Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jun 15.
Published in final edited form as: J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2007 Mar 12;39(1):87–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2007.02.003

Sex differences in emotional and physiological responses to the Trier Social Stress Test✰

Megan M Kelly a,*, Audrey R Tyrka a, George M Anderson b, Lawrence H Price a, Linda L Carpenter a,*
PMCID: PMC4467692  NIHMSID: NIHMS698631  PMID: 17466262

Abstract

Women are more likely than men to be diagnosed with depression and anxiety-related disorders, and it has been hypothesized that this difference is related to sex differences in stress reactivity. Women typically report higher levels of negative affect than men in response to psychosocial stressors, but the evidence for sex differences in physiological reactivity to stressful situations is not consistent. The present study sought to expand this work by evaluating sex differences in reactivity to a social stress challenge across neuroendocrine, autonomic and affective response domains. Participants (32 women, 30 men) completed a standardized psychosocial stress challenge (i.e., the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST)), during which several physiological (e.g., cortisol reactivity, heart rate) and psychological (e.g., depression, irritability, anger, fear) measures were assessed. The findings demonstrated that cortisol reactivity and the magnitude of autonomic responding failed to reliably discriminate between women and men. However, women reported more fear, irritability, confusion and less happiness immediately following the TSST compared to men. The broader implications of these results and how they relate to sex differences in the etiology and clinical presentation of anxiety and mood disorders are discussed.

Keywords: Depression, Stress, Sex differences, TSST, Emotion regulation

1. Introduction

Women are diagnosed with anxiety- and mood-related pathology at higher rates than men, with many epidemiological studies indicating that the female-to-male ratio is approximately 2:1 for mood and anxiety disorders (Gater et al., 1998; Weissman et al., 1996). Differences in a variety of neurobiological (e.g., hormonal and genetic) (Seeman, 1997; Silberg et al., 1999) and psychosocial (e.g., social reinforcement contingencies, emotion regulation strategies) (Chambless & Mason, 1986; Craske, 2003; Thomsen, Mehlson, Viidik, Sommerland, & Zachariae, 2005) processes have been proposed to contribute to this gender-based divergence.

Psychological stress has been clearly linked to the development of clinical depression and anxiety, with associations reported between increased stress responses, hypothalamic– pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis hyperactivity and dysregulation and the occurrence of psychopathology (Feijoó de Mello, Feijoó de Mello, Carpenter, & Price, 2003). The results of human stress studies have largely indicated that men and women do not differ in their physiological responses to acute stress, showing, for instance, little difference in cortisol reactivity (Kirschbaum, Kudielka, Gaab, Schommer, & Hellhammer, 1999; Kirschbaum, Wüst & Hellhammer, 1992; Stoney, Davis, & Matthews, 1987). However, there is some evidence that younger men have elevated adrenocorticotropin (ACTH) stress responses compared to younger women (Kirschbaum et al., 1999; Kudielka, Buske-Kirschbaum, Hellhammer, & Kirschbaum, 2004a). Similarly, there has been a lack of clear evidence for sex differences on measures of autonomic responding to acute stress, with several studies demonstrating no differences in physiological reactivity (Hedlund & