Abstract
Despite the extensive knowledge about the effects of chronic stress on cognition, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. We conducted a cross-sectional moderation analysis on a population-based sample of 596 adults to examine the age- and sex-specific role of emotion regulation (ER) in the relationship between chronic stress and cognitive performance using validated self-report questionnaires. While women showed no direct or moderated relationship between stress and cognition, men displayed a distinct age-related pattern where stress was negatively associated with poorer cognitive performance at older ages, and the onset of this relationship was detected earlier in men with ER problems. These results showed that suppression of emotions and lack of executive control of ER amplify the negative consequences of chronic stress and suggest that there are sex-specific differences in the decline of ability to cope with long-term exposure to stressors.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
In today's rapidly changing world, affected in recent years by several major crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the related energy and cost of living crises, individuals are invariably exposed to various stressors. This commonly leads to increased experience of stress1,2,3. Defined as a state of threatened homeostasis following exposure to extrinsic or intrinsic adverse forces4, this stress can negatively affect daily functioning. In contrast to short-term acute stress, which can have both positive and negative effects, chronic stress acting over a prolonged period has been found to exert primarily negative effects in several areas including mental health and cognitive performance5,6,7,8,9.
The major pathways activated by stress include the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis10 and the autonomic nervous system (ANS)11. The sympathetic nervous system (SNS) first activates the fight or flight response to deal with stressors including the production of catecholamines12. Prolonged SNS activation without parasympathetic nervous system counteraction, however, then leads to the activation of the immune system including the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines13. Activation of the HPA axis, the neuroendocrine circuit, in which limbic and hypothalamic brain structures coordinate emotional, cognitive, neuroendocrine and autonomic inputs and responses on the other hand leads to increased production of glucocorticoids14 with further SNS-driven involvement of catecholamines. Long-term activation of these pathways can then lead to a reduction in the volume and plasticity of brain regions such as the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, amygdala and basal ganglia14,15.
These stress-related neurophysiological changes subsequently translate into behavioral, cognitive and emotional responses to stress and its consequences. Previous studies have demonstrated that chronic stress is linked to negative behavioral and emotional responses such as anxiety5, depression6,16, or burnout7,17, as well as having an effect on cognitive domains such as learning and memory8,9,18,19,20, attention21, and executive function9. These diverse effects of chronic stress stem from the fact that all these processes share the same neural pathways and brain regions including the amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex (PFC)14,22,23.
Mounting evidence suggests that the relationship between stress and cognition is further moderated by a range of other factors. One of them is the emotion regulation (ER), which refers to the process of controlling and modifying emotional responses to environmental stimuli to accomplish goals24. This process can occur at both unconscious and conscious levels25 and generally involves several steps: the ability to recognize the emotional significance of a stimulus, assess the need for regulation, select an appropriate strategy and apply it26. Several different dimensions/strategies are available for emotion regulation. Augustine and Hemenover27 described two basic types of strategies: behavioral and cognitive. Similarly, Aldo et al.28 reported six distinct strategies (acceptance, avoidance, problem solving, reappraisal, rumination, and suppression) that can be assigned to the above two basic types. Finally, Gratz and Roemer29 inversely outlined six subtypes of possible difficulties with ER that form the basis for this study (nonacceptance of emotional responses, difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior, impulse control difficulties, lack of emotional awareness, limited access to emotion regulation strategies, and lack of emotional clarity).
The rationale for the close link between ER, chronic stress and cognition derives from several facts. Neurophysiologically, they share neural pathways and brain regions30, the effect of HPA axis-related cortisol that may reduce PFC activity and impair hippocampal-dependent memory31, as well as positive effects of cortisol on ER during stress32,33. From a psychological standpoint, ER is tightly linked to some coping strategies. Coping strategies refers to constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific demands that are taxing or exceeding the individual’s resources34. These strategies can be broadly divided into three categories: problem-focused (direct problem-solving efforts), emotion-focused (management of stress-related emotions) and appraisal-focused (cognitive assessment and logical analysis)35. Although coping and ER are perceived as distinct constructs30,36, they are also closely intertwined and ER can intervene directly or indirectly in all three areas of coping. The most explicit link is with emotion-focused coping as it provides tools directly designed to manage stress-related emotions37,38,39. Furthermore, reappraisal (as one of the ER strategies) may, for example, help change the emotional perception of a stressful situation into a positive, less burdensome direction40. Finally, reducing stress-induced emotional and cognitive load then indirectly frees mental resources for direct problem solving.
However, so far, the main research interests have focused on the role of cognition in the regulation of stress-related emotional responses. The studies emphasized the role of cognition in emotional experience and ER41,42 and showed that stress affects the use of cognitive processes in controlling emotional reactions43 and leads to differential activation of the left frontal lobe during cognitive regulation of emotion44. Conversely, evidence on whether and how ER affects the relationship between stress and cognitive performance is sparse. For example Kalia and Knauft observed that ER strategies moderate the negative effect of adverse childhood experiences on cognitive flexibility in adulthood45. Overall, however, the role of ER in this relationship is not yet fully understood.
