Gender roles are related to cortisol habituation to repeated social evaluative stressors in adults: secondary analyses from a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Masculine and feminine gender roles influence stressor appraisals and coping in everyday life, but their effect on stress response systems like the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis is unclear. Accordingly, the present study tested the association between gender roles and cortisol responses to repeated stress as part of secondary analyses of data from a randomized controlled trial examining the effects of stress management interventions on cortisol habituation. Participants (Nfinal = 86; 72% female) completed a baseline survey assessing gender role endorsement using the Bem Sex Role Inventory, from which 4 groups were derived: masculine (n = 20), feminine (n = 20), androgynous (high masculinity, high femininity; n = 22), and undifferentiated (low masculinity, low femininity; n = 24). Following the stress management intervention (mindfulness-based stress reduction or cognitive-behavioral skills training) or waitlist period control, participants completed the Trier Social Stress Test on two laboratory visits (48 h apart). Salivary cortisol was assessed 0, 25, 35, and 60 min post-stressor during both laboratory visits. Androgynous and undifferentiated individuals both exhibited a significant decrease in total cortisol from visit 1 to visit 2 (i.e. habituation) whereas feminine and masculine individuals did not. Undifferentiated individuals exhibited greater habituation than feminine and masculine individuals, whereas androgynous individuals only exhibited greater habituation than the feminine group. Controlling for study condition assignment did not alter these results. Results imply that gender roles may be implicated in stress-related disease because of their association with HPA axis functioning during episodes of acute stress.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".