontributions of supportiveness and clarity of communication.The data show clearly that non-responsive social interaction does not increase stress-related reactivity more than unambiguous disagreement. For the variables on whichdifferences in reactivity between experimental conditions were apparent, audienceagreement was associated with less stress response than disagreement. Responses to themore ambiguous, non-communicative audience were mixed. Non-communicative anddisagreeing audiences were found to have similar effects on HR, and both were associatedwith greater HR response than an agreeing audience. Findings were slightly different forsubjective report of pleasantness of affect. Subjects reported more pleasant affect whentheir audiences agreed with their opinions than when the audience disagreed, but affect inthe face of a non-communicative audience was not different from either agreeing ordisagreeing. Contrary to hypotheses based on postulated ambiguity in non-communicativesocial situations, the non-responsive audience evoked equivalent or less stress responsethan unambiguous disagreement. Findings show clearly that objections to the use ofneutral or non-communicative audiences as controls by Germ et al. (1992) and by Leporeet al. (1993) were unfounded.Sex differences in cardiovascular reactivity. Previous studies have frequently usedexclusively female subjects (e.g., Allen et al., 1991; Germ, Pieper, Levy, et al., 1992;Kamarck et al., 1990). When both men and women have been included as subjects,ambiguous patterns of sex-related response have been observed (e.g., Lepore et al., 1993;— 79 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementSheffield & Carroll, 1995). Consequently, the present study directly examined sexdifferences in response to experimentally provided social support from a same-sexconfederate. Consistent with numerous other reports (e.g., Cohen, S. et al., 1985; Lindenet al., 1993; Sarason, Levine, Basham, & Sarason, 1983), women reported significantlymore support in their daily lives than men. However, men and women did not responddifferently to the manipulation of social support in the present experiment. There were nosignificant sex by condition interactions for any of the dependent variables in the study,and the only sex differences observed were independent of the manipulation of support.Although the data in the present study fail to indicate any sex differences in responseto experimentally provided support, the pattern of findings cautions against drawingdefinitive conclusions. Conclusions regarding patterns of response on SBP and DBP areunwarranted. Without clear evidence that responsivity is attenuated in the presence of asupportive audience, sex differences cannot be observed. For FIR, caution ingeneralization is recommended on the basis of a different argument—on the generaldifficulty in interpreting the failure to reject a null hypothesis. Although there was asignificant support-related attenuation of HR reactivity and no significant interaction ofthis effect with sex, the pattern of findings indicates a weak trend towards sex differences.This trend is most apparent in the comparison of HR changes (baseline to task) for menand women in the three experimental conditions as presented in Figure 4. Although theinteraction represented by this graph fell far short of statistical significance (p = 17), thedata hint that men and women may respond differently to a non-communicative audience.The change scores indicate a tendency for women to respond to lack of communication as— 80—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementif it means agreement whereas men may respond to it more like they respond todisagreement. Such an effect could be of interest in defining sex differences in response tosocial cues, and the present findings provide no basis to predict whether such a tendencymay be found significant in research designed specifically for investigating such an effect.Figure 4. Change in Heart Rate by Sex and Experimental Condition35 Agree• NeutralE 30D Disagree25201510SexSex differences unrelated to experimentally provided support were more clear andreplicated earlier findings in a number of studies. Men exhibited higher SBP and lower HRthan women at baseline and during the speech task, and men showed a slightly (butsignificantly) greater response to the speech task than women on DBP. The sexdifferences in SBP and HR are frequently observed in both epidemiological studies and inlaboratory stress research and are unrelated to the hypotheses of the present study. Thegreater response of men to the stress provocation was also reported by Lepore et al.-F-Men Women—81 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreement(1993) who found men’s reactivity to be higher than women’s on both SBP and DBP.Similarly, Sheffield and Carroll (1995) found men more reactive than women on SBP anda trend towards more reactivity on FIR.Self-report measures. One of the goals of the present study was to reduce thecommonly observed desynchrony between CV response and self-report. This goal wasaddressed in two ways. First, the Affect Grid was included as a measure of affective statebecause it is simple to administer, highly sensitive, and psychometrically sound. Secondly,items previously found to show differences between supported and unsupported subjectswere refined and presented in a uniform visual analog format.The arousal subscale of the Affect Grid indicated large increases in arousal during thespeech task, but arousal did not differ by experimental condition. Three other self-reportmeasures were found to distinguish between experimental conditions: (a) Affect GridPleasantness, (b) a composite scale of distress during the speech, and (c) a two-item scaleindicating self-assessment of performance level during the speech. In keeping withexpectations, subjects whose audiences disagreed with their positions reported moredistress, less pleasant affect, and lower performance than subjects whose audiences agreedwith them. For those subjects whose audiences were non-communicative, findings varied.Performance ratings for these subjects were not significantly different from either of theother two groups, but reports of distress and pleasantness of affect were much like thosewhose audiences disagreed with them—that is, Neutral subjects reported more distressand less pleasant affect than Agree subjects.— 82 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementBecause findings on several self-report scales paralleled heart rate response during theexperiment, the general goal of improving synchrony between self-report andphysiological measures was accomplished. These findings suggest that desynchronybetween CV response and self-report has been to a large extent due to measurementstrategies. One result is of particular interest for the development of self-report measuresin cardiovascular stress research. The distress scale developed for this study from Leporeet al’s (1993) items resulted in the same findings as the Pleasantness scale of the AffectGrid. Indeed, pleasantness and distress appear to be polar opposites and probably tap asimilar underlying construct. In contrast, the Arousal scale of the Affect Grid did notdistinguish between experimental conditions. These results suggest that cardiovascularstress researchers may miss potentially meaningfiil effects if they query subjects only aboutarousal.As successful as the self-report measures were in the present experiment, they are notwithout limitations. First, support-related attenuation of CV response was observed onlyon HR and not on blood pressure. Because CV measures were desynchronous with eachother, it is impossible to show complete synchrony between CV measures and self-report.For this reason, interpretation of self-report data has focused only on its relations to HRresponse. Secondly, the “Response to Speaking” questionnaire included several items thatwere discarded due to low correlations with other items originally conceived to be similar.It is uncertain whether responses would change if these items were excluded from futureversions of the questionnaire.— 83—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementSelf-esteem as a moderating variable. One of the hypotheses of the present study wasthat self-esteem may moderate cardiovascular response to social support. Because one ofthe major benefits of social support has been reported on a theoretical basis to be theenhancement of self-esteem (Cohen, S., Evans, Stokols, & Krantz, 1986; Cohen, S. &Hoberman, 1983; Cohen, S. & Wills, 1985; Wills, 1985), it followed that changes in self-esteem may accompany laboratory stress tasks and may vary according to the provision ofsupport. Further, it was of interest whether changes in self-esteem may correspond toindices of cardiovascular response. Tests of these hypotheses uniformly indicated that theexperimental procedure had no significant effect on self-esteem as measured by thesubscales of the State Self Esteem Scale. As with the data on sex differences,interpretation of the self-esteem findings is complicated by the lack of a strongcardiovascular effect due to social support. To the extent that changes in self-esteem arecorrelated with cardiovascular responsiveness, self-esteem changes may only beobservable in studies where stronger effects on CV indices are also present.A couple of comments may be in order with regards to performance esteem on whicha weak trend towards the hypothesized effect was observed. Subjects with an agreeingconfederate showed slight (but not statistically significant) increase in performance esteemand those with disagreeing confederates showed a slight decrease. Subjects with a noncommunicative audience reported exactly the same levels of performance esteem beforeand after their speeches. The magnitude of these pre- to post-task changes was quite small(d = 0.15 for the Disagree condition). However, the inter-test interval in the present