In addition, the effect of other aspects such as sex and age in this relationship may also play a significant role and have not yet been fully explored. For example, previous studies showed that men prefer problem-focused coping, which is more cognitively dependent, while women tend to favor emotion-focused coping46,47,48,49,50,51. Similarly, sex-related differences in ER52,53 and in cognitive performance54,55,56 have been demonstrated in multiple studies. In the context of age-related differences, previous studies have yielded inconsistent findings regarding the direction of changes in the ER, but have confirmed the presence of these changes over the lifespan57,58,59,60. The gradual decline of some cognitive resources with age (which may influence the effectiveness of ER and coping strategies) and cognitive abilities in general has also been extensively described61,62,63,64,65,66,67.
To fill this gap, we examine the age- and sex-specific role of ER in the relationship between chronic stress and cognitive performance in a probabilistic population-based sample. To achieve this goal, we conducted an exploratory cross-sectional moderation analysis of age-stratified data collected using a battery of validated self-report questionnaires measuring chronic stress (Perceived Stress Scale), Emotion Regulation (Difficulties with Emotion Regulation Scale), and cognitive performance (Montreal Cognitive Assessment).
Results
Sample characteristics
The sample included a total of 569 adults with a mean age ± SD of 55.76 ± 10.74 years, of whom 290 (51%) were women. The mean years of education ± SD was 15.7 ± 3.3 years. The main age-stratified characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1.
Preliminary verification of the relationship between stress and cognition
To test whether our results are consistent with previous reports, we first investigated whether our population-based sample also exhibits an association between stress and cognitive performance (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table T1). We observed significant correlation between the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Attention (r [95% CI] = − 0.11 [− 0.19, − 0.03]) and Language (r [95% CI] = − 0.11 [− 0.2, − 0.03]) Cognitive Domain Index Scores (CDIS) (r [95% CI] = − 0.12 [− 0.2, − 0.03]). All of these correlations were negative suggesting that increased stress is linked to impairment in cognitive performance.
Age- and sex-related distribution of ER and cognition
We next examined the distribution of ER difficulties scores in respect to aging and sex (Fig. 2A, Supplementary Tables T2 and T3). Apart from Awareness (η2P-value = 0.09<0.001, ibid.) and Goals (η2 = 0.010.015), there were no age-related differences in ER difficulties. In contrast, we found significant sex differences in all domains except for Clarity. Men exhibited greater ER difficulties in Goals (η2 = 0.010.016), Impulse (η2 = 0.02<0.001), Non-acceptance (η2 = 0.010.007) and Strategy (η2 = 0.03<0.001), while women demonstrated greater difficulties in Awareness (η2 = 0.020.007). Similarly, we analyzed the age- and sex-specific distribution of MoCA CDIS that represent cognitive resources for ER (Fig. 2B, Supplementary Tables T4 and T5). We observed a significant age-related decline in all CDIS (Exec. functions η2 = 0.05<0.001, Memory η2 = 0.06<0.001, Language η2 = 0.03<0.001, Attention η2 = 0.10<0.001) and significantly lower scores for men in Memory (η2 = 0.03<0.001), Language (η2 = 0.02<0.001) and Attention (η2 = 0.02<0.001) compared to women.
Moderation analysis of the role of ER in the relationship between stress and cognition
Finally, we tested whether ER moderates the impact of stress on cognition (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table T6). In women, we found only one moderating and few direct effects associated mainly with memory (33 + years group) and language (50 + years group). All but one of the direct effects were negative, suggesting that cognitive performance deteriorates with increasing stress (with std. B ranging from -0.019 to -0.054 for negative effects and std. B = 0.034 for the positive effect of stress on executive function in the 33 + years group). ER difficulties (namely awareness) moderated only the effect of stress on memory in the 33 + years group (std. B = − 0.016).
In contrast, an age-dependent role of ER on the interaction between stress and cognition was observed in men (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table T6). In the 33 + years old age group, we observed almost no direct nor moderating effect of stress on cognitive performance. With advancing age (50 + years old age group), the relationship between stress and cognitive performance depended on the presence of ER difficulties. Finally, in the oldest 65 + years old age group, the cognitive performance was mostly directly linked to stress level with emotional regulation maintaining a moderating role in only a few instances. All observed moderation effects represented full moderation with no significant direct effect of stress.
More specifically, in the 50 + years old age group, the ER difficulties in Goals, Non-acceptance, Strategy, and Impulse moderated the extent to which stress was negatively associated with cognitive performance in Attention (with interaction std. B ranging from − 0.023 to − 0.049), Language (std. B: − 0.009 to − 0.026) and Memory (std. B: − -0.033 to − 0.051). The analysis of simple slopes revealed that higher presence of these ER difficulties (+ 1SD above mean) was associated with significant negative relationship between stress and individual CDIS (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table T7). In the 65 + years old age group, the stress was directly negatively associated with Attention (std. B of main effect in individual models ranging from − 0.091 to − 0.122), Executive functions (std. B: − 0.08 to − 0.084), Language (std. B: − 0.04 to − 0.046) and Visuospatial abilities (std. B: − 0.039 to − 0.043). For the documented moderating effect of ER difficulties, we observed that Goals, Impulse, and Non-acceptance moderated the association between stress and Executive functions (std. B = 0.031, 0.059, and 0.027), and Non-acceptance further moderated the association between stress and Language (std. B = 0.017). In stark contrast to the 50 + years group, simple slopes analysis (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table T7) showed that in the 65 + years group, stress was significantly negatively correlated with individual cognitive scores in participants with lower (− 1SD below mean) and average ER difficulties, but not for those with greater difficulties.
