Endocrine and emotional response to exclusion among women and men; cortisol, salivary alpha amylase, and mood. Issue 3 (4th May 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Helpman, Liat; Penso, Julia; Zagoory-Sharon, Orna; Feldman, Ruth; Gilboa-Schechtman, Eva
• Is Part Of: Anxiety, stress, and coping. Volume 30:Issue 3(2017)
• Page Start: 253
• Page End: 263
• Publication Date: 2017-05-04
• Subjects: Sex-selection -- hormones -- stress -- sex -- gender; Anxiety -- Periodicals; Anxiety -- Research -- Periodicals; Anxiety -- periodicals; Stress -- periodicals; Adaptation, Psychological -- periodicals; 616.8522
• DOI: 10.1080/10615806.2016.1269323
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1061-5806

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background and Objectives: Social exclusion is ubiquitous and painful. Evolutionary models indicate sex differences in coping with social stress. Recent empirical data suggest different sex patterns in hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) and sympathetic–adrenal–medullary (SAM) reactivity. The present study sought to test this hypothesis. Design: We examined differences in endocrine and emotional response to exclusion by using a virtual ball tossing paradigm (Cyberball). Saliva samples and mood ratings were collected to reflect levels before, and repeatedly following, exclusion. Methods: The sample included 21 women and 23 men. Cortisol and salivary alpha amylase (sAA), biomarkers of the HPA and SAM systems, respectively, were used as indices of two arms of stress response. Results: Following exclusion, all participants experienced mood worsening followed by mood improvement, with men reporting less distress than women. Women evinced decline in cortisol following the Cyberball task, whereas men's cortisol levels showed a non-significant rise, and then decline, following exclusion. Conclusions: Our results concur with previous findings showing SAM reactivity to be gender-neutral and HPA reactivity to be gender-divergent. Additional studies are needed to examine sex-specific response to social exclusion. Implications for individual differences in recovery from stress are discussed.