studywas no longer than 20 minutes, and the stressors themselves lasted no longer than 10— 84—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementminutes including both speech preparation and speech delivery. Heatherton and Polivy(1991) reported relatively small changes in performance esteem as significant bothstatistically and practically. In their study, an effect size ofd = 0.26 was observed onperformance esteem over a one-week period after students were warned about aparticularly difficult midterm exam or after receiving midterm grades. Comparison withHeatherton and Polivy’s study—with its longer time frame and more personally relevantstressors—suggests that the lack of significant findings for performance self-esteem in thepresent study could be due to the brevity of the stress induction or to the lack of strongpersonal investment in the outcome of the speech. Subjects in different conditions in thepresent study reported statistically significant differences in their assessment of their ownperformance levels, but not in their performance esteem.Effects of environmental social support. The relationship between self-report ofongoing social support and response to the experimental procedures was explored byexamining correlations between ISEL scores and task-related changes in CV measures,affect, and self-esteem. There was no indication that report of pre-experimental supportlevels was related to response during the experiment, Because the examination wasexploratory, the findings are less than conclusive but they have methodologicalimplications. Several investigators have found report of higher levels of environmentalsocial support to be associated with lower CV levels when ambulatory measurementstrategies are used (Linden et al., 1993; Spitzer, Llabre, Ironson, Geliman, &Schneiderman, 1992; Unden, Orth-Gomer, & Elofsson, 1991). If social support attenuatesCV response in the workplace, at home, and at university (respectively) and is not related— 85—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementto CV response in the laboratory, one must question the relationship between laboratorystressr and real-life stressors and the relation of experimentally provided support to thatprovided in subjects’ everyday lives. Sheffield and Carroll (1994, 1995) make a similarpoint and conclude that social support research must be conducted in settings that aremore realistic than the laboratory.Cardiovascular Response to SupportSubjects in the Agree condition showed less increase in heart rate than those in theNeutral and Disagree conditions. The response difference for conditions on systolic bloodpressure was not statistically significant but the ordering of group means was the same asthat for HR—that is, mean response was greatest in the Disagree condition and least in theAgree condition. For diastolic blood pressure, there were no indications of support-relatedattenuation of CV response.Comparison of findings with earlier studies. To date, there are four published studiesthat investigate the effects of experimentally provided support on cardiovascular responseto a social interaction stress task. The general pattern of findings in the present studyprovides partial support of the protective effects of social support observed by Germ et al.(1992) and by Lepore et al. (1993). While both earlier studies found experimentallyprovided support to attenuate SBP and DBP response to a social stress task and Genn etal. found it to attenuate HR response as well, the present data demonstrate a significanteffect only on HR with a weak trend appearing in the SBP data. Sheffield and Carroll(1995) also found HR to be the only CV measure attenuated by the presence of a—86--Lenz Response to Audience Agreementsupportive confederate, but it must be noted that in that study, HR response in thedisagreement condition (which they called ‘undermining”) was significantly different fromthe alone condition and did not differ from the Agree condition.Effect sizes. In the interest of examining the major findings of the four closely relatedstudies in a quantitative fashion, estimated effect sizes for cardiovascular response in eachof the four studies are presented in Table 11.Table 11. Estimates of Task- and Support-Related Effect Sizes for CardiovascularMeasures in Studies Using Social Interaction Tasks.Without Support’ With Support2 Difference3STUDY SBP DBP HR SBP DBP HR SBP DBP HRPresent study 2.90 3.80 2.67 2.21 4.01 1.44 0.69 —0.21 1.23Germ et aL, 19921.73 1.53 1.43 0.79 0.81 0.48 0.94 0.72 0.95Leporeetal., 19932.75 3.14 1.50 2.00— 1.25 1.14 —Sheffield andCarroll, 1995 1.39 1.11 0.78 1.05 0.89 0.74 0.34 0.22 0.04‘Mean of largest task-related change in each study divided by baseline SD. 2Meantask-related change for groups with support divided by baseline SD.3Differencebetween responses to the task in supportive and non-responsive conditions.4Effectsizes based on estimated baseline standard deviations.For the purposes of these estimates, the effect size for support-related responseattenuation is taken to be the difference between the task-related effect sizes in supported— 87 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementand unsupported conditions. Note that the largest responses on all cardiovascularmeasures—both with and without support—are observed in the present study. Thesmallest effect found statistically significant is that for DBP in the Germ et al. (1992) study(d = 0.72).Explanations ofDfferences Between FindingsThere are a number of possible explanations for the different findings in the fourrelated studies. Each will be addressed and evaluated separately; however, there is noreason to assume that there is one single cause of variation between studies or that causesare mutually exclusive. Instead, it is expected that a variety of causes may be actingsimultaneously and may have additive or interactive effects.Population differences. Differences in findings between similar studies conducted atdifferent locations necessitates examination of the populations sampled. In the presentcase, population differences across studies are apparent, but there is no reason to suspectthat population differences would lead to systematic differences in response to theprovision of social support. All four of the closely related studies were conducted atuniversities using undergraduates as subjects. To this extent, populations appear similaracross studies. However, there are numerous cultural and ethnic differences among thesamples. The Germ et al. (1992) study was conducted at a small all-women’s collegelocated in the metropolitan East Coast of the United States. Sheffield and Carroll (1995)conducted their study at a major university in Scotland. Neither Germ et al. nor Sheffieldand Carroll reported ethnicity of their samples. Both the present study and the Lepore et—88—Lenz Response to Audience Agreemental. (1993) study were conducted at large West Coast universities with multiculturalpopulations—Lepore’s in the United Stated and the present study in Canada. Lepore’ssample was approximately 48% Caucasian, 27% Asian, and 16% Latino. Subjects in thepresent study were approximately 59% Caucasian and 37% Asian.It is apparent that populations vary actoss studies, but at the present time there areinadequate data to predict the impact of these differences on CV response to the stresstasks or to experimentally provided support. Very little research has been reported oncross-cultural differences in CV response and none systematically addresses differencesbetween localities in North America—an area generally, though probably mistakenly,treated as a cultural unit for the purposes of cross-cultural research. The most salient dataon this issue are probably the preliminary analyses in the present study that compare Asianand Caucasian subjects on the major CV and self-report indices. On a brief series ofexploratory analyses, no differences were found related to ethnicity. Because theseanalyses necessitated cutting cell sizes in half and resulted in serious reductions instatistical power, no firm conclusions should be drawn on the basis of these negativefindings. The best that can be said is that there appear to be no data indicating a systematicimpact of cultural and ethnic factors on the results of these studies. However, the onlypublished study of social support and health in Asian men (Reed et al., 1984) produceddifferent findings than similar studies in Caucasian populations (e.g., Berkman & Syme,1979; Blazer, 1982; House et al., 1982; Orth-Gomer & Johnson, 1987). On this basis,continuing suspicion about as yet undetected cultural or ethnic effects may well bewarranted.—89—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementLevel of arousal. Differences between task-related effect sizes in the four studiessuggest that there may be an optimal stress level for the observation of the effects of socialsupport. This explanation hypothesizes a curvilinear relationship between stress-relatedarousal and the attenuating effects of support. The idea would be that an inadequateamount of stress would produce too little arousal to observe attenuation and too mucharousal may override the potential benefits of supportive interaction and make attenuationmore difficult. According to this explanation, the present study may have evoked toomuch arousal and Sheffield and Carroll’s (1995) too little for observation of support-related attenuation. Although this explanation is consistent with the general patterns ofeffect sizes across studies, the Lepore et al. (1993) data do not conform to expectationsbased on this explanation. In the Lepore study, the magnitudes of task-related response inthe unsupported condition are very close to those observed in the present study, but thiseffect is confounded with position change since baseline measures were taken sitting andmeasures durint the speech standing. Support-related attenuation effects in the Leporestudy are the largest observed in all four studies. Thus, the argument that a moderate levelof stress is necessary for the observation of the protective effects of support is at best anincomplete explanation of differences between findings—the impact of postural changenot withstanding. The logic of detecting a buffering effect requires an adequate level ofstress induction, and the Sheffield and Carroll study may well have fallen below thisessential level. The Lepore data suggest, however, that support-related attenuation can bedetected even in the presence of strong stressors.