Differential effects of harassment on cardiovascular and salivary cortisol stress reactivity and recovery in women and men.

To explore the differential effects of harassment on cardiovascular and neuroendocrine stress reactivity and recovery, 28 men and 32 women were randomized to a harassment or no-harassment control condition (four groups in total). The harassment consisted of three scripted statements delivered during performance of a mental arithmetic stress task. The harassing statements were delivered on a fixed schedule during the task by a same-gender experimenter. Cardiovascular, salivary cortisol, and state affect measures were taken at baseline, immediately posttask, and throughout an extended recovery period. In comparison to the control condition, harassment accentuated the stress reactivity responses on all measures, physiological and self-report of subjective affect. In addition, several gender differences in response to the stressor and during the recovery period were observed. Harassed men had the largest reactivity on cortisol and diastolic blood pressure, whereas the harassed women showed a more pronounced response on heart rate and self-reported hostility. The harassed groups were the only ones to show significant cortisol responses. Within the harassed condition, comparison of effect sizes revealed that cortisol reactivity in men was twice that of women. Control groups did not exhibit significant cortisol changes. During the recovery period, harassed men exhibited attenuated return to baseline on cardiovascular indices and cortisol, whereas women, overall, tended to exhibit an overcompensation response on cardiovascular measures. These results contribute to showing a pathway that may link negative affect (i.e., hostile or angry feelings) with the development of cardiovascular disease.

Physiological stress reactivity and recovery: conceptual siblings separated at birth?

This article discusses theoretical assumptions underlying physiological stress reactivity research. It examines early conceptualizations of activation and recovery and contrasts these with current practices in designing, analyzing, and reporting stress reactivity studies. Study protocols from four major journals covering the last 2 years of publication were examined for current practices. Of the 105 studies which tested physiological reactivity, 63% collected recovery data but only 23% reported the recovery data. We concluded that stress recovery issues are neglected and a renewed case is made for their conceptual and ecological importance. The case for studying recovery is further supported by a selective review of studies using recovery protocols that revealed positive findings not apparent in reactivity comparisons only. Finally, options for sound design of recovery protocols, statistical processing of resulting data, and interpretation of findings are presented.