Discussion
As our society continues to face diverse sources of stress (currently amplified by the global crises of recent years), understanding the mechanisms how it affects cognitive functioning is of critical importance. Despite a growing body of research on stress and cognition, the moderating role of ER received only little attention. Similarly, little is known about the role of age and sex in this moderating role of ER. Our study, one of the first on this topic, revealed striking age- and sex-related differences in the pattern of both the direct and moderating effects. Women showed no effects of stress nor ER difficulties on cognition. In contrast, men displayed a distinct age-related pattern where difficulties with emotion regulation accelerated the onset of a negative relationship between chronic stress and cognitive performance.
In detail, we observed that a significant relationship between stress and cognition emerged first in men with problems in several areas of ER. Specifically, these included non-acceptance of emotional reactions, difficulties with engaging in goal-directed behavior, limited access to ER strategies, and difficulties with impulse control. The cognitive domains involved in this moderated relationship with stress were primarily attention21,68,69 language68,70, and memory68,69,71 (which have all been previously found to be associated with chronic stress). With further increase in age (over 65 years), the relationship between stress and cognition was no longer dependent on ER and was present across most cognitive domains. These findings indicate that men and women differ in their ability to manage stress so that its manifestations and consequences do not negatively affect other areas of their functioning, and that the effectiveness of this coping decreases with age in men.
At the behavioral level, we argue that this difference is related to a different preference for stress coping strategies and their age-specific effectiveness. Previous studies have shown that men generally prefer problem-focused coping, which is more cognitively dependent, while women tend to favor emotion-focused coping46,47,48,49,50,51. The effectiveness of problem-focused strategies decreases with age due to a decline in coping and cognitive resources such as increased physiological vulnerabilities72,73 and leads to prolonged exposure to stronger physiological and behavioral stress responses. This effect is further exacerbated when stressors cannot be avoided or resolved (as in the many of today’s stressors such as the Covid-19 pandemic or the war in Ukraine, etc.)73,74. This is supported by our findings, as the relationship between stress and cognition emerged first in men who had ER problems in areas that largely involve the executive component (such as goal-directed behavior, impulse control, etc.) and in later life stress was directly negatively related to cognition again only in men. Moreover, ER itself represents a resource-demanding process, affecting simultaneously or subsequently performed tasks (such as coping with stressors)75,76. This leads to an age-related reduced ability to both cope with stress and its negative emotional effects. Furthermore, the observed smaller repertoire of ER strategies in men reduces (similarly to limited palette of coping strategies) the individual's resources for effective management of the experienced stress. Finally, a reduced ability to accept (stress-related) emotions, another observed ER dimension moderating the stress-cognition relationship, limits the potential for coping with these emotions because, first, the strategies used may not be properly targeted and second (consequently), unaddressed negative emotions maintain the organism's stress setting for an extended period of time with all its negative behavioral and physiological consequences77,78,79,80.
From a wider interpretative perspective, neurophysiological findings from previous studies on shared neural pathways and brain regions also substantiate the observed age- and sex-specific links between ER, chronic stress, and cognition. For instance, the neural stress response was shown to be associated with a sex-specific pattern of activation of different brain regions. Men primarily activate cognitive control-related frontal areas, while women primarily activate the more emotion-associated limbic system52,81,82,83. Some studies have suggested that stress disrupts cognitive regulation of emotion linked to prefrontal cortex (PFC) activity, which limits the use of PFC in controlling the affective response to stress84. Poorer ability to control the emotional response to stress and an age-related decline in the utilization of the PFC in men then result in the reduced ability to mitigate the negative impact of stress on cognition. Furthermore, the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in problem-focused coping-associated executive functions, is particularly vulnerable to age-related decline85,86,87. In contrast, the amygdala and hippocampus, which are involved in emotional processing, are more resistant to age-related changes88,89. Finally, new theoretical models of ER propose that some of the ER processes during the stress response lead to an increase in inflammatory markers that may negatively affect other brain processes, including cognition90,91,92,93.