— 90—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementType of support. A third possible explanation rests on the proviso explained by Cohenand Wills (1985) that in order to be effective, support must provide resources that aresalient to the challenges imposed by a specific stressor. This explanation suggests that thetype of support provided in the present study may have been less well matched to thestresses of the immediate situation than the types of support provided in the Lepore et al.(1993) and the Germ at al. (1992) studies. In the present study, support wasoperationalized as audience agreement with an expressed opinion, and this type of supportis essentially the same as that provided in the Germ study. In contrast, support in theLepore et al. study, was focused on coping with the speech task rather than on the topic ofthe speech—presumably because the topic for the speech was assigned. Confederates inthe Lepore study provided encouragement for getting through the task, reminding thespeakers that they were doing fine and that they were nearly finished.Why would audience agreement constitute stronger support in the Germ et al. (1992)study than in the present one? In the Germ et al. study, all subjects were speaking in thepresence of two disagreeing laboratory confederates. In the Support condition, a thirdconfederate agreed with the subject, while in the No-support condition, the thirdconfederate was silent. It is possible that the argumentative tone and the atmosphere ofdispute in the Germ et al. study may have set up a situation in which agreement could beregarded as a scarce—and therefore more highly valued—resource. If this is true, then theCohen and Wills (1985) proviso would predict that any agreement with subjects may havefilled an acute need and may, therefore, have been flinctionally supportive. The same levelof agreement may constitute less salient support in a less conflictual setting. In the present— 91 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementstudy and in the Lepore et al. (1993) study, speakers in the supported condition did nothave to contend with audience disagreement from other confederates. In the absence ofchallenges to their opinions, subjects may have been more likely to focus on completingtheir speech and less likely to see speech content as essential. The type of support in thepresent study did not directly address this focus on simply completing the speech, whereassupport in the Lepore et al. study did.There is some evidence that subjects in the present study were in fact focusing onsimple completion of the speech task. Ratings suggest that 39 subjects during the last halfof data collection found the most upsetting aspect of the experiment to be the need tospeak for a full five minutes. Mean ratings of the 12 items added to the “Response toSpeaking” questionnaire were compared. The two items with the highest ratings both hadto do with speaking for a full five minutes (Means = 46.30 and 41.54, SDs = 29.03 and28.84). In contrast, subjects rated the requirement of speaking on a topic they cared aboutninth of the 12 items (Mean = 21.69, SD = 21.52). Thirty-two subjects (of 39) rated bothof the speaking duration items higher than the speech content item, and none rated thecontent item higher than both speech duration items. Although these data provide aplausible explanation of response patterns, it must be noted that they are far fromdefinitive. Fewer than half of the subjects were surveyed in this manner, similar data arenot available for the other studies, and systematic assessment of subjects’ attentional focuswas not undertaken.Although this evidence is weak, the only indicators available suggest that subjects inthe present study may have been more concerned with and therefore more focused on just— 92 —Lenz Response to Audience Agreementgetting through the speech task than on the content of their speeches. To the extent thatsubjects were simply trying to complete the task, Cohen and Wills’ (1985) specificityprinciple would suggest that confederates’ agreement with their opinions may have beenseen as less than salient support for dealing with that particular stressor.Although the specificity of support argument appears to explain the differencesbetween the present results and those of Lepore et al. (1993) and Germ et al. (1992), itdoes not explain why agreeing and disagreeing confederates did not result in different CVresponses in the Sheffield and Carroll study (1995). In this case, the task was clearlyidentified as. one requiring accuracy, and it is difficult to imagine why subjects would notfind it supportive to hear that a more expert rater agreed with their answers. Divergenceof Sheffield and Carroll’s findings from those of Germ and of Lepore is, therefore, morelikely due to the fact that their task induced lower levels of CV response.Robustness of the phenomenon. This final explanation for differences in findingsacross related studies is at a more abstract level of analysis and generally subsumes theother explanations offered above. As suggested by Sheffield and Carroll (1995),divergence among findings suggests that the protective effects of social support oncardiovascular reactivity may be less robust and more situationally sensitive than wasearlier believed. If this is in fact the case-as it appears to be—then the task of determiningwhat factors affect the impact of social support on CV reactivity will depend oncomparing findings from numerous studies in which support both attenuates and fails toattenuate CV response.— 93 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementDirectionsfor Future ResearchResults of the present study suggest several avenues for continued research. The mostdirect and immediate has to do with methodology. Investigation of how sociallysupportive behavior leads to attenuation of cardiovascular response depends on the abilityto evoke and observe the phenomenon. To this end, it may be of use to explore thedifferences between subjects’ cardiovascular responses in the present study and those instudies by Germ et al. (1992) and Lepore et al. (1993). Specifically, it would be of interestwhether slightly different support—more like that which Lepore used—would result indifferent outcome with laboratory procedures that are otherwise unchanged. Becausevariation from the present protocol would be quite minor, if subjects were to responddifferently to slightly modified support, this would underscore the sensitivity of thephenomena of support-related attenuation of cardiovascular reactivity.Whether response to supportive behavior is studied in the laboratory as in the presentstudy, or whether it is done in a subject’s natural environment as recommended bySheffield and Carroll (1994, 1995), the mechanisms of action remain of primary interest.The results of the present investigation suggest that we know very little about thesubtleties of the phenomena. It may be warranted to work on the problem withexploratory techniques by conducting discussions with subjects concerning their reactionsto stress and their reactions to supportive and non-supportive behavior in others. Thetarget of such an endeavor could be finding the degree to which subjects themselves couldarticulate the basic regulatory responses Taylor (1991) describes as attendant to reactionsto negative events. If successful, an approach like this could be useful in developing—94—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementhypotheses about the types of social interactions subjects perceive as supportive andhypotheses about social cognitions related to cardiovascular response to support. Just asTolman once advocated that a researcher try to see the maze from the point-of-view of therat (Tolman, 1948), it may be of use to modern stress researchers to try to see ourlaboratory procedures through the eyes of our subjects.Similar exploration could be undertaken in a slightly different vein, by building uponpreviously successful identification of linkage between social support and ambulatoryblood pressure (Linden et al., 1993). Although others have reported connections betweenambulatory CV measures and social support (Unden et a!., 1991), it has not beeninvestigated in detail what specific day-to-day events or interactions are perceived bysubjects as supportive or helpful. The drawback is that exploration of these issues wouldrequire sophisticated event-monitoring techniques which would probably need to beimplemented in conjunction with extensive interview.ConclusionsBoth report of the supportiveness of the laboratory confederate and the strongcardiovascular response to the experimental procedures indicated a valid experimentalprocedure. The support-related attenuation of CV response to the stress task was apparenton heart rate, providing partial support for earlier findings in research that provokedadequate levels of CV stress response. The lack of significant findings on blood pressuremeasures—together with strong indications of internal validity—argues for viewing the—95—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementeffects of social support on CV responsivity as more volatile and probably moresituationally determined than was previously believed.Several minor goals were addressed by the present study. As in earlier research, menwere found slightly more responsive to the stress-induction task, but no sex differenceswere found in response to supportive