Advertisement

Laboratory-Field Generalization of Cardiovascular Activity

  • J. Rick Turner
Part of the The Springer Series in Behavioral Psychophysiology and Medicine book series (SSBP)

Abstract

In Chapter 5 we noted the three attributes of individual differences in reactivity that have particular significance when considering current hypotheses that link cardiovascular reactivity to aspects of cardiovascular disease (Manuck et al., 1989). These were temporal stability, intertask consistency, and laboratory-field generalization. The first two of these attributes were dealt with in detail in that chapter. Accordingly, we will now examine laboratory-field generalization.

Keywords

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Cardiovascular Reactivity Ambulatory Monitoring Cardiovascular Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Further Reading

  1. 1.
    Fredrikson, M., Robson, A., and Ljungdell, T. (1991). Ambulatory and laboratory blood pressure in individuals with negative and positive family history of hypertension. Health Psychology, 10, 371–377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fredrikson, M., Tuomisto, M., Lundberg, U., and Melin, B. (1990). Blood pressure in healthy men and women under laboratory and naturalistic conditions. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 34, 675–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harshfield, G.A., James, G.D., Schlussel, Y., Yee, L.S., Blank, S.G., and Pickering, T.G. (1988). Do laboratory tests of blood pressure reactivity predict blood pressure changes during everyday life? American Journal of Hypertension, 1, 168–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Langewitz, W, Ruddel, H., Schachinger, H., and Schmieder, R. (1989). Standardized stress testing in the cardiovascular laboratory: Has it any bearing on ambulatory blood pressure values? Journal of Hypertension, 7 (Suppl. 3), 41–48.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Light, K.C., Turner, J.R., Hinderliter, A., and Sherwood, A. (1993). Race and gender comparisons: II. Predictions of work blood pressure from laboratory baseline and cardiovascular reactivity measures. Health Psychology, 12, 366–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKinney, M.E., Miner, M.H., Ruddel, H., Mcllvain, H.E., Witte, H., Buell, J.C., Eliot, R.S., and Grant, L.B. (1985). The standardized mental stress test protocol: Test-retest reliability and comparison with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Psychophysiology, 22, 453–463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parati, G., Pomidossi, G., Albini, F., Malaspina, D., and Mancia, G. (1987). Relationship of 24-hour blood pressure mean and variability to severity of target-organ damage in hypertension. Journal of Hypertension, 5, 93–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turner, J.R., Ward, M.M., Gellman, M.D., Johnston, D.W., Light, K.C., and van Doornen, L.J.P. (1993). The relationship between laboratory and ambulatory cardiovascular activity: Current evidence and future directions.Annals of Behavioral Medicine, in press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doornen, L.J.P., and van Blokland, R.W. (1992). The relationship between cardiovascular and catecholamine reactions to laboratory and real-life stress. Psychophysiology, 29, 173–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Egeran, L.F., and Gellman, M.D. (1992). Cardiovascular reactivity to everyday events. In E.H. Johnson, W.D. Gentry, and S. Julius (Eds.), Personality, elevated blood pressure, and hypertension (pp. 135–150 ). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Rick Turner
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TennesseeMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations