Regions involved in discrete stages of stressor Pan-RAS-IN-1 site interpretation has utility for work amily researchers. If an experience of work amily conflict, such as having a business trip on the same day as a son’s state Metformin (hydrochloride) manufacturer soccer tournament, is a stressor, it should become manifest by activation in the threat-processing regions of the brain. Moreover, if the parent experiencing the conflict is attentive to the child’s social meaning of his or her presence or absence, attention should be given to discern whether regions of the brain involved in social cognition are also activated. By contrast, if notions that work enhances parenting skills results in activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, this would suggest that experiences of work amily enrichment can be reasonably conceived as a coping resource (Grzywacz Bass, 2003) that is interpreted by the brain as providing safety. Even simple applications of social neuroscience tools like these would be useful to the work amily literature because they could help resolve whether a stress framework is appropriate for studying parenting in the context of paid employment. Muscatell and Eisenberger’s (2012) review also offers potential insight into unresolved issues surrounding possible differential threat posed by alternative work amily experiences. Their supposition that the brain has a nonspecific response to cognitive and social stressors would suggest that work interference with family and family interference with work would have a nonspecific neural and subsequent stress response. However, this inference is in direct contrast to Frone, Russell, and Cooper’s (1997) results indicating that family interference with work was associated with deleterious health outcomes over time while work interference with family was not. This apparent contradiction necessitates a direct test of the neural and subsequent SNS and HPA axis activation resulting from experiences of work interference with family and family interference with work. Similarly, research designed to determine whether time-, strain-, and behavior-based forms of work amily interferenceAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptFam Relat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 February 01.Grzywacz and SmithPage(Greenhaus Beutell, 1985) elicit specific or general neural responses would be useful for determining the practical value of differentiating various types of work amily experiences. Finally, conclusions from Muscatell and Eisenberger’s (2012) review have potential value for building models of how work amily experiences get “under the skin” to affect the health of working parents. Evidence that activation of threat regions of the brain is associated with blood pressure elevations would suggest that Frone, Russell, and Cooper’s (1997) link between family interference with work and incident hypertension may be explained by a neural-mediated activation of the SNS; that is, chronic family interference with work activates the threat regions of the brain, which in turn repeatedly trigger the SNS, resulting in incident hypertension. Likewise, that activation of a region of the brain thought to process safety appraisals (i.e., the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) is associated with a blunted physiological stress response provides a neural explanation for studies indicating that work amily enrichment, or the extent to which work benefits family (or family benefits work), modifies the association of work amily conflict wit.Regions involved in discrete stages of stressor interpretation has utility for work amily researchers. If an experience of work amily conflict, such as having a business trip on the same day as a son’s state soccer tournament, is a stressor, it should become manifest by activation in the threat-processing regions of the brain. Moreover, if the parent experiencing the conflict is attentive to the child’s social meaning of his or her presence or absence, attention should be given to discern whether regions of the brain involved in social cognition are also activated. By contrast, if notions that work enhances parenting skills results in activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, this would suggest that experiences of work amily enrichment can be reasonably conceived as a coping resource (Grzywacz Bass, 2003) that is interpreted by the brain as providing safety. Even simple applications of social neuroscience tools like these would be useful to the work amily literature because they could help resolve whether a stress framework is appropriate for studying parenting in the context of paid employment. Muscatell and Eisenberger’s (2012) review also offers potential insight into unresolved issues surrounding possible differential threat posed by alternative work amily experiences. Their supposition that the brain has a nonspecific response to cognitive and social stressors would suggest that work interference with family and family interference with work would have a nonspecific neural and subsequent stress response. However, this inference is in direct contrast to Frone, Russell, and Cooper’s (1997) results indicating that family interference with work was associated with deleterious health outcomes over time while work interference with family was not. This apparent contradiction necessitates a direct test of the neural and subsequent SNS and HPA axis activation resulting from experiences of work interference with family and family interference with work. Similarly, research designed to determine whether time-, strain-, and behavior-based forms of work amily interferenceAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptFam Relat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 February 01.Grzywacz and SmithPage(Greenhaus Beutell, 1985) elicit specific or general neural responses would be useful for determining the practical value of differentiating various types of work amily experiences. Finally, conclusions from Muscatell and Eisenberger’s (2012) review have potential value for building models of how work amily experiences get “under the skin” to affect the health of working parents. Evidence that activation of threat regions of the brain is associated with blood pressure elevations would suggest that Frone, Russell, and Cooper’s (1997) link between family interference with work and incident hypertension may be explained by a neural-mediated activation of the SNS; that is, chronic family interference with work activates the threat regions of the brain, which in turn repeatedly trigger the SNS, resulting in incident hypertension. Likewise, that activation of a region of the brain thought to process safety appraisals (i.e., the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) is associated with a blunted physiological stress response provides a neural explanation for studies indicating that work amily enrichment, or the extent to which work benefits family (or family benefits work), modifies the association of work amily conflict wit.