audience behavior. The present study contributes byproviding additional evidence against the existence of important sex differences incardiovascular response to manipulations of social support in laboratory research.Fluctuation in self-esteem was not a significant explanatory factor for the observed effectsof social support. The refined self-report instruments produced generally interpretableresults with better synchrony between self-report and physiological measures thanpreviously observed. Results suggested that self-report of simple arousal level is probablyan inadequate measure of subjective response to procedures like those used in the presentstudy.The major goal of the present study—to examine the appropriateness of neutralcontrols in social support research—appears to have been accomplished with littleambiguity. A neutral or non-communicative audience response is clearly not moreupsetting or arousing than straightforward disagreement.The present study has led to unanticipated conclusions. The identified reason forquestioning the interpretation of laboratory social support research—that the type ofcontrol group was inadequate—is clearly wrong. However, instead of bolstering thatresearch, the present findings present a challenge of a different type: The effects ofsupport on cardiovascular reactivity appear less reproducible than anticipated and are— 96—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementlikely to be dependent on subtle situational factors that have not been clearly identified.The most likely cause of differences between closely related studies is that supportivebehavior may need to be finely tuned to stress-related needs of a situation if it is to beeffective. This notion, which is drawn from Cohen and Wills (1985), has potentiallyimportant implications for the design and implementation of supportive interventions, andit means that it is essential to tailor support to a recipient’s current needs. This principlewas clearly articulated in applied writings in the field of social support a decade ago (e.g.,Cohen, S. & Syme, 1985; Cohen, S. & Wills, 1985; Cohen, W. S., 1985; Wills, 1985).The present data add empirical support for the importance of this relatively common-senseprinciple and also suggest that determining the exact nature of those needs may at times bedifficult.— 97—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementREFERENCESAllen, K. M., Blascovich, 3., Tomaka, J., & Kelsey, R. M. (1991). Presence of humanfriends and pet dogs as moderators of autonomic responses to stress in women.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ]., 582-589.Berkman, L. F. (1985). The relationship of social networks and social support tomorbidity and mortality. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health(pp. 241-262). Orlando,FL: Academic Press.Berkman, L. F., & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: A9-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal ofEpidemiology, i, 186-204.Berkman, L. F., Vaccarino, V., & Seeman, T. (1993). Gender differences incardiovascular morbidity and mortality: The contribution of social networks andsupport. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, j.., 112-118.Berntson, G. G., Cacioppo, J. T., Binkley, P. F., Uchino, B. N., Quigley, K. S., &Fieldstone, A. (1994). Autonomic cardiac control. III. Psychological stress andcardiac response in autonomic space as revealed by pharmacological blockades.Psychophysiology, II, 599-608.Blazer, D. G. (1982). Social support and mortality in an elderly community population.American Journal of Epidemiology, jj., 684-694.— 98 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementBlumenthal, J. A., Jiang, W., Robinson, L., Budinger, S., Hayano, J., Waugh, R., Phillips,B., Thurber, D., Coleman, E., Frid, D., & O’Connor, C. (1992, March).Cardiovascular reactivity during mental stress predicts myocardial ischemia in thelaboratory and during daily life. Paper presented at the 13th annual scientific sessionsof the Society of Behavioral Medicine, New York.Boyce, W. T., & Chesterman, E. (1990). Life events, social support, and cardiovascularreactivity in adolescence. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, II,105-111.Burger, J. M. (1992). Desire for control and academic performance. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science, 4, 147-155.Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Binkley, P. F., Quigley, K. S., Uchino, B. N., &Fieldstone, A. (1994). Autonomic cardiac control. II. Noninvasive indices and basalresponse as revealed by autonomic blockades. Psychophysiology, j, 586-598.Cassel, J. (1976). Contributions of the social environment to host resistance: The fourthWade Hampton Frost lecture. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1Q4, 107-123.Cobb, 5. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine,38, 300-314.Cohen, S., Evans, G. W., Stokols, D., & Krantz, D. 5. (1986). Behavior, health, andenvironmental stress. New York: Plenum Press.— 99 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementCohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers oflife change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, i.., 99-125.Cohen, S., & Matthews, K. A. (1987). Social support, Type A behavior, and coronaryartery disease. Psychosomatic Medicine, 4, 325-330.Cohen, S., Mermeistein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H. M. (1985). Measuring thefunctional components of social support. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.),Social support: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 73-94). Netherlands: MartinusNijhoff.Cohen, S., & Syme, S. L. (1985). Issues in the study and application of social support. InS. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 3-22). Orlando,FL:Academic Press.Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin, , 310-357.Cohen, W. S. (1985). Health promotion in the workplace: A prescription for good health.American Psychologist, 4, 213-216.Coyne, J. C., & Bolger, N. (1990). Doing without social support as an explanatoryconcept. Special Issue: Social support in social and clinical psychology. Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, , 148-158.—100—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementEdens, J. L., Larkin, K. T., & Abel, J. L. (1992). The effects of social support andphysical touch on cardiovascular reactions to mental stress. Journal of PsychosomaticResearch, , 371-382.Fontana, A. F., Kerns, R. D., Rosenberg, R. L., & Colonese, K. L. (1989). Support,stress, and recovery from coronary heart disease: A longitudinal causal model. HealthPsychology, , 175-193.Fredrikson, M., & Matthews, K. A. (1990). Cardiovascular responses to behavioral stressand hypertension: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, j, 30-39.Germ, W., Mimer, D., Chawla, S., & Pickering, T. G. (1995). Social support as amoderator of cardiovascular reactivity in women: A test of the direct effects andbuffering hypotheses. Psychosomatic Medicine, 5j, 16-22.Germ, W., Pieper, C., Levy, R., & Pickering, T. G. (1992). Social support in socialinteraction: A moderator of cardiovascular reactivity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 54,324-336.Germ W., Pieper, C,, Marchese, L., & Pickering, T. G. (1992). The multi-dimensionalnature of active coping: Differential effects of enhanced control on cardiovascularreactivity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 54, 707-7 19.Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology.Englewooci Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.— 101—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementHeatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale formeasuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Q, 895-910.Heitzman, C. A., & Kaplan, R. M. (1988). Assessment of methods for measuring socialsupport. Health Psychology, 7, 75-109.Helgeson, V. 5. (1993). Two important distinctions in social support research: Kind ofsupport and perceived versus received. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,825-845.House, J. S., Robbins, C., & Metzner, H. M. (1982). The association of socialrelationships and activities with mortality: Prospective evidence from the TecumsehCommunity Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, jj, 123-140.House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988). Structures and processes of socialsupport. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 293-318.Howell, D. C. (1987). Statistical Methods for Psychology (2nd ed.). Boston: DuxburyPress.Janis, I. L., & Field, P. B. (1959). Sex differences and factors related to persuasibility. InC. I. Hovland & I. L. Janis (Eds.), Personality and persuasibility (pp. 55-68). NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.—102—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementKamarck, T. W., Manuck, S. B., & Jennings, J. R. (1990). Social support reducescardiovascular reactivity to psychological challenge: A laboratory model.Psychosomatic Medicine, 52, 42-5 8.Kamarck, T., Peterman, A., & Marco, C. -Social integration and cardiovascular reactivityin a married community sample.Kaplan, G. A., Salonen, J. T., Cohen, R. D., Brand, R. J., Syme, S. L., & Puska, P.(1988). Social connections and mortality from all causes and from cardiovasculardisease: Prospective evidence from eastern Finland. American Journal ofEpidemiology, j., 370-380.Katz, R., & Wykes, T. (1985). The psychological difference between temporallypredictable and unpredictable stressful events: Evidence for information controltheories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 781-790.Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Greenberg, B. (1984). Social support as a moderator of theaftereffects of stress in female psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,, 192-199.Knox, S. S., Theorell, T., Svensson, J. C., & Waller, D. (1985). The relation of socialsupport and working environment to medical variables associated with elevated bloodpressure in young males: A structural model. Social Science and Medicine, j, 525-531.