This study has several limitations. First, the data are based on self-reported instruments and the observed values are based on the subjective perception of the participants. Therefore, the obtained results do not, for example, provide information about underlying neurobiological processes and at the same time depend on the participants' level of awareness/self-reflection and their willingness to report any difficulties. For example, experimental measurement of emotion regulation in emotionally challenging situations could provide more accurate data with lower risk of bias due to differences in the ability to be aware of one's own emotional states. On the other hand, given the longitudinal nature of the Kardiovize study and the high engagement and motivation of participants, we consider that bias due to reluctance to report accurate and truthful information was negligible. Furthermore, regarding stress, it is worth noting that although there is a distinction between 'objective' stress (which manifests itself through the body's physiological responses and activation of neural pathways) and 'subjective' stress (involving emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses to the stressor), the subjective perception of an event as overwhelming usually also activates the body's physiological stress response, especially in the context of chronic stress. Second, given their cross-sectional nature, all instruments measured how is currently experienced chronic stress related to immediate cognitive performance and did not allow causal inferences to be drawn. Third, although we controlled for potential selected psychopathologies (as exclusion criteria), and the Kardiovize sample was overall healthy, we cannot completely rule out the presence of other forms of psychopathologies that could affect the relationships studied. This potential influence should thus be kept in mind when interpreting the results. Fourth and finally, given the cross-sectional nature of the data, we did not assess possible bidirectional interactions between ER and cognitive performance (as cognitive performance may not only be the outcome in the observed relationship, but may also modulate the resources available to ER, creating a bidirectional loop). Again, future studies with longitudinal and/or experimental designs should examine this interplay in more detail.
The current study highlights several topics that ought to be explored further by future research. Given the cross-sectional nature of our results, longitudinal studies are needed to elucidate the long-term dynamics of the observed relationships. This includes both the impact of long-term stress on cognition and the role of ER in this interaction, and multidirectional interactions and feedback loops between the studied variables. Furthermore, these longitudinal studies could define the variation vs. stability of these relationships across different stratifications of time (e.g., changes over a few years in the context of different periods of adulthood), the rate of onset and extinction of direct stress and ER moderating effects, the point at which the direct stress effect overrides the moderating role of ER, etc. Finally, the data in this study were obtained using self-report measures. Given that emotion regulation can also be tested in experimental modes (e.g., directing participants to regulate emotions in emotionally challenging situations), and similarly stress can be probed at the level of physiological responses or activation of neural correlates, incorporating these measures into the methodology of future studies may confirm and extend these findings.
These results may have also practical implications for interventions. First, they emphasize the importance of considering age, sex, and individual differences in ER when considering strategies for prevention, intervention, care, and support. Second, they identify areas of emotion regulation that may represent a weak point with increasing age, particularly in men, in the context of coping with the impact of chronic stress on cognition. For example, targeted interventions and training in these ER skills, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy or mindfulness-based interventions, as part of chronic stress management care may improve coping with chronic stress and thereby reduce its negative consequences (even beyond cognition). Proactively, these efforts would not have to focus only on the adult population. For example, expanding school curricula to include activities that develop ER skills can have a significant positive developmental and preventive effect. Similarly, more attention should be paid to raising public awareness of the importance of and ways to develop emotional regulation skills.
In conclusion, our study is one of the first to uncover substantial sex- and age-related differences in how ER affects the relationship between chronic stress and cognitive performance. The results showed that chronic stress is associated with reduced cognitive performance only in men later in life and highlighted that better ER skills may delay the onset of this negative relationship.
Methods
Design and procedures
The sample included participants of the Kardiovize study, a longitudinal epidemiological cohort based on a representative randomly selected 1% population sample of the residents of Brno, Czech Republic, which investigates health-related topics in Central Europe62,94 This study initially included 582 participants who completed the second wave of data collection (conducted between 2021 and 2022), which involved measurement of all three variables: perceived stress, cognitive performance, and ER difficulties. Exclusion criteria involved incomplete data and the presence of specific psychopathologies (dementia, ongoing major depressive disorder, personality disorders, schizophrenia) that could substantially affect the relations studied. None of the participants showed the presence of psychopathology, 13 cases were excluded due to incomplete data, resulting in a final sample of 569 participants.
To investigate the proposed relationships at different stages of adulthood and to test these hypotheses, we stratified the samples into three age groups: 33–49 years, 50–64 years and 65 + years. This stratification was determined based on several developmental and transitional aspects that are critical to understanding how cognitive abilities may be influenced by both stress and emotion regulation. Individuals aged 33–49 years are experiencing peak cognitive abilities95, developing and refining their emotion regulation strategies and biological changes related to aging are relatively minimal during this period. Individuals in this age are often dealing with career development, family responsibilities, and personal growth and stressors are mainly related to the demands of work and family life. Between the ages of 50 and 64, cognitive changes become more apparent with shifts in memory, processing speed, and other cognitive functions may begin to manifest96, and emotional regulation skills are already well consolidated. Developmentally, this period is associated with a number of life changes such as children leaving home, potential career shifts, and the beginning of retirement planning, which changes the composition of stressors97,98. These may also include concerns about health and aging. After the age of 65, cognitive decline is more evident61. Retirement and related lifestyle changes, pension and financial security, biological aging, and health issues become major concerns and potential sources of stress. The ability to cope with these stressors (and their emotional accompaniments) also plays a key role58,99. In addition, we also sought to balance the sample sizes of each group as part of the statistical considerations.
Measures
Stress was measured using 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)100. This instrument measures prolonged perceived stress (considered chronic) as the time frame of the items covers the last month. Scores range from 0 to 40, with higher values representing greater levels of perceived stress. Reliability of PSS was good with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.74 to 0.91 101.
