1. Higher intuition is related to worse cardiovascular recovery to competition Alacreu-Crespo, A. 1 ; Abad-Tortosa, D. 1 ; Costa, R. 2 ; Salvador, A. 3 ; Serrano, M.A. 1. 1Universitat de València. Depto. Psicobiología. 2Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche. Depto. Psicología de la salud. 3 Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Psicología de los Recursos Humanos, del Desarrollo organizacional y de la Calidad de Vida Laboral (IDOCAL) Email: Adrian.Alacreu@uv.es 1. Introduction: 2. Material & Methods: Baseline 10 min Thinking styles Loser Winner 5€ Pre-Task Task Post-Task 3 min 18 min 10 min Moreover, recently, different theories have highlighted the importance of cognitive variables as modulators of the appraisal to a social stressor and the psychobiological response due to this appraisal (Salavador & Costa, 2009). Then, different thinking style patterns may make people to appraise social stress differently witch could lead to differently cardiovascular (CV) response. Due to lack of investigation of thinking style on this topic, we use a competitive social stressor to analyze the CV response to this stressor taking into account thinking styles. The first objective is to analyze the effect of competition on CV and appraisal responses. The second, and main objective, was to analyze whether thinking styles could modulate the CV response to a laboratory competition. Previous research showed that predominance of different thinking styles (habitual approach of processing, organizing and representing information) could influence on way of coping with stress. There are two styles; the rational style (intentional, analytic, guided by logic…) and the experiential style (automatic, holistic, guided by affect…). Concretely experiential style are related with more stress perception (van Rooyen et al., 2014). 3. Results: Figure 1: Cardiovascular response 1A) 1B) n.s. All p´s > 0.05 Figure 2: Psychometric test Figure 3: Mediation analyses 2A) 2B) Experiential Thinking style Task evaluation Recovery LF n.u Experiential Thinking style Task evaluation Recovery HF n.u n.s. All p´s > 0.05 4. Conclusions: 5. References & Funding: 2.2 Procedure 2.3 Instruments 2.1 Participants Task Evaluation 2.3.1 Task 2.3.2 Psychometric test 2.3.3 Cardiovascular “ The letters squares” (Cordero, Seisdedos, González & De la Cruz, 1990) Competition Group: 5 € Contol Group: 5 trials of 2´ 30´´ Feedback each trial “A is winning, go on” “B is losing, try harder, you can win” Without feedback and monetary reward “Spanish version of 40- items Rational- Experiential Inventory (REI)” Thinking Styles: Task Evaluation: (Peñarroja et al., in press) Effort Frustration “5-items scale about the task” Difficulty Stress Perfomance Instrument: Analyses: HR monitor polar © RS800CX (polar CIC, EE.UU.) Frequency-Domain HRV HF (ms.²) 0.15-0.40 hz. LF (ms.²) 0.04-0.15 hz. SNS/PNS PNS RATIONAL EXPERIENTIAL RATIONAL EXPERIENTIAL: 116 participants (44 women) 2 per session (same sex and age) Competition Group Control Group Winners Losers N = 30 (21.45 ±.56 years) N = 30 (21.92 ±.48 years) N = 30 (21.61 ±.46 years) No effect of competition on HF and LF response neither recovery. (Fig. 1). Although participants did not differ on stress perception, losers perceived higher frustration and lower performance than winners and control groups, as expected (Fig. 2A). Trait experiential thinking style is also important; first, winners showed less experiential thinking (Fig. 2B). Second, the higher levels of experiential thinking explains the worse recovery from stressor. So that participants show a worse recovery in autonomous nervous system, maintaining higher sympathetic and lower parasympathetic levels after competition. (Fig. 3) In sum, our results highlight the importance of cognitive variables, we recommend to take into account thinking styles in further studies on psychobiology of social stress. n.s. All p´s > 0.05 B = 7.71 * B = -18.50 * Effort B = - 6.90 * n.s. All p´s > 0.05 *p <.05 F(2,100)= 4.82, p <.01, η 2 =.088, d=.787 F(2,100)= 27.92, p <.001, η 2 =.358, d=.999 Experiential: “Group” F(2,100)= 3.64, p <.03, η 2 =.063, d=.661 Frustration : “Group” Perfomance : “Group” Cordero, A., Seisdedos, N., González, M., & De la Cruz, M. V. (1990). Cuadrados de letras (letter squares). TEA ediciones. Madrid: España Costa, R., & Salvador, A. (2012). Associations between success and failure in a face-to-face competition and psychobiological parameters in young women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(11), 1780–1790. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.03.012http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.03.012 Martínez-Tur, V., Peñarroja, V., Moliner, C., Gracia, E., Molina, A., Serrano, M. A. & Alacreu-Crespo, A. Validating the Spanish Version of the Rational-Experiential Inventory. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, In press. Salvador, A., & Costa, R. (2009). Coping with competition: Neuroendocrine responses and cognitive variables. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(2), 160–170. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.09.005http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.09.005 van Rooyen, M., Naude, L., Nel, L., Esterhuyse, K., 2014. The role of cognitive style in the stress and coping of black South African adolescents. J. Ment. Health 23, 340–346. (Costa & Salvador, 2012) Task evaluation: no mediator between thinking styles and CV responses. High Effort score explains lower HF recovery, slower parasympathetic recovery. Experiential style explains highe HF recovery and lower LF recovery, so that higher sympathetic and lower parasympathetic levels at post-task. PROMETEO 2011/048, ISIC/2013/001, VALi+d ACIF/2015/220