No abstract

Some, but not all studies using the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) have demonstrated evidence in support of sex differences in salivary cortisol. The aim of the current meta-analysis is to examine sex differences in salivary cortisol following exposure to the TSST. We further explored the effects of modifications to the TSST protocol and procedural variations as potential moderators. We searched articles published from January, 1993 to February, 2016 in MedLine, PsychINFO, and ProQuest Theses and Dissertations. This meta-analysis is based on 34 studies, with a total sample size of 1350 individuals (640 women and 710 men). Using a random effects model, we found significant heterogeneity in salivary cortisol output across sexes, such that men were observed to have higher cortisol values at peak and recovery following the TSST compared to women. Modifications to the sampling trajectory of cortisol (i.e., duration of acclimation, peak sampling time, and duration of recovery) significantly moderated the heterogeneity across both sexes. Further, there are observed sex differences at various time points of the reactive cortisol following the TSST. Lastly, current results suggest that these sex differences can be, at least in part, attributed to variations in methodological considerations across studies. Future research could advance this line of inquiry by using other methods of analyses (e.g., area under the curve; AUC), in order to better understand the effects of methodological variations and their implications for research design.

No abstract

Background The beliefs we hold about stress play an important role in coping with stressors. Various theoretical frameworks of stress point to the efficacy of reframing stress-related information through brief reappraisal interventions in order to promote adaptive coping. Purpose The goal of the current meta-analysis and systematic review is to substantiate the efficacy of reappraisal interventions on stress responsivity compared to control conditions. Differences in experimental methodologies (e.g., type of stressor used, timing of reappraisal intervention, and content of intervention instructions) will be examined to further delineate their effects on intervention outcomes. Methods The literature searches were conducted on May 16, 2018 using PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and PILOTS databases with no date restriction. The search terms included stress, reframing, reappraisal, mindset and reconceptualising. A total of 14 articles with 36 independent samples were included in the meta-analysis, while 22 articles with 46 independent samples were included in the systematic review. Random-effects model was used to test the null hypothesis using two-tailed significance testing. Fisher’s Z value was reported for each corresponding test. Heterogeneity tests are reported via Cochran’s Q-statistics. Results Findings from both the meta-analysis and systematic review revealed that overall, reappraisal interventions are effective in attenuating subjective responsivity to stress. Standard differences in means across groups are 0.429 ( SE = 0.185, 95% CI = 0.067 to 0.791; z = 2.320, p = .020). However, reappraisal intervention groups did not outperform control groups on measures of physiological stress, with standard differences of -0.084 ( SE = 0.135, 95% CI = -0.349 to 0.180; z = -0.627, p = .531). Moderator analysis revealed heterogeneous effects suggesting large variability in findings. Conclusions On one hand, findings may suggest a promising avenue for the effective management of self-reported stress and optimization of stress responses. However, more research is needed to better elucidate the effects, if any, of reappraisal interventions on stress physiology. Implications for the use of reappraisal interventions on stress optimization are discussed in the context of theoretical frameworks and considerations for future studies.

BackgroundThe consequences of stress are typically regarded from a deficit-oriented approach, conceptualizing stress to be entirely negative in its outcomes. This approach is unbalanced, and may further hinder individuals from engaging in adaptive coping. In the current study, we explored whether negative views and beliefs regarding stress interacted with a stress framing manipulation (positive, neutral and negative) on measures of stress reactivity for both psychosocial and physiological stressors.MethodNinety participants were randomized into one of three framing conditions that conceptualized the experience of stress in balanced, unbalanced-negative or unbalanced-positive ways. After watching a video on stress, participants underwent a psychosocial (Trier Social Stress Test), or a physiological (CO2 challenge) method of stress-induction. Subjective and objective markers of stress were assessed.ResultsMost of the sampled population regarded stress as negative prior to framing. Further, subjective and objective reactivity were greater to the TSST compared to the CO2 challenge. Additionally, significant cubic trends were observed in the interactions of stress framing and stress-induction methodologies on heart rate and blood pressure. Balanced framing conditions in the TSST group had a significantly larger decrease in heart rate and diastolic blood pressure following stress compared to the positive and negative framing conditions.ConclusionFindings confirmed a deficit-orientation of stress within the sampled population. In addition, results highlighted the relative efficacy of the TSST compared to CO2 as a method of stress provocation. Finally, individuals in framing conditions that posited stress outcomes in unbalanced manners responded to stressors less efficiently. This suggests that unbalanced framing of stress may have set forth unrealistic expectations regarding stress that later hindered individuals from adaptive responses to stress. Potential benefits of alternative conceptualizations of stress on stress reactivity are discussed, and suggestions for future research are made.