Cognitive performance was measured using the MoCA screening tool102. We calculated six Cognitive Domain Index Scores (CDIS) to capture performances in attention (range 0–13, higher score always represents better performance), orientation (range 0–6), memory (range 0–15), language (range 0–6), visuospatial abilities (range 0–7) and executive functions (range 0–13)103. Cognitive performance in individual CDIS was measured using a series of varied items including trail-making, cube and clock drawing, animal naming, repetition of words, numbers and sentences, number subtraction, word matching, and semantic word similarity. The potential ceiling effect of using this screening tool in a healthy population was taken into account but was not considered to be a risk of biasing the results, as it allowed, on the contrary, to capture particularly the relationships between stress/ER and more pronounced cognitive decline. MoCA showed high test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.92, P < 0.001), and a good internal consistency (α = 0.83).
Emotion regulation was measured using Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS-18)104. This 18-item questionnaire measures the level of ER difficulties in six domains: non-acceptance of emotional responses (Non-acceptance), difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior (Goals), impulse control difficulties (Impulse), lack of emotional awareness (Awareness), limited access to ER strategies (Strategy) and lack of emotional clarity (Clarity). The total scale ranges from 18 to 90, with higher (total and domain) scores representing greater difficulties with ER. DERS-18 proved to have excellent reliability with α = 0.91.
In addition, several socio-demographic characteristics were collected, including sex, marital status, education and household income.
Statistical analyses
There were no missing values in the data. A Pearson correlation was used to perform an initial analysis of the relationship between perceived stress and cognitive performance. Differences in the presence of ER difficulties and in the levels of selected CDIS between age groups and between sexes were analyzed using two-way ANOVAs with partial eta-squared as effect size indicator (≥ 0.01 = small, ≥ 0.06 = moderate, ≥ 0.14 = large effect). The moderating role of ER difficulties in the influence of stress on cognitive performance was analyzed using multiple regression with interaction. The values of stress level (independent variable) and ER difficulties (moderator) were centered prior to the moderation analysis. Standardized betas with standard errors of simple main effects and interactions are reported in the text.
All statistical analyses were performed as a two-tailed and all the P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data were analysed with RStudio (v.2022.07.2 with R environment v.4.2.1) using ggplot2, gridExtra, stats, interactions, and effectsize packages.
Ethical statement
The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. The research protocol was approved by St. Anne’s University Hospital ethics committee and the Internal Review Board. All participants were acquainted with the research and provided written informed consent.
Data availability
The data used in this study are available on request immediately following the publication to anyone who submits the online request (mail: juan.gonzalez@fnusa.cz) including research intentions and goals that will be approved by the St. Anne’s University Hospital International Clinical Research Centre internal board.
References
Limone, P., Toto, G. A. & Messina, G. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war on stress and anxiety in students: A systematic review. Front. Psychiatry 13, 1081013 (2022).
Weierstall-Pust, R. et al. Stressors related to the Covid-19 pandemic, climate change, and the Ukraine crisis, and their impact on stress symptoms in Germany: Analysis of cross-sectional survey data. BMC Public Health 22, 2233 (2022).
Mottola, F., Gnisci, A., Kalaitzaki, A., Vintilă, M. & Sergi, I. The impact of the Russian-Ukrainian war on the mental health of Italian people after 2 years of the pandemic: Risk and protective factors as moderators. Front. Psychol. 14, 1154502 (2023).
Chrousos, G. P. & Gold, P. W. The concepts of stress and stress system disorders: Overview of physical and behavioral homeostasis. JAMA 267, 1244–1252 (1992).
Ross, R. A., Foster, S. L. & Ionescu, D. F. The role of chronic stress in anxious depression. Chronic Stress 1, 247054701668947 (2017).
Tafet, G. E. & Nemeroff, C. B. The links between stress and depression: Psychoneuroendocrinological, genetic, and environmental interactions. J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 28, 77–88 (2016).
Grossi, G., Perski, A., Osika, W. & Savic, I. Stress-related exhaustion disorder: Clinical manifestation of burnout? A review of assessment methods, sleep impairments, cognitive disturbances, and neuro-biological and physiological changes in clinical burnout. Scand. J. Psychol. 56, 626–636 (2015).
Schwabe, L., Joëls, M., Roozendaal, B., Wolf, O. T. & Oitzl, M. S. Stress effects on memory: An update and integration. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 36, 1740–1749 (2012).
Sandi, C. Stress and cognition. WIREs Cogn. Sci. 4, 245–261 (2013).
Herman, J. P. et al. Regulation of the Hypothalamic‐Pituitary‐Adrenocortical Stress Response. in Comprehensive Physiology 603–621 (Wiley, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/cphy.c150015.
Ziegler, M. G. Psychological Stress and the Autonomic Nervous System. in Primer on the Autonomic Nervous System 291–293 (Elsevier, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386525-0.00061-5.
Eiden, L. E. Neuropeptide–Catecholamine Interactions in Stress. 399–404 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-411512-5.00018-X.
Maes, M. et al. The effects of psychological stress on humans: Increased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and Th1-like response in stress-induced anxiety. Cytokine 10, 313–318 (1998).
