Finding the Middle Ground: Curvilinear Associations Between Positive Affect Variability and Daily Cortisol Profiles

L.J.  Human; A.V.  Whillans; C.  Hoppmann; P.  Klumb; S.S.  Dickerson; E.W.  Dunn

Article | Emotion

Finding the Middle Ground: Curvilinear Associations Between Positive Affect Variability and Daily Cortisol Profiles

by L.J. Human, A.V. Whillans, C. Hoppmann, P. Klumb, S.S. Dickerson and E.W. Dunn

Abstract

There is growing evidence that there are stable and meaningful individual differences in how much people vary in their experience of positive affect (PA), which in turn may have implications for health and well-being. Does such PA variability play a role in physiological processes potentially related to stress and health, such as daily cortisol profiles? We explored this question by examining whether PA variability across and within days in middle-aged adults (Study 1) and across weeks in older adults (Study 2) was associated with daily salivary cortisol profiles. In both studies, individuals who exhibited moderate PA variability demonstrated more favorable cortisol profiles, such as lower levels of cortisol and steeper slopes. Interestingly, for middle-aged adults (Study 1), high levels of within-day PA variability were associated with the least favorable cortisol profiles, whereas for older adults (Study 2), low levels of across-week PA variability were associated with the least favorable cortisol profiles. Collectively, these findings provide some of the first evidence that PA variability is related to daily cortisol profiles, suggesting that it may be better to experience a moderate degree of positive affect variability. Too much or too little variability, however, may be problematic, potentially carrying negative implications for stress-related physiological responding.

Keywords: positive affect; intraindividual variability; daily cortisol profiles; Health;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Human, L.J., A.V. Whillans, C. Hoppmann, P. Klumb, S.S. Dickerson, and E.W. Dunn. "Finding the Middle Ground: Curvilinear Associations Between Positive Affect Variability and Daily Cortisol Profiles." Emotion 15, no. 6 (December 2015): 705–720.

Conventional wisdom says you should ask your colleagues for feedback. However, research suggests that feedback often has no (or even a negative) impact on our performance. This is because the feedback we receive is often too vague—it fails to highlight what we can improve on or how to improve. New research suggests a better approach. Across four experiments—including a field experiment conducted in an executive education classroom—researchers found that people received more effective input when they asked for advice rather than feedback.

When making major life decisions—such as choosing what to do after graduation—is it better to prioritize time or money? In a pre-registered longitudinal study of 1,232 graduating university students, respondents who valued time over money chose more intrinsically rewarding activities and were happier one year after graduation. These results remained significant controlling for baseline happiness, potential confounds such as materialism and socioeconomic status, and when using alternative model specifications. These findings extend prior research by showing that the tendency to value time over money is not only predictive of daily consumer choices but also of major life decisions. Additionally, this research clarifies the direction of the observed associations between valuing time and money and happiness, showing that valuing time over money uniquely contributes to well-being, in part by encouraging intrinsic motivation. Together, this work sheds new light on whether, when, and how valuing time shapes happiness.

When looking to improve workplace performance, people often seek third-party input by asking for feedback. However, we propose that asking for feedback might not be the most effective way of soliciting critical and actionable input. We offer a simple yet powerful alternative: ask for advice instead. Across four experiments (N=1,438), including a field experiment, we show that people offer more critical and actionable input when they are asked to provide advice (versus feedback)—even when they are asked to provide comments on identical output. When asked to provide feedback (versus advice), givers focus too much on evaluating the recipient, which undermines their ability to generate constructive (i.e. critical and actionable) input. Our findings suggest that framing feedback provision as advice provision may be a promising way of soliciting constructive third-party input.

Faculty & Research

Finding the Middle Ground: Curvilinear Associations Between Positive Affect Variability and Daily Cortisol Profiles

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author