Differential effects of poststressor rumination and distraction on cortisol and C-reactive protein.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Stress-related physiological activation may last longer for those who ruminate, or dwell, on past stressors. Correlational and quasi-experimental research has linked rumination to immune activity and elevated cortisol. This study's aim was to experimentally test whether rumination (relative to distraction) can sustain stress-induced increases in inflammation and cortisol. Concentrations of poststressor cortisol and inflammatory markers were hypothesized to be greater for those who ruminated compared with those who were distracted. METHOD: Thirty-four healthy young women completed a laboratory speech stressor and were then randomly assigned to either ruminate on the stressor or engage in distraction for 5 minutes. Salivary cortisol and circulating plasma concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) were assessed throughout the 2-hr visit. RESULTS: As predicted, CRP and cortisol responses differed for the rumination and distraction groups. In the distraction group, participants' CRP concentrations increased poststressor and then returned to prestressor levels by the end of the visit. In contrast, participants in the rumination condition demonstrated increases in CRP that did not return to prestressor levels by the end of the visit. Similarly, poststressor cortisol was higher for those who ruminated compared with those who were distracted. Plasma IL-6 and TNF-α concentrations increased over the visit, but did not differ by experimental group. CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS suggest that ruminating on stressors may sustain CRP and cortisol responses, whereas distraction may diminish them. Findings have implications for understanding potential risk and protective factors for stress-related activation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".