Lucassen, P. J. et al. Neuropathology of stress. Acta Neuropathol. 127, 109–135 (2014).
Blix, E., Perski, A., Berglund, H. & Savic, I. Long-term occupational stress is associated with regional reductions in brain tissue volumes. PLoS One 8, e64065 (2013).
Yang, L. et al. The effects of psychological stress on depression. Curr. Neuropharmacol. 13, 494–504 (2015).
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B. & Leiter, M. P. Job Burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 397–422 (2001).
Het, S., Ramlow, G. & Wolf, O. T. A meta-analytic review of the effects of acute cortisol administration on human memory. Psychoneuroendocrinology 30, 771–784 (2005).
Wolf, O. T. Stress and memory retrieval: Mechanisms and consequences. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 14, 40–46 (2017).
Lupien, S. J., McEwen, B. S., Gunnar, M. R. & Heim, C. Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10, 434–445 (2009).
Liu, Q. et al. Impact of chronic stress on attention control: Evidence from behavioral and event-related potential analyses. Neurosci. Bull. 36, 1395–1410 (2020).
Gagnon, S. A. & Wagner, A. D. Acute stress and episodic memory retrieval: Neurobiological mechanisms and behavioral consequences. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1369, 55–75 (2016).
Bremner, J. D. Traumatic stress: Effects on the brain. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 8, 445–461 (2006).
Thompson, R. A. Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 59, 25 (1994).
Gyurak, A., Gross, J. J. & Etkin, A. Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: A dual-process framework. Cogn. Emot. 25, 400–412 (2011).
Sheppes, G., Suri, G. & Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation and psychopathology. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 11, 379–405 (2015).
Augustine, A. A. & Hemenover, S. H. On the relative effectiveness of affect regulation strategies: A meta-analysis. Cogn. Emot. 23, 1181–1220 (2009).
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S. & Schweizer, S. Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 30, 217–237 (2010).
Gratz, K. L. & Roemer, L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 26, 41–54 (2004).
Wang, M. & Saudino, K. J. Emotion regulation and stress. J. Adult Dev. 18, 95–103 (2011).
Oei, N. Y. L. et al. Glucocorticoids decrease hippocampal and prefrontal activation during declarative memory retrieval in young men. Brain Imaging Behav. 1, 31–41 (2007).
Jentsch, V. L., Merz, C. J. & Wolf, O. T. Restoring emotional stability: Cortisol effects on the neural network of cognitive emotion regulation. Behav. Brain Res. 374, 111880 (2019).
Langer, K. et al. Acute stress improves the effectivity of cognitive emotion regulation in men. Sci. Rep. 10, 11571 (2020).
Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping (Springer, 1984).
Nichols, E. et al. Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050: An analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Public Heal. 7, e105–e125 (2022).
Compas, B. E. et al. Coping and emotion regulation from childhood to early adulthood: Points of convergence and divergence. Aust. J. Psychol. 66, 71–81 (2014).
Aldao, A. & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. Specificity of cognitive emotion regulation strategies: A transdiagnostic examination. Behav. Res. Ther. 48, 974–983 (2010).
Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward. Emotion 13, 359–365 (2013).
Skinner, E. A. & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. The development of coping. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58, 119–144 (2007).
Gross, J. J. & Thompson, R. A. Emotion Regulation: Conceptual Foundations. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation (ed. Gross, J. J.) 3–24 (The Guilford Press, UK, 2007).
Phelps, E. A. Emotion and cognition: Insights from studies of the human amygdala. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57, 27–53 (2006).
Ochsner, K. N. & Gross, J. J. The cognitive control of emotion. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 242–249 (2005).
Miklósi, M., Martos, T., Szabó, M., Kocsis-Bogár, K. & Forintos, D. Cognitive emotion regulation and stress: A multiple mediation approach. Transl. Neurosci. 5, 64 (2014).
Goodman, R. N., Rietschel, J. C., Lo, L.-C., Costanzo, M. E. & Hatfield, B. D. Stress, emotion regulation and cognitive performance: The predictive contributions of trait and state relative frontal EEG alpha asymmetry. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 87, 115–123 (2013).
Kalia, V. & Knauft, K. Emotion regulation strategies modulate the effect of adverse childhood experiences on perceived chronic stress with implications for cognitive flexibility. PLoS One 15, e0235412 (2020).
Graves, B. S., Hall, M. E., Dias-Karch, C., Haischer, M. H. & Apter, C. Gender differences in perceived stress and coping among college students. PLoS One 16, e0255634 (2021).
Dyson, R. & Renk, K. Freshmen adaptation to university life: Depressive symptoms, stress, and coping. J. Clin. Psychol. 62, 1231–1244 (2006).
Howerton, A. & Van Gundy, K. Sex differences in coping styles and implications for depressed mood. Int. J. Stress Manag. 16, 333–350 (2009).
Moret-Tatay, C., Beneyto-Arrojo, M. J., Laborde-Bois, S. C., Martínez-Rubio, D. & Senent-Capuz, N. Gender, coping, and mental health: A Bayesian network model analysis. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 44, 827–835 (2016).