— 103—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementKors, D. J., Linden, W., & Germ, W. (1995). Evaluation interferes with social support:Effects cardiovascular stress reactivity in women. Manuscript submitted forpublication.Krantz, D. S., & Manuck, S. B. (1984). Acute psychophysiologic reactivity and risk ofcardiovascular disease: A review and methodologic critique. Psychological Bulletin,96, 435-464.Lamensdorf A. M., & Linden, W. (1992). Family history of hypertension andcardiovascular changes during high and low affect provocation. Psychophysiology,29, 558-565.Lepore, S. J., Allen, K. A. M., & Evans, G. W. (1993). Social support lowerscardiovascular reactivity to an acute stressor, Psychosomatic Medicine, , 518-524.Linden, W., Chambers, L., Maurice, J., & Lenz, J. W. (1993). Sex differences in socialsupport, self-deception, hostility, and ambulatory cardiovascular activity. HealthPsychology, j, 376-380.Linden, W., & Zinimermann, B. (1984). Comparative accuracy of two new electronicdevices for the noninvasive determination of blood pressure. Biofeedback and SelfRegulation, 9, 229-239.Manuck, S. B. (1994). Cardiovascular reactivity and cardiovascular disease: “Once moreinto the breach”. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1 4-3 1.—104—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementManuck, S. B., Kasprowicz, A. L., & Muldoon, M. F. (1990). Behaviorally-evokedcardiovascular reactivity and hypertension: Conceptual issues and potentialassociations. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 17-29.Mehrabian, A., & Russell, 3. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Orth-Gomer, K., & Johnson, J. (1987). Social network interaction and mortality: A sixyear follow-up study of a random sample of the Swedish population. Journal ofChronic Disease, 40, 949-957.Pickering, T. G., & Germ, W. (1990). Cardiovascular reactivity in the laboratory and therole of behavioral factors in hypertension: A critical review. Annals of BehavioralMedicine, j, 3-16.Rachman, S. J. (1990). Fear and courage (2nd ed,). New York: W. H. Freeman.Reed, D., McGee, D., & Yano, K. (1984). Psychosocial processes and generalsusceptibility to chronic disease. American Journal of Epidemiology, 119, 3 56-370.Reed, D., McGee, D., Yano, K., & Feinleib, M. (1983). Social networks and coronaryheart disease among Japanese men in Hawaii. American Journal of Epidemiology,11.7, 384-396.Russell, J. A. (1979). Affective space is bipolar. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 7, 345-3 56.— 105 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementRussell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect Grid: A single-item scaleof.pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 493-502.Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing socialsupport: The social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 4, 127-139.Schneiderman, N., & McCabe, P. M. (1989). Psychophysiologic strategies in laboratoryresearch. In N. Schneiderman, S. P. Weiss, & P. G. Kaufmann (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch methods in cardiovascular behavioral medicine (pp. 349-3 64). New York:Plenum Press.Schoenbach, V. J., Kaplan, B. H., Fredman, L., & Kieinbaum, D. G. (1986). Social tiesand mortality in Evans County, Georgia. American Journal of Epidemiology, i,577-591.Sheffield, D., & Carroll, D. (1994). Social support and cardiovascular reactions to activelaboratory stressors. Psychology and Health, , 305-316.Sheffield, D., & Carroll, D. (1995, April). Task-induced cardiovascular activity and thepresence of a supportive or undermining other. Presented at the poster session of theSociety of Behavioral Medicine, San Diego, CA.Spitzer, S. B., Llabre, M. M., Ironson, G. H., Geilman, M. D., & Schneiderman, N.(1992). The influence of social situations on ambulatory blood pressure.Psychosomatic Medicine, 4, 79-86.—106—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementStevens, J. (1992). App1ied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.Syme, S. L. (1974). Behavioral factors associated with the etiology of physical disease: Asocial epidemiological approach. American Journal of Public Health, 4, 1043-1045.Syme, S. L., Hyman, M. M., & Enterline, P. E. (1964). Some social and cultural factorsassociated with the occurrence of coronary heart disease. Journal of Chronic Disease,]J, 277-289.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. 5. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics (2nd ed.). NewYork: Harper-Collins.Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: Themobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, ]IQ, 67-85.Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, , 189-208.Uchino, B. N., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992), Age-related changes incardiovascular response as a function of a chronic stressor and social support. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, , 839-846.Unden, A.-L., Orth-Gomer, K., & Elofsson, 5. (1991). Cardiovascular effects of socialsupport in the work place: Twenty four-hour ECG monitoring of men and women.Psychosomatic Medicine, , 50-60.—107—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementWaliston, B. S., Alagna, S. W., DeVellis, B. M., & DeVellis, R. F. (1983). Social supportand physical health. Health Psychology, 2, 367-391.Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood.Psychological Bulletin, 9, 2 19-235.Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of HumanCommunication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. NewYork: W. W. Norton & Company.Weiss, J. M. (1968). Effects of coping responses on stress. Journal of Comparative andPhysiological Psychology, , 25 1-260.Welin, L., Tibblin, G., Svardsucld, K., Tibblin, B., Ander-Peciva, S., Larsson, B., &Wilhelmsen, L. (1985). Prospective study of social influences on mortality: The studyof men born in 1913 and 1923. Lancet, 1, 915-918.Wills, T. A. (1985). Supportive functions of interpersonal relationships. In S. Cohen & S.L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 61-82). Orlando,FL: Academic Press.— 108—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAPPENDIX A— QuEsTIoNNAmis AN]) SCRiPTSAppendix A— Number 1.1. Recruitment PosterWHAT HAPPENSWHEN YOU. TALK?Find out how your body respondswhen you speak your mindor listen to the opinions of others.We are looking for volunteers to participate in a studyexamining changes in blood pressure that occur when peoplediscuss issues that are important to them.1 /2 Credit PointsFor more information—or to volunteer—please callthe Psychophysiology Lab, Dr. W. Linden,Department of Psychology, U.B.C. (Project # 93-37)822-3800 Open 8:30—4:30 weekdays.Please leave a message for a return callif you phone after hours.—109—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix A— Number 2.2. Telephone Screening GuidePHONE SCREEN—SPEECH STUDYIntroduce yourself as from Dr. Linden’s Cardiovascular Lab at UBCDepartment of Psychology.Tell you are calling about the Speaking and Listening study.Inform that the study takes a bit over an hour plus some preparation time.They get 2 (TWO!)credit points for participating.Inform that you have to ask some questions to make sure they are right for thestudy.If anything questionable is going on with them, fill in a Phone Datascreening sheet with detail. (If clear exclusion or clearly anacceptable subject, no sheet necessary.)Have you ever been told by a doctor that you have any of these diseases?High blood pressure (Get & record any info.)Heart disease (exclude)Kidney or Liver disease (exclude)Diabetes (exclude)Are you taking any medication?What is itfor? (Query BP meds, anxiety meds, antidepressants. Get drug name, dosage& how long)Is English your main language? YES/NOIf “NO”--- How old were you when your schooling began to be in English?(Exclude fover 10.) (Record age if under 10)We ask that you avoid afew things before coming to the lab. For 2 hours before, please1) Do not drink anything with caffeine or alcohoL2) Do not smoke or use tobacco or nicotine in anyform.3) Do not exercise strenuously (break a sweat).Also,4) Try to arrive as relaxed as possible.—110—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementSet appointment timeThat means that after_______(apt time less 2 hrs) you won’t be able to drink coffee teaor coke or alcohol, smoke, or exercise. Do you think you will be able to do that all right?Give directions to the Kenny Bldg if necessary. Tell how to find the LAB. Give Labphone & ask to call if problems.—111—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix A — Number 3.3. Consent FormNote: Original was printed (single-spaced) on Department ofPsychology letterheadCONSENT FORMI,_____________________________________,agree to participate in a research(Print Name)project entitled “Physiologic responses during speaking and listening” which is to beconducted in the cardiovascular psychophysiology laboratory in the PsychologyDepartment at the University of British Columbia as a dissertation project by Joseph Lenz,M.S., with Dr. Wolfgang Linden as the faculty advisor (phone 822-4156). This study willinvolve the completion of various questionnaires during a sixty-minute lab session with anadditional 5 to 10 minutes possibly needed for explanations. The study requires me torelax for 10 minutes while my blood pressure is monitored. I will then be asked to preparea speech on a social topic important to me and to deliver it in front of another subjectwhile the speech is recorded on videotape and blood pressure is monitored. After thespeech I will be asked to rest quietly and to fill out some more brief questionnaires. Afterthat, questions about the study will be answered. I understand that multiplecardiovascular functions will be monitored throughout the session. All monitors are noninvasive in nature, are harmless, and lead to no foreseeable risks to my health or safety.I understand that I may refuse to participate and withdraw from the study at any timewithout influence on my class standing. All information collected is strictly confidential.