METHODS: We reviewed 22 previous studies that (1) empirically manipulated social support in a stressful situation, (2) measured CVR, and (3) tested a moderator of social support effects on CVR.
RESULTS: Although a majority of studies reported a CVR-mitigating effect of social support resulting in an overall significant combined p-value, we found that there were different effects of social support on CVR when we considered high- and low-engagement contexts. That is, compared to control conditions, social support lowered CVR in more engaging situations but had no significant effect on CVR in less engaging situations.
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a dual-effect model of social support effects on CVR may better capture the nature of social support, CVR, and health associations than the buffering hypothesis and emphasize a need to better understand the health implications of physiological reactivity in various contexts. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? According to the stress-buffering hypothesis (Cohen & McKay, ), one pathway social support benefits health is through mitigating the physiological arousal caused by stress. However, previous studies that examined the effects of social support on blood pressure and heart rate changes were not consistently supporting the hypothesis. Some studies reported that social support causes elevations in cardiovascular reactivity (CVR) to stress (Anthony & O'Brien, ; Hilmert, Christenfeld, & Kulik, ; Hilmert, Kulik, & Christenfeld, ) and others showed no effect of social support on CVR (Christian & Stoney, ; Craig & Deichert, ; Gallo, Smith, & Kircher, ). What does this study add? When participants were in more engaging conditions, social support decreased CVR relative to no support. When participants were in less engaging conditions, social support did not have a significant effect on CVR. Provide an alternative way to explain the ways social support affects cardiac health.
METHODS: Through stratified random sampling, 1469 students, aged 18-19 years, were enrolled. Participants whose score achieved the aggressive evaluation standard were selected and then 60 participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: G-IPT and control. The participants in the G-IPT group received 16 sessions of treatment, whereas the participants in the control group did not receive any intervention. All participants completed the assessment three times: before, after, and tracking.
RESULTS: The results showed that the total score and the scores of all subscales of aggression dropped significantly (P social support increased significantly (P social support level, and the effect was stable.