Matud, M. P. Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Pers. Individ. Dif. 37, 1401–1415 (2004).
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. & Aldao, A. Gender and age differences in emotion regulation strategies and their relationship to depressive symptoms. Pers. Individ. Dif. 51, 704–708 (2011).
McRae, K., Ochsner, K. N., Mauss, I. B., Gabrieli, J. J. D. & Gross, J. J. Gender differences in emotion regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive reappraisal. Gr. Process. Intergr. Relat. 11, 143–162 (2008).
Goubet, K. E. & Chrysikou, E. G. Emotion regulation flexibility: Gender differences in context sensitivity and repertoire. Front. Psychol. 10, 935 (2019).
Zaninotto, P., Batty, G. D., Allerhand, M. & Deary, I. J. Cognitive function trajectories and their determinants in older people: 8 years of follow-up in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 72, 685–694 (2018).
Caselli, R. J. et al. Neuropsychological decline up to 20 years before incident mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimer’s Dement. 16, 512–523 (2020).
Rabbitt, P. M. A. et al. The University of manchester longitudinal study of cognition in normal healthy old age, 1983 through 2003. Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn. 11, 245–279 (2004).
Blanchard-Fields, F., Stein, R. & Watson, T. L. Age differences in emotion-regulation strategies in handling everyday problems. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 59, P261–P269 (2004).
Isaacowitz, D. M. What do we know about aging and emotion regulation?. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1541–1555 (2022).
Isaacowitz, D. M., Livingstone, K. M. & Castro, V. L. Aging and emotions: Experience, regulation, and perception. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 17, 79–83 (2017).
Urry, H. L. & Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation in older age. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19, 352–357 (2010).
Murman, D. The impact of age on cognition. Semin. Hear. 36, 111–121 (2015).
Novotný, J. S. et al. Natural pattern of cognitive aging. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 88, 1147–1155 (2022).
Keys, B. B. A. & White, D. D. A. Exploring the relationship between age, executive abilities, and psychomotor speed. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 6, 76–82 (2000).
Harada, C. N., Natelson Love, M. C. & Triebel, K. L. Normal cognitive aging. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 29, 737–752 (2013).
Trouillet, R., Doan-Van-Hay, L.-M., Launay, M. & Martin, S. Impact of age, and cognitive and coping resources on coping. Can. J. Aging 30, 541–550 (2011).
Li, G. & Li, K. Turning point of cognitive decline for Chinese older adults from a longitudinal analysis: Protective factors and risk factors. Healthcare 10, 2304 (2022).
van der Willik, K. D. et al. Trajectories of cognitive and motor function between ages 45 and 90 years: A population-based study. J. Gerontol. Ser. A 76, 297–306 (2021).
Romero-Martínez, Á., Hidalgo-Moreno, G. & Moya-Albiol, L. Neuropsychological consequences of chronic stress: The case of informal caregivers. Aging Ment. Health 24, 259–271 (2020).
Öhman, L., Nordin, S., Bergdahl, J., Slunga Birgander, L. & Stigsdotter Neely, A. Cognitive function in outpatients with perceived chronic stress. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 33, 223–232 (2007).
Saslow, L. R. et al. Speaking under pressure: Low linguistic complexity is linked to high physiological and emotional stress reactivity. Psychophysiology 51, 257–266 (2014).
Turner, A. D., James, B. D., Capuano, A. W., Aggarwal, N. T. & Barnes, L. L. Perceived stress and cognitive decline in different cognitive domains in a cohort of older African Americans. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 25, 25–34 (2017).
Charles, S. T. & Luong, G. Emotional experience across adulthood. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22, 443–448 (2013).
Charles, S. T., Leger, K. A. & Urban, E. J. Emotional experience and health: What we know, and where to go from here. In Emotion, Aging, and Health (eds Ong, A. A. & Löckenhoff, C. E.) 185–204 (American Psychological Association, 2016).
Endler, N. S. Stress, anxiety and coping: The multidimensional interaction model. Can. Psychol. Psychol. Can. 38, 136–153 (1997).
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D. & Tice, D. M. The strength model of self-control. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 16, 351–355 (2007).
Richards, J. M. The cognitive consequences of concealing feelings. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 13, 131–134 (2004).
Bailen, N. H., Koval, P., Strube, M., Haslam, N. & Thompson, R. J. Negative emotion and nonacceptance of emotion in daily life. Emotion 22, 992–1003 (2022).
Campbell-Sills, L., Barlow, D. H., Brown, T. A. & Hofmann, S. G. Effects of suppression and acceptance on emotional responses of individuals with anxiety and mood disorders. Behav. Res. Ther. 44, 1251–1263 (2006).
Cărnuţă, M., Crişan, L. G., Vulturar, R., Opre, A. & Miu, A. C. Emotional non-acceptance links early life stress and blunted cortisol reactivity to social threat. Psychoneuroendocrinology 51, 176–187 (2015).
Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology 39, S0048577201393198 (2002).
Goldfarb, E. V., Seo, D. & Sinha, R. Sex differences in neural stress responses and correlation with subjective stress and stress regulation. Neurobiol. Stress 11, 100177 (2019).