—112—Lenz Response to Audience Agreen2entAll information will be recorded in group form and will remain strictly anonymous. Therewill be no identification of me personally on any permanent records.If I have a problem with this experiment, I understand that I may contact either JosephLenz at 822-7915 or Dr. Linden at 822-4156. In addition, Dr. Jerry Wiggins is in chargeof the subject recruitment committee and can be contacted at 822-6536.Signature below indicates the following: (1) The procedures to be followed have beenexplained to me. (2) Questions, if any, have been answered to my satisfaction. (3) I haveread and have understood the content of this consent form. (4)1 have received a copy ofthis consent form.Research Participant Witness(Signature)Date:________________Laboratory contact Number: 822-3800—113—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix A— Number 4.4. Collection Form for Demographic DataCULTURE QUESTIONNAIRESubject# DateInstructions: For each question below, circle the number of the item thatdescribes you best. Some items also ask you to provide additional information.Please answer all of the questions.1. What languages can you speak fluently?____________________________________2. Which of the languages did you learn first?_______________________3. Which language do you prefer for conversation?_______________________4. If you were born outside North America, at what age did you first come toNorth America?_______5. Please name the country in which you were born.Canada Other—Where?_________________________ Don’t knowWhere was your mother born?Canada Other—Where?________________________ Don’t knowWhere was your father born?Canada Other—Where?________________________ Don’t know6. How do you describe your own cultural or ethnic identity?(For example: Canadian, Japanese, Cantonese, American, East-Indian, FirstNations, or French-Canadian, Indo-Canadian, Asian-Canadian, Ukranian-Canadian, etc.)—114—Lenz Response to Audience Agreement7. What was the ethnic origin of the friends and peers you had,as a child up to age 6?1—Almost exclusively from my own cultural group2—Mostly from my own cultural group3—About equally from my group and Anglo or other groups(“Anglo” means English-speaking.)4—Mostly Anglos or from cultural groups other than my own5—Almost exclusively Anglos or from cultural groups other than my own8. Whom do you now associate with in the community?1—Almost exclusively from my own cultural group2—Mostly from my own cultural group3—About equally from my group and Anglo or other groups(“Anglo” means English-speaking.)4—Mostly Anglos or from cultural groups other than my own5—Almost exclusively Anglos or from cultural groups other than my own9. Do you participate in special occasions, holidays, traditions, etc. that are specific toyour culture of ethnic origin?1—Nearly all of them2—Most of them3—Some of them4—A few of them5—None at all10. How much do you identify with each culture:(a) Your culture of ethnic origin:1—Very much2—Mostly3—Partially or somewhat4—A little5—Not at all(b) Anglo-Canadian culture:1—Very much2—Mostly3—Partially or somewhat4—A little5—Not at all— 115—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix A — Number 5.5. State Self-Esteem Scale (Current Thoughts)CURRENT THOUGHTSSubject # Date I / pInstructions: This is a questionnaire designed to measure what you are thinking at thismoment. There is, of course, no right answer for any statement. The best answer is whatyou feel is true of yourself at this moment. Be sure to answer all of the items, even if youare not certain of the best answer. Again, answer these questions as they are true for youRIGHT NOW.Please use thefollowing scale when answering the questions:Not at all A little bit Somewhat Very much Extremely1 2 3 4 51.____I feel confident about my abilities.2. I am worried about whether I am regarded as a success of failure.3. I feel satisfied with the way my body looks right now.4. I feel frustrated or rattled about my performance.5. I feel that I am having trouble understanding things that I read.6. I feel that others respect and admire me.7. I am dissatisfied with my weight.8. I feel self-conscious.9. I feel as smart as others.10. I feel displeased with myself11. I feel good about myself12. I am pleased with my appearance right now.13. I am worried about what other people think of me.14. I feel confident that I understand things.15. I feel inferior to others at this moment.16. I feel unattractive.17. I feel concerned about the impression I am making.18. I feel that I have less scholastic ability right now than others.19. I feel like I’m not doing well.20. I am worried about looking foolish.—116—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix A— Number 6.6. Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)LS.E.LSubject # DateInstructions: This scale is made up of a list of statements each of which may or maynot be true about you. For each statement, we would like you to circle T if the statementis probably TRUE about you or circle F if the statement is probably FALSE about you.You may find that some of the statements are neither clearly true nor clearly false. Inthese cases, try to decide quickly whether ‘probably TRUE T” or “probably FALSE F” ismost descriptive of you. Although some questions will be difficult to answer, it isimportant that you pick one alternative or the other. Remember to circle only one of thealternatives for each statement.Please read each item quickly but carefhlly before responding. Remember that this isnot a test and there are no right or wrong answers.T = Probably TRUEF Probably FALSET F 1. I have a hard time keeping pace with my friends.T F 2. There are very few people I trust to help solve my problems.T F 3. No one I know would throw a birthday party for me.T F 4. In general, people don’t have much confidence in me.T F 5. Most of my friends are more successful at making changes in their lives than Iam.T F 6. If for some reason I were put in jail, there is someone I could call who would bailme out.T F 7. I have someone who takes pride in my accomplishments.T F 8. I feel that I’m on the fringe in my circle of friends.T F 9. When I need suggestions for how to deal with a personal problem, I know thereis someone I can turn to.—117—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementT F 10. If I were sick and needed someone to drive me to the doctor, I would havetrouble finding someone.T F 11. If I wanted to go out of town (e.g., to the coast) for the day, I would have ahard time finding someone to go with me.T F 12. Most of my friends are more interesting than I am.T F 13. If I needed a quick emergency loan of $100, there is someone I could get itfrom.T F 14. There is really no one who can give me objective feedback about how I’mhandling my problems.T F 15. There is at least one person I know whose advice I really trust.T F 16. If I needed some help in moving to a new home, I would have a hard timefinding someone to help me.T F 17. When I feel lonely, there are several people I could easily call and talk to.T F 18. I feel there is no one with whom I can share my most private worries and fears.T F 19. There are several different people with whom I enjoy spending time.T F 20. There is someone who I feel comfortable going to for advice about sexualproblems.T F 21. Most people I know don’t enjoy the same things that I do.T F 22. If I wanted to have lunch with someone, I could easily find someone to join me.T F 23. If I had to go out of town for a few weeks, someone I know would look aftermy home (the plants, pets, yard, etc.).T F 24. If I needed a ride to the airport very early in the morning, I would have a hardtime finding anyone to take me.T F 25. I don’t often get invited to do things with others.—118—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementT F 26. I think that my friends feel that I’m not very good at helping them solveproblems.T F 27. I regularly meet or talk with members of my family or with friends.T F 28. I am more satisfied with my life than most people are with theirs.T F 29. ff1 decide on a Friday afternoon that I would like to go to a movie that evening,I could find someone to go with me.T F 30. If I had to mail an important letter at the post office by 5:00 and couldn’t makeit, there is someone who could do it for me.T F 31. Most people I know think highly of me.T F 32. I am able to do things as well as most other people.T F 33. There is really no one I can trust to give me good financial advice.T F 34. There is someone I can turn to for advice about handling hassles over householdresponsibilities.T F 35. There is no one I could call on if I needed to borrow a car for a few hours.T F 36. If a family crisis arose, few of my friends would be able to give me good adviceabout handling it.T F 37. If I were sick, there would be almost no one I could find to help me with mydaily chores.T F 38. There is someone I could turn to for advice about changing my job or finding anew one.T F 39. If I got stranded 10 miles out of town, there is someone I could call to comeand get me.T F 40. I am closer to my friends than most other people.