Lonely older adults have increased expression of pro-inflammatory genes as well as increased risk for morbidity and mortality. Previous behavioral treatments have attempted to reduce loneliness and its concomitant health risks, but have had limited success. The present study tested whether the 8-week Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program (compared to a Wait-List control group) reduces loneliness and downregulates loneliness-related pro-inflammatory gene expression in older adults (N=40). Consistent with study predictions, mixed effect linear models indicated that the MBSR program reduced loneliness, compared to small increases in loneliness in the control group (treatment condition × time interaction: F(1,35)=7.86, p=.008). Moreover, at baseline, there was an association between reported loneliness and upregulated pro-inflammatory NF-κB-related gene expression in circulating leukocytes, and MBSR downregulated this NF-κB-associated gene expression profile at post-treatment. Finally, there was a trend for MBSR to reduce C Reactive Protein (treatment condition × time interaction: (F(1,33)=3.39, p=.075). This work provides an initial indication that MBSR may be a novel treatment approach for reducing loneliness and related pro-inflammatory gene expression in older adults.

Objective Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an empirically supported treatment for social phobia. However, not all individuals respond to treatment and many who show improvement do not maintain their gains over the long-term. Thus, alternative treatments are needed. Method The current study (N=87) was a 3-arm randomized clinical trial comparing CBT, Acceptance and Commitment therapy (ACT), and a waitlist control group (WL) in participants with a DSM-IV diagnosis of social phobia. Participants completed 12 sessions of CBT or ACT or a 12-week waiting period. All participants completed assessments at baseline and post-treatment, and participants assigned to CBT and ACT also completed assessments at 6 and 12 months following baseline. Assessments consisted of self-report measures, a public speaking task, and clinician ratings. Results Multilevel modeling was used to examine between-group differences on outcomes measures. Both treatment groups outperformed WL, with no differences observed between CBT and ACT on self-report, independent clinician, or public speaking outcomes. Lower self-reported psychological flexibility at baseline was associated with greater improvement by the 12-mo follow-up in CBT compared to ACT. Self-reported fear of negative evaluation significantly moderated outcomes as well, with trends for both extremes to be associated with superior outcomes from CBT and inferior outcomes from ACT. Across treatment groups, higher perceived control, and extraversion were associated with greater improvement, whereas comorbid depression was associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusions Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed.

Neurocognitive studies have observed rIFC involvement in motor, cognitive, and affective inhibition, suggesting that rIFC is a common inhibitory mechanism across psychological domains. If true, intentional inhibition in one domain may have unintended inhibitory effects ('spillover') in other domains. The present study used an emotional go/no-go task that produces responses in both motor and affective domains, but induces intentional inhibition in only the motor domain. Data support the hypothesis that intentional inhibition in the motor domain, via rIFC, produces inhibitory spillover in the affective domain. Specifically, we observed increased rIFC along with reduced amygdala activity when participants intentionally inhibited motor responses during the presentation of negativelyvalenced stimuli, and greater inverse connectivity between these regions during motor inhibition in a PPI analysis. Given the absence of intentional affect regulation, these results suggest that intentional inhibition of a motor response dampens the amygdala activation coincident with affective stimuli to the extent that rIFC activation is higher.The human ability to inhibit unwanted thoughts, feelings, and behaviors is central to effective goal pursuit in daily life. On a process level, it might be efficient for inhibition of motor, cognitive, and affective responses to share a neurological mechanism, but the subjective experience of inhibiting each of these responses feels different from one another. It is therefore unclear whether these different forms of inhibition depend on common or disparate neurocognitive systems. Recent cognitive neuroscience research in each domain independently implicates right inferior frontal cortex (rIFC) and suggests that this region may be a point of convergence involved in various forms of inhibition. If rIFC is a common inhibitory mechanism across various domains, it is possible that intentional inhibition in one domain (e.g. inhibiting a motor response) may lead to incidental inhibitory "spillover" in another domain (e.g. suppressing affective responses). However, because the research to date has typically been limited to a single domain in each investigation, the spillover hypothesis remains untested.The role of rIFC in inhibition is best established in the domain of motor inhibition. Studies of motor inhibition have consistently identified a network of brain regions including rIFC, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). These studies commonly use the go/no-go task during which participants press a button on most trials ('go') and thus form a prepotent response to press the button. However, on some trials ('no-go') a cue indicates Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. ...

Psychosocial resources have been tied to lower psychological and biological responses to stress. The present research replicated this relationship and extended it by examining how differences in dispositional reactivity of certain neural structures may underlie this relationship. Two hypotheses were examined: (a) psychosocial resources are tied to decreased sensitivity to threat and/or (b) psychosocial resources are associated with enhanced prefrontal inhibition of threat responses during threat regulation. Results indicated that participants with greater psychosocial resources exhibited significantly less cortisol reactivity following a stress task, as predicted. Analyses using functional magnetic resonance imaging revealed that psychosocial resources were associated with greater right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and less amygdala activity during a threat regulation task but were not associated with less amygdala activity during a threat sensitivity task. Mediational analyses suggest that the relation of psychosocial resources to low cortisol reactivity was mediated by lower amygdala activity during threat regulation. Results suggest that psychosocial resources are associated with lower cortisol responses to stress by means of enhanced inhibition of threat responses during threat regulation, rather than by decreased sensitivity to threat.

