Med of them. Within 2 days of completing the initial interview, the scan session occurred. At the MRI scanning center, participants were introduced to `the other participant’ (actually a confederate), an indwelling catheter was inserted for blood sampling, followed by at least 45 min of acclimation time and collection of a first baseline (BL) sample. During the acclimation time, questionnaire measures, including the subjective social status measure, were completed (see below for detail). Following the blood collection, the participant and confederate were told that the experimenters had randomly assigned the confederate to watch the participant’s video and form an impression of her, while the participant would undergo the fMRI scan and view the confederate’s impressions. After being familiarized with the impression formation task, a second BL blood sample was drawn. During the scan, the participant completed the social stress task, in which she viewed the confederate’s feedback about how she was supposedly coming across in the video (see below for more detail). After the scan, additional blood samples were collected 30, 60 and 90 min after the termination of the stressor. During this time, participants were given neutral reading material to read. We specifically asked they not use their cell phones, go on the internet or study during this time, as we wanted to ensure that any changes in inflammation that were BLU-554MedChemExpress BLU-554 observed were not due to engagement in these other activities and were most likely due to the social stress task. After the final blood sample was collected, participants were probed regarding any suspicion about the cover story, and were fully debriefed. No participants indicated that they thought the feedback was fake, or that the confederate was a member of our research team.type of feedback. Participants were also asked to indicate how they felt overall (1 ?really bad, 4 ?really good) immediately prior to the social evaluation (i.e. while in the scanner, but AZD0156 custom synthesis BLU-554 supplement before being evaluated) and immediately following the conclusion of the evaluation (i.e. while still in the scanner). Responses to this measure were also reverse-coded (so higher numbers indicate greater negative feelings) and formed a measure of overall change in negative affect in response to the evaluation. We also examined participants’ self-reports of feelings of social evaluation by averaging their scores on two items (`I feel evaluated by the other participant’; `I feel judged by the other participant’; a ?0.84) measured on a seven-point scale (1 ?not at all, 7 ?very much) prior to going in the scanner and after returning to the testing room following the scan. Finally, participants’ perceptions of social rejection were measured with three items (i.e. `I feel like the other participant likes me’; `I feel like the participant has a positive impression of my interview’; `I feel the other participant accepts me’; a ?0.88) also measured on a sevenpoint scale before and after the scan, which were averaged to create an index of social rejection. Responses to the social rejection items were reverse coded so higher numbers indicate greater feelings of rejection.Inflammatory responsesCirculating levels of pro-inflammatory purchase AG-490 cytokines were assessed at two BL time points prior to the stressor and three time points after the stressor as previously described (Muscatell, et al., 2015). Briefly, EDTA plasma samples were assayed for IL-6 and TNF (Quantikine High Sensitivity ELISAs, R.Med of them. Within 2 days of completing the initial interview, the scan session occurred. At the MRI scanning center, participants were introduced to `the other participant’ (actually a confederate), an indwelling catheter was inserted for blood sampling, followed by at least 45 min of acclimation time and collection of a first baseline (BL) sample. During the acclimation time, questionnaire measures, including the subjective social status measure, were completed (see below for detail). Following the blood collection, the participant and confederate were told that the experimenters had randomly assigned the confederate to watch the participant’s video and form an impression of her, while the participant would undergo the fMRI scan and view the confederate’s impressions. After being familiarized with the impression formation task, a second BL blood sample was drawn. During the scan, the participant completed the social stress task, in which she viewed the confederate’s feedback about how she was supposedly coming across in the video (see below for more detail). After the scan, additional blood samples were collected 30, 60 and 90 min after the termination of the stressor. During this time, participants were given neutral reading material to read. We specifically asked they not use their cell phones, go on the internet or study during this time, as we wanted to ensure that any changes in inflammation that were observed were not due to engagement in these other activities and were most likely due to the social stress task. After the final blood sample was collected, participants were probed regarding any suspicion about the cover story, and were fully debriefed. No participants indicated that they thought the feedback was fake, or that the confederate was a member of our research team.type of feedback. Participants were also asked to indicate how they felt overall (1 ?really bad, 4 ?really good) immediately prior to the social evaluation (i.e. while in the scanner, but before being evaluated) and immediately following the conclusion of the evaluation (i.e. while still in the scanner). Responses to this measure were also reverse-coded (so higher numbers indicate greater negative feelings) and formed a measure of overall change in negative affect in response to the evaluation. We also examined participants’ self-reports of feelings of social evaluation by averaging their scores on two items (`I feel evaluated by the other participant’; `I feel judged by the other participant’; a ?0.84) measured on a seven-point scale (1 ?not at all, 7 ?very much) prior to going in the scanner and after returning to the testing room following the scan. Finally, participants’ perceptions of social rejection were measured with three items (i.e. `I feel like the other participant likes me’; `I feel like the participant has a positive impression of my interview’; `I feel the other participant accepts me’; a ?0.88) also measured on a sevenpoint scale before and after the scan, which were averaged to create an index of social rejection. Responses to the social rejection items were reverse coded so higher numbers indicate greater feelings of rejection.Inflammatory responsesCirculating levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines were assessed at two BL time points prior to the stressor and three time points after the stressor as previously described (Muscatell, et al., 2015). Briefly, EDTA plasma samples were assayed for IL-6 and TNF (Quantikine High Sensitivity ELISAs, R.Med of them. Within 2 days of completing the initial interview, the scan session occurred. At the MRI scanning center, participants were introduced to `the other participant’ (actually a confederate), an indwelling catheter was inserted for blood sampling, followed by at least 45 min of acclimation time and collection of a first baseline (BL) sample. During the acclimation time, questionnaire measures, including the subjective social status measure, were completed (see below for detail). Following the blood collection, the participant and confederate were told that the experimenters had randomly assigned the confederate to watch the participant’s video and form an impression of her, while the participant would undergo the fMRI scan and view the confederate’s impressions. After being familiarized with the impression formation task, a second BL blood sample was drawn. During the scan, the participant completed the social stress task, in which she viewed the confederate’s feedback about how she was supposedly coming across in the video (see below for more detail). After the scan, additional blood samples were collected 30, 60 and 90 min after the termination of the stressor. During this time, participants were given neutral reading material to read. We specifically asked they not use their cell phones, go on the internet or study during this time, as we wanted to ensure that any changes in inflammation that were observed were not due to engagement in these other activities and were most likely due to the social stress task. After the final blood sample was collected, participants were probed regarding any suspicion about the cover story, and were fully debriefed. No participants indicated that they thought the feedback was fake, or that the confederate was a member of our research team.type of feedback. Participants were also asked to indicate how they felt overall (1 ?really bad, 4 ?really good) immediately prior to the social evaluation (i.e. while in the scanner, but before being evaluated) and immediately following the conclusion of the evaluation (i.e. while still in the scanner). Responses to this measure were also reverse-coded (so higher numbers indicate greater negative feelings) and formed a measure of overall change in negative affect in response to the evaluation. We also examined participants’ self-reports of feelings of social evaluation by averaging their scores on two items (`I feel evaluated by the other participant’; `I feel judged by the other participant’; a ?0.84) measured on a seven-point scale (1 ?not at all, 7 ?very much) prior to going in the scanner and after returning to the testing room following the scan. Finally, participants’ perceptions of social rejection were measured with three items (i.e. `I feel like the other participant likes me’; `I feel like the participant has a positive impression of my interview’; `I feel the other participant accepts me’; a ?0.88) also measured on a sevenpoint scale before and after the scan, which were averaged to create an index of social rejection. Responses to the social rejection items were reverse coded so higher numbers indicate greater feelings of rejection.Inflammatory responsesCirculating levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines were assessed at two BL time points prior to the stressor and three time points after the stressor as previously described (Muscatell, et al., 2015). Briefly, EDTA plasma samples were assayed for IL-6 and TNF (Quantikine High Sensitivity ELISAs, R.Med of them. Within 2 days of completing the initial interview, the scan session occurred. At the MRI scanning center, participants were introduced to `the other participant’ (actually a confederate), an indwelling catheter was inserted for blood sampling, followed by at least 45 min of acclimation time and collection of a first baseline (BL) sample. During the acclimation time, questionnaire measures, including the subjective social status measure, were completed (see below for detail). Following the blood collection, the participant and confederate were told that the experimenters had randomly assigned the confederate to watch the participant’s video and form an impression of her, while the participant would undergo the fMRI scan and view the confederate’s impressions. After being familiarized with the impression formation task, a second BL blood sample was drawn. During the scan, the participant completed the social stress task, in which she viewed the confederate’s feedback about how she was supposedly coming across in the video (see below for more detail). After the scan, additional blood samples were collected 30, 60 and 90 min after the termination of the stressor. During this time, participants were given neutral reading material to read. We specifically asked they not use their cell phones, go on the internet or study during this time, as we wanted to ensure that any changes in inflammation that were observed were not due to engagement in these other activities and were most likely due to the social stress task. After the final blood sample was collected, participants were probed regarding any suspicion about the cover story, and were fully debriefed. No participants indicated that they thought the feedback was fake, or that the confederate was a member of our research team.type of feedback. Participants were also asked to indicate how they felt overall (1 ?really bad, 4 ?really good) immediately prior to the social evaluation (i.e. while in the scanner, but before being evaluated) and immediately following the conclusion of the evaluation (i.e. while still in the scanner). Responses to this measure were also reverse-coded (so higher numbers indicate greater negative feelings) and formed a measure of overall change in negative affect in response to the evaluation. We also examined participants’ self-reports of feelings of social evaluation by averaging their scores on two items (`I feel evaluated by the other participant’; `I feel judged by the other participant’; a ?0.84) measured on a seven-point scale (1 ?not at all, 7 ?very much) prior to going in the scanner and after returning to the testing room following the scan. Finally, participants’ perceptions of social rejection were measured with three items (i.e. `I feel like the other participant likes me’; `I feel like the participant has a positive impression of my interview’; `I feel the other participant accepts me’; a ?0.88) also measured on a sevenpoint scale before and after the scan, which were averaged to create an index of social rejection. Responses to the social rejection items were reverse coded so higher numbers indicate greater feelings of rejection.Inflammatory responsesCirculating levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines were assessed at two BL time points prior to the stressor and three time points after the stressor as previously described (Muscatell, et al., 2015). Briefly, EDTA plasma samples were assayed for IL-6 and TNF (Quantikine High Sensitivity ELISAs, R.