—119—Lenz Response to Audience Agreement7. Affect GridSubject #GrId 2DateAppendix A— Number 7.HighStress ArousalRelaxationHighArousal ExcitementDIRECTIONS:DepressionPlease rate how you are feeling riaht now, by placing an X in one of theboxes anywhere on the grid. See example grids above.High ArousalSleepinessPleasantFeelingsExcitement StressxxDepression SleepinessExamule 1: A neutral, everyday feelingPleasantFeelingsSleepiness RelaxationA somewhat exciting andmoderately pleasant feelingDepressionExamole 2:StressUnpieaswtFeeling.ExcitementRelaxation—120—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix A — Number 8.8. Important Topics QuestionnaireIMPORTANT TOPICSSubject#______DateInstructions: This questionnaire is designed to find out what social or political topics aremost important to you. Please select and rank the top three topics. Number them 1- 2 -3 with number I being your top choice. Base your choices on the following:How much you personally care about the issue (How important it seems to you)How much you know about the issueYou should care strongly about and know a good deal about your number one choice.MARK THETOP THREE1-2-3:____Abortion rightsAnimal rights (experimentation using animals)Death penaltyFirst Nations land claimsLegal handling of pedophiles (child molesters)Logging clear-cuts (e.g., Clayoquot Sound)Penalties for environmental protestersPhysician-assisted suicideRefugee status for immigrantsUse of U.N. “Peacekeeping” forces (e.g., in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda)Young Offenders’ ActOther—name itOther—name it— 121 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix A— Number 9.9. Reactions to Speaking QuestionnaireReactions to SpeakingInstructions: For each question below, mark the line to indicate how you think or feel.Use a single line or slash mark to indicate your response.Rate how you felt during your speech by marking positions on the lines below.I.Stressed RelaxedSafe UnsafeUncomfortable ComfortableAngry Not angryNot nervous NervousCalm ExcitedWorried ContentII.Did you explain your opinions and your feelings clearly?Not at all Very MuchDid you present your arguments and opinions in an interesting way?Not at all Very MuchDo most other people you know agree with the opinions you expressed in your speech?Not at all Very MuchAs you spoke, did your voice express how strongly you feel?Not at all Very MuchDuring the speech, did you have an urge to leave the laboratory?Not at all Very Much—122—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementWould you have preferred to give your talk with no one else present?Not at all Very MuchDid the other student really listen to your talk?Not at all Very MuchDo you think the other student understands your position well enough to explain it tosomeone else?Not at all Very MuchDo you feel respected by the student who listened to your speech?Not at all Very Muchifi.How would you describe the student who listened to your speech?Supportive UnsupportiveClose DistantRejecting AcceptingFriendly UnfriendlyWarm ColdHelpful UnhelpfulNOTE: Thefollowing 12 Items were added to the Reactions to Speaking Questionnairefor the last 39 subjects.W. Rate how upsetting (that is, bothersome or anxiety-provoking) each of thefollowing events were during the experiment:Having to talk on a topic you care about—Not at all upsetting Very upsetting— 123 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementTrying to come up with enough material to talk about for 5 minutes—Not at all upsetting Very upsettingSaying your speech to the other student—Not at all upsetting Very upsettingTalking in front of an operating video camera—Not at all upsetting Very upsettingHaving a one-way mirror in the room as you were talking—Not at all upsetting Very upsettingBeing able to see yourself in the mirror as you were talking—Not at all upsetting Very upsettingMaking eye contact with the other student while you were speaking—Not at all upsetting Very upsettingHaving the other student face you and look at you as you spoke—Not at all upsetting Very upsettingThe other student’s facial expression while you were speaking—Not at all upsetting Very upsettingTrying to continue to speak for the full 5 minutes—Not at all upsetting Very upsettingThings the other student said while you were speaking—Not at all upsetting Very upsettingKnowing that your blood pressure was being monitored as you spoke—Not at all upsetting Very upsetting—124—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix A — 10.10. Speech Helper FormSPEECH HELPERRemember, begin by:Telling your opinion clearly & stronglyTell the important facts.Make arguments in support of your opinion.How has your belief changed your life? Do you act differentlybecause of your belief? Why? How did the change come about?Argue against opposing opinions. Show how inconsistent oruncaring or inaccurate opposing views often are. Don’t hesitate to be reallycritical.Make a joke or ridicule opposing ideas. Take the opposing viewto extreme and reduce it to absurdity.Make definitions. How do others misunderstand the topic or useterms or ideas inaccurately.If others held your opinion, how would the world (Canada, BC,Vancouver) be a better place? Give some examples. Give as many as you can.If your opinion is ignored and its opposite becomes dominant, howwould this make the world a worse place? Give examples.Explore the impact of this topic from different angles:MoralSocialLegalFinancialLogicalHow did you first learn of this issue? Tell it like a story.What convinced you of its importance?Tell about discussions or arguments you have had on this topic.— 125—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementDon’t hesitate to tell it as a story.What have you read about this issue? What have you seen in themedia about it?What have you experienced on this issue? How about others youknow or have heard about?Repeat your main point. Or repeat anything else you have said.— 126 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix A Number 11.11. Debriefing Form (Given to all participants)Original printed (single-spaced) on Department of Psychology letterhead.STUDY EXPLANATIONPhysiologic Responses during Speaking and ListeningA number of studies have shown that speaking in front of an audience leads toincreases in blood pressure and heart rate. A few have demonstrated that these increasesare less pronounced if the audience expresses agreement and support for the speaker. Thetype of audience used for comparison has been non-responsive. We believe that it ispossible that speaking to a non-responsive listener is particularly difficult and may raiseblood pressure. If this is true, the health-protecting effects of having a supportive listenermay have been over- estimated in past studies. The study in which you are participating isdesigned to answer this and other related questions.The goals of the study are as follows:1) Examine the effects of warm agreement, opposition, and silence oncardiovascular arousal to clarify whether social support lowers blood pressure response tospeaking in public or whether non-responsive audiences increase blood pressure.2) Examine the effects of agreement, disagreement, and non-committalresponse on a speaker’s self-esteem and compare changes in self-esteem with bloodpressure changes.3) Compare responses of men and women in identical social situations.—127—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementSubjects have each been assigned at random a listener who agrees or disagrees orwho remains silent and uncommitted. The other ttsubject’ in this study is a U.B.C. studentwho is employed in this laboratory to play the role of a listener. She (or he) has beentrained to give precise verbal and non-verbal response to speakers while maintainingspecified eye contact, posture, distance, etc. His (or her) responses during your speechwere pre-planned and do not necessarily represent actual opinions and responses.Because other students in your classes may be participating in this study, we ask yourcooperation in not discussing what you have learned by participating and not showingother students this sheet.Thank you once again for participating in this study. If you would like to know theresults of this study, a copy of the report will be available in six to nine months from thefollowing address:W. Linden, Ph.D.Department of Psychology2136 West MallUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, BC V6T 1Z4Phone: 822-3800iyou are interested in this area of research and would like to read more about it, youcould start with:Cohen, 5. (1988). Psychosocial models of the role of social support in the etiologyof physical disease. Health Psychology, 7, 269-297.Germ, W., Pieper, C., Levy, R., & Pickering, T. (1992). Social Support in socialinteraction: A moderator of cardiovascular reactivity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 54,324-336.— 128—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix A — Number 12.12. Debriefing ScriptNow that you have completed your participation in our study, we want to explain itsfull purpose to you.A number of studies have shown that speaking in front of an audience leads toincreases in blood pressure and heart rate. A few have demonstrated that these increasesare less pronounced if the audience expresses agreement and support for the speaker. Thetype of audience used for comparison has been non-responsive. We believe that it ispossible that speaking to a non-responsive listener if particularly difficult and may raiseblood pressure. If this is true, the health-protecting effects of having a supportive listenermay be over estimated. The study in which you are participating is designed to answerthis and other related questions.The goals of the study are as follows:1) Examine the effects of warm agreement, opposition, and silence oncardiovascular arousal to clarifj whether social support lowers blood pressure response tospeaking in public or whether non-responsive audiences increase blood pressure.2) Examine the effects of agreement, disagreement, and non-committalresponse on a speaker’s self-esteem and compare changes in self-esteem with bloodpressure changes.3) Compare responses of men and women in identical social situations.