Previous research has examined neural responses to threatening facial expressions such as those displaying anger, fear, and disgust. Here, we examined neural responses to a different type of threatening facial expression that primarily signifies a threat to social connection, namely a "disapproving" facial expression. We hypothesized that neural responses to disapproving facial expressions would be moderated by individual differences in rejection sensitivity. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we scanned participants while they viewed brief video clips of facial expressions depicting disapproval, anger, and disgust. As expected, all three expressions yielded bilateral amygdala activation relative to a resting baseline. Additionally, individuals who scored higher on a measure of rejection sensitivity exhibited greater dorsal anterior cingulate cortex activity in response to disapproving facial expressions, but not in response to anger or disgust facial expressions. Results suggest that, at the neural level, individuals high in rejection sensitivity may be more sensitive to facial expressions signaling potential rejection, but not to threatening facial expressions in general. Results also suggest that disapproving facial expressions convey a distinct type of threat and should be considered in future studies of socially threatening facial expressions.Facial expressions are a powerful and efficient source of social information (Darwin, 1872(Darwin, /1998. They are a reflection of how we feel and they help us communicate these feelings to others. As highly social beings, we are constantly exposed to a variety of different facial expressions, each providing valuable information about our physical and social surroundings and how to respond appropriately to them (Darwin, 1872(Darwin, /1998 Ekman, 2003). Negative or threatening facial expressions, which signal to the target individual that "something is wrong" or that he or she is in some sort of danger, are especially potent. For example, an angry scowl can signal that we have crossed someone and should prepare to either fight or flee, and a grimace of disgust can warn us to steer clear of certain foods, helping us avoid food poisoning. Using tools such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we can examine the underlying Correspondence should be addressed to: Lisa J. Burklund, Department of Psychology, Franz Hall, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 USA. E-mail: burklund@ucla.edu. Publisher's Disclaimer: Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instru...

Emotion regulation is commonly characterized as involving conscious and intentional attempts to change felt emotions, such as, for example, through reappraisal whereby one intentionally decreases the intensity of one's emotional response to a particular stimulus or situation by reinterpreting it in a less threatening way. However, there is growing evidence and appreciation that some types of emotion regulation are unintentional or incidental, meaning that affective modulation is a consequence but not an explicit goal. For example, affect labeling involves simply verbally labeling the emotional content of an external stimulus or one's own affective responses without an intentional goal of altering emotional responses, yet has been associated with reduced affective responses at the neural and experiential levels. Although both intentional and incidental emotional regulation strategies have been associated with diminished limbic responses and self-reported distress, little previous research has directly compared their underlying neural mechanisms. In this study, we examined the extent to which incidental and intentional emotion regulation, namely, affect labeling and reappraisal, produced common and divergent neural and self-report responses to aversive images relative to an observe-only control condition in a sample of healthy older adults (N = 39). Affect labeling and reappraisal produced common activations in several prefrontal regulatory regions, with affect labeling producing stronger responses in direct comparisons. Affect labeling and reappraisal were also associated with similar decreases in amygdala activity. Finally, affect labeling and reappraisal were associated with correlated reductions in self-reported distress. Together these results point to common neurocognitive mechanisms involved in affect labeling and reappraisal, supporting the idea that intentional and incidental emotion regulation may utilize overlapping neural processes.

ObjectiveTo assess the relationship between session-by-session mediators and treatment outcomes in traditional cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for social anxiety disorder.MethodSession-by-session changes in negative cognitions (a theorized mediator of CBT) and experiential avoidance (a theorized mediator of ACT) were assessed in 50 adult outpatients randomized to CBT (n = 25) or ACT (n = 25) for DSM-IV social anxiety disorder.ResultsMultilevel modeling analyses revealed significant nonlinear decreases in the proposed mediators in both treatments, with ACT showing steeper decline than CBT at the beginning of treatment and CBT showing steeper decline than ACT at the end of treatment. Curvature (or the nonlinear effect) of experiential avoidance during treatment significantly mediated posttreatment social anxiety symptoms and anhedonic depression in ACT, but not in CBT, with steeper decline of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire at the beginning of treatment predicting fewer symptoms in ACT only. Curvature of negative cognitions during both treatments predicted outcome, with steeper decline of negative cognitions at the beginning of treatment predicting lower posttreatment social anxiety and depressive symptoms.ConclusionsRate of change in negative cognitions at the beginning of treatment is an important predictor of change across both ACT and CBT, whereas rate of change in experiential avoidance at the beginning of treatment is a mechanism specific to ACT.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a well-established treatment for anxiety disorders, and evidence is accruing for the effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Little is known about factors that relate to treatment outcome overall (predictors), or who will thrive in each treatment (moderators). The goal of the current project was to test attentional bias and negative emotional reactivity as moderators and predictors of treatment outcome in a randomized controlled trial comparing CBT and ACT for social phobia. Forty-six patients received 12 sessions of CBT or ACT and were assessed for self-reported and clinician-rated symptoms at baseline, post treatment, 6, and 12 months. Attentional bias significantly moderated the relationship between treatment group and outcome with patients slow to disengage from threatening stimuli showing greater clinician-rated symptom reduction in CBT than in ACT. Negative emotional reactivity, but not positive emotional reactivity, was a significant overall predictor with patients high in negative emotional reactivity showing the greatest self-reported symptom reduction.