Koch, K. et al. Gender differences in the cognitive control of emotion: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia 45, 2744–2754 (2007).
Domes, G. et al. The neural correlates of sex differences in emotional reactivity and emotion regulation. Hum. Brain Mapp. 31, 758–769 (2009).
Raio, C. M., Orederu, T. A., Palazzolo, L., Shurick, A. A. & Phelps, E. A. Cognitive emotion regulation fails the stress test. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 15139–15144 (2013).
McEwen, B. S. & Morrison, J. H. The brain on stress: Vulnerability and plasticity of the prefrontal cortex over the life course. Neuron 79, 16–29 (2013).
Peter, R. H. Synaptic density in human frontal cortex: Developmental changes and effects of aging. Brain Res. 163, 195–205 (1979).
Raz, N. et al. Regional brain changes in aging healthy adults: General trends, individual differences and modifiers. Cereb. Cortex 15, 1676–1689 (2005).
Raz, N. et al. Aging, sexual dimorphism, and hemispheric asymmetry of the cerebral cortex: Replicability of regional differences in volume. Neurobiol. Aging 25, 377–396 (2004).
Sotoudeh, N., Namavar, M. R., Zarifkar, A. & Heidarzadegan, A. R. Age-dependent changes in the medial prefrontal cortex and medial amygdala structure, and elevated plus-maze performance in the healthy male Wistar rats. IBRO Rep. 9, 183–194 (2020).
Renna, M. E. A review and novel theoretical model of how negative emotions influence inflammation: The critical role of emotion regulation. Brain Behav. Immun. Heal. 18, 100397 (2021).
Ospina, L. H. et al. Inflammation and emotion regulation: Findings from the MIDUS II study. Brain Behav. Immun. Heal. 26, 100536 (2022).
Lopez, R. B. et al. emotion regulation and immune functioning during grief: Testing the role of expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal in inflammation among recently bereaved spouses. Psychosom. Med. 82, 2–9 (2020).
Haroon, E., Raison, C. L. & Miller, A. H. Psychoneuroimmunology meets neuropsychopharmacology: Translational implications of the impact of inflammation on behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology 37, 137–162 (2012).
Movsisyan, N. K. et al. Kardiovize Brno 2030, a prospective cardiovascular health study in Central Europe: Methods, baseline findings and future directions. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 25, 54–64 (2018).
Hartshorne, J. K. & Germine, L. T. When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the life span. Psychol. Sci. 26, 433–443 (2015).
Hughes, M. L., Agrigoroaei, S., Jeon, M., Bruzzese, M. & Lachman, M. E. Change in cognitive performance from midlife into old age: Findings from the midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 24, 805–820 (2018).
Lachman, M. E., Teshale, S. & Agrigoroaei, S. Midlife as a pivotal period in the life course. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 39, 20–31 (2015).
Almeida, D. M. et al. Charting adult development through (historically changing) daily stress processes. Am. Psychol. 75, 511–524 (2020).
Gross, J. J. et al. Emotion and aging: Experience, expression, and control. Psychol. Aging 12, 590–599 (1997).
Cohen, S. & Williamson, G. M. Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology. The Social Psychology of Health (eds Spacapan, S. & Oskamp, S.) 31–67 (Sage Publications Inc, 1988).
Lee, E.-H. Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. Asian Nurs. Res. 6, 121–127 (2012).
Nasreddine, Z. S. et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 53, 695–699 (2005).
Julayanont, P., Brousseau, M., Chertkow, H., Phillips, N. & Nasreddine, Z. S. Montreal cognitive assessment memory index score (MoCA-MIS) as a predictor of conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 62, 679–684 (2014).
Victor, S. E. & Klonsky, E. D. Validation of a brief version of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale (DERS-18) in five samples. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 38, 582–589 (2016).
Acknowledgements
We are thankful to all the past and previous members of the Stokin Lab for support and constructive comments throughout this study. We are most grateful to Kimberley Monks for her input regarding the language and editing. In this study, we adhere to the principles of Open Science as much as possible: we explicitly labelled the study as exploratory, we report the paper with a detailed description of the identification and acquisition of the population-based sample, the data are available on request to all interested parties (see Data availability statement), the R script of the analysis is available on request from the first author, and all materials used are cited.
Funding
The study was funded by the European Union: Next Generation EU—Project National Institute for Neurological Research (LX22NPO5107 (MEYS)), and by the European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund—Project ENOCH (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000868).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors contributed to this article as follows: Conceptualization: G.B.S., Data curation: J.S.N., Formal analysis: J.S.N., Funding acquisition: G.B.S, Visualization: J.S.N., Writing—original draft: J.S.N., L.S., G.B.S.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
Gorazd B. Stokin is currently an Associate Editor for the Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience and the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. No other disclosures were reported.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Novotný, J.S., Srt, L. & Stokin, G.B. Emotion regulation shows an age- and sex-specific moderating effect on the relationship between chronic stress and cognitive performance. Sci Rep 14, 3028 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52756-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52756-3
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.