—129—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementSubjects have each been assigned at random a listener who agrees or disagrees orwho remains silent and uncommitted.The other “subject” in this study—the listener—is a U.B.C. student who is employedin this laboratory to play the role of a listener. She (or he) has been trained to give preciseverbal and non-verbal response to speakers while maintaining constantly controlled eyecontact, posture, distance, etc. His (or her) responses during your speech were preplanned and do not necessarily represent actual opinions and responses. We would like togive you an opportunity to talk frankly with this lab assistant now.(The coifederate is invited into the room and introduces self)“Hello, my name is______________________________,and I am working in thisstudy. I was assigned to act as if I agreed (or disagreed or to act as if I had no response)with your speech. If you would like to know how I actually feel about______________(the topic of the speech), I’d be happy to tell you.”(Briefdiscussion mayfollow 4fthe subject desires it.)We would like to know how you feel about the experiment now that we haveexplained the design and purposes to you. Please feel free to share your reactions to thestudy and to make suggestions if you have any.We appreciate your questions and your participation.(Hands subject the “Study Explanation” paper and explains:)This paper tells you the basic information we have just described to you. In addition,it tells you how to get a copy of the results of the study when it is complete in about six—130—Lenz Response to Audience Agreementmonths. It also suggests a couple of related articles you may want to read if you areinterested in research on social support.Because other students in your classes may be participating in this study, we ask yourcooperation in not discussing what you have learned by participating and not showingother students this sheet.Thank you once again for participating.— 131—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAPPENDIX B — STATISTICAL TABLESAppendix B— Number 1.1. Oneway ANOVA Table for Rating of Confederate’s Supportiveness byExperimental Condition(Dependent Variable Support; Groups = Experimental Condition)Source of Variation SS Signif. ofFBetween Groups 27238.14 2 13619.07 89.62 .0000Within Groups 13220.48 87 151.96Total 40458.61 89— 132—..Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix B — Number 2.2. item Descriptions and Correlations among Items in the Distress ScaleFor Items 1-6: Rate how you felt during your speech by marking positions on the linesbelow. Anchors were as follows (Response direction equated):1. Relaxed / Stressed 2. Safe / Unsafe3. Comfortable / Uncomfortable 4. Not nervous / Nervous5. Calm! Excited 6. Content / Worried7. During your speech, did you have an urge to leave the laboratory?(Not at all / Very Much)8. Would you have preferred to give your talk with no one else present?(Not at all / Very Much)CorrelationsITEM 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 .44 .73 .66 .70 .72 .53 .472 .58 .51 .31* .58 .69 .523 .65 .49 .76 .58 .574 .60 .71 .55 .435 .59 .43 .376 .63 .567 .66Pearson product-moment correlations. N = 90 for all correlations.* P < .005; for all other correlations,p < .001.— 133 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix B— Number 3.3. Tables for Multivariate and Univariate Oneway ANOVAs of Distress andPerformance RatingsMANOVA Table(Dependent Variables = Performance and Distress;Groups = Experimental Condition)Statistic Value Hvpoth. DF Error DF Signif ofFWilk’s Lambda .85 3.56 4.00 172.00 .008Oneway ANOVA Table for Rating of Distress during the Speech(Dependent Variable = Distress; Groups = Experimental Condition)Source of Variation Signif. ofFBetween Groups 4097.27 2 2048.64 6.88 .002Within Groups 25912.01 87 297.84Total 30009.28 89Oneway ANOVA Table for Rating of Speech Performance(Dependent Variable = Performance; Groups = Experimental Condition)Source of Variation Signif. ofFBetween Groups 2542.16 2 1271.08 4.36 .016Within Groups 25359.93 87 291.49Total 27902.08 89—134—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix B— Number 4.4. ANOVA Tables for Systolic Blood PressureTests of Between-Subjects Effects.Source of Variation Signif. ofFSEX 4607.30 1 4607.30 37.40 .000COND 217.23 2 108.62 0.88 .42SEXbyCOND 121.15 2 60.58 0.49 .61WITHIN CELLS 10347.37 84 123.18Tests involving ‘TASK’ Within-Subject Effect.Source of Variation Signif. ofFTASK 26580.15 1 26580.15 681.60 .000SEXbyTASK 19.56 1 19.56 0.50 .48CONDbyTASK 150.61 2 75.30 1.93 .15SEX by COND by TASK 12.70 2 6.35 0.16 .85WITHIN CELLS 3275.70 84 39.00— 135 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix B— Number 5.5. ANOVA Tables for Diastolic Blood PressureTests of Between-Subjects Effects.Source of Variation SS Signif. ofFSEX 369.80 1 369.80 5.02 .03COND 365.87 2 182.93 2.48 .09SEXbyCOND 20.13 2 10.06 0.14 .87WITHIN CELLS 6186.96 84 73.65Tests involving ‘TASK’ Within-Subject Effect.Source of Variation Signif. ofFTASK 25402.61 1 25402.61 853.54 .000SEXbyTASK 172.09 1 172.09 5.78 .018CONDbyTASK 63.08 2 31.54 1.06 .35SEX by COND by TASK 61.76 2 30.88 1.04 .36WITHIN CELLS 2499.96 84 29.76Simple Effects Analysis of SEX at Baseline and SpeechSource of Variation Signif. ofFTests involving ‘TASK at Baseline’ Within-Subject Effect.SEXatBASEL1NE 18.68 1 18.68 0.39 .53WITHIN+RESIDUAL 4170.92 88 47.40Tests involving ‘TASK during Speech’ Within-Subject Effect.SEXduring SPEECH 523.21 1 523.21 9.16 .003WITHIN+RESIDUAL 5026.84 88 57.12—136—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix B— Number 6.6. ANOVA Tables for Heart RateTests of Between-Subjects Effects.Source of Variation Signif. ofFSEX 2435.91 1 2435.91 8.80 .004COND 1238.17 2 619.08 •2.24 .11SEXbyCOND 508.79 2 254.39 0.92 .40WITHINCELLS 23241.11 84, 276.68Tests involving ‘TASK’ Within-Subject Effect.Source of Variation SS DF MS F Signif. ofFTASK 20207.14 1 20207.14 234.63 .000SEXbyTASK 133.76 1 133.76 1.55 .22CONDbyTASK 1506.14 2 753.07 8.74 .000SEXbyCONDbyTASK 315.06 2 157.53 1.83 .17WITHIN CELLS 7234.42 84 86.12Simple Effects Analysis of CONDITION at Baseline and SpeechSource of Variation SS Signif. ofFTests involving ‘TASK at Baseline’ Within-Subject Effect.COND at BASELINE 576.52 2 288.26 2.04 .136WITIIIN+RESIDTJAL 12297.51 87 141.35Tests involving ‘TASK during Speech’ Within-Subject Effect.COND during SPEECH 2167.80 2 1083.90 4.37 .016WITHJN+RESIDUAL 21571.53 87 247.95— 137 —Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix B— Number 7.7. ANOVA Tables for the Arousal Subscale of the Affect GridTests of Between-Subjects Effects.Source of Variation Signif. ofFSEX 0.20 1 0.20 0.08 .78COND 3.03 2 1.52 0.57 .56SEXbyCOND 6.63 2 3.32 1.26 .29WITHIN CELLS 221.93 84 2.64Tests involvingtTASK1Within-Subject Effect.Source of Variation SS DF MS F Signif. ofFTASK 149.42 1 149.42 105.71 .000SEXbyTASK 0.56 1 0.56 0.39 .53CONDbyTASK 1.94 2 0.97 0.69 .51SEX by COND by TASK 0.34 2 0.17 0.12 .89WITHiN CELLS 118.73 84 1.41— 138—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix B— Number 8.8. ANOVA Tables for the Pleasantness Subscale of the Affect GridTests of Between-Subjects Effects.Source of Variation £S. MS. Signif ofFSEX 0.45 1 0.45 0.14 .71COND 41.68 2 20.84 6.25 .003SEXbyCOND 2.63 2 1.32 0.40 .67WITHIN CELLS 279.93 84 3.33Tests involving ‘TASK’ Within-Subject Effect.Source of Variation Signif. ofFTASK 29.61 1 29.61 10.75 .002SEX by TASK 4.05 1 4.05 1.47 .23COND by TASK 13.34 2 6.67 2.42 .095SEX by COND by TASK 1.23 2 .62 0.22 .80WITHIN CELLS 231.27 84 2.75Simple Effects Analysis of CONDITION at Pre- and Post-TaskSource of Variation J1 Signif. ofFTests involving ‘TASK at Pre-Task’ Within-Subject Effect.COND atPRE-TASK 5.27 2 2.63 1.13 .33WITHIN+RESIDUAL 202.33 87 2.33Tests involving ‘TASK at Post-Task’ Within-Subject Effect.COND at POST-TASK 49.76 2 24.88 6.82 .002WITHIN+RESLDUAL 317.23 87 3.65—139—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix B— Number 9.9. ANOVA Tables for the Appearance Esteem Subscale of the SSESTests of Between-Subjects Effects.Source of Variation 55 M. Signif. ofFSEX 53.65 1 53.65 1.60 .21COND 9.56 2 4.7 0.14 .87SEXbyCOND 3.32 2 1.66 0.05 95WITHIN CELLS 2788.72 83 33.60Tests involving ‘TASK’ Within-Subject Effect.Source of Variation SS Signif. ofFTASK 0.91 1 0.91 0.63 .43SEXbyTASK 0.01 1 0.01 0.01 .94COND by TASK 2.30 2 1.15 0.80 .45SEX by COND by TASK 1.24 2 0.62 0.43 .65WITHEN CELLS 118.99 83 1.43—140—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix B— Number 10.10. ANOVA Tables for the Social Esteem Subscale of the SSESTests of Between-Subjects Effects.Source of Variation SS Signif. ofFSEX 25.33 1 25.33 0.40 .53COND 168.03 2 84.02 1.32 .27SEX by COND 24.43 2 12.22 0.19 .83WITHIN CELLS 5299.40 83 63.85Tests involving TASK’ Within-Subject Effect.Source of Variation Signif. ofFTASK 5.90 1 5.90 1.25 .27SEXbyTASK 3.37 1 3.37 0.71 .40COND by TASK 19.48 2 9.74 2.06 .14SEX by COND by TASK 14.29 2 7.15 1.51 .23WITHIN CELLS 393.38 83 4.74— 141—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix B— Number 11.11. ANOVA Tables for the Performance Esteem Subscale of the SSESTests of Between-Subjects Effects.Source of Variation DF MS Signif ofFSEX 9.36 1 9.36 0.19 .66COND 107.04 2 53.52 1.11 .34SEXbyCOND 0.26 2 13.00 0.00 .99WITHIN CELLS 4004.03 83 48.24Tests involving ‘TASK’ Within-Subject Effect.Source of Variation Signif. ofFTASK 0.21 1 0.21 0.06 .80SEXbyTASK 5.57 1 5.57 1.66 .20CONDbyTASK 15.88 2 7.94 2.37 .10SEX by COND by TASK 1.02 2 0.51 0.15 .86WITHIN CELLS 277.86 83 3.35—142—Lenz Response to Audience AgreementAppendix B— Number 12.12 Means and (Standard Deviations) of Change in Cardiovascular and Self-reportMeasures by Experimental ConditionAGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREESBP 22.29 23.91 26.72(8.85) (9.16) (8.12)DBP 24.69 22.09 24.49(6.78) (9.07) (7.77)HR 15.11 19.49 28.97(7.58) (15.08) (15.65)AFFECT GRID -Arousal 1.77 1.60 2.10(1.79) (1.35) (1.79)-Pleasantness —0.13 —0.83 -1.47(2.49) (2.29) (2.21)SSES -Social 1.31* 0.03 —0.23(2.69) (3.36) (3.18)-Performance 0.62* 0.00 —0.83(2.06) (2.99) (2.56)-Appearance 0.17* —0.37 —0.23(1.47) (1.61) (1.91)* n 29; for all other scores, n = 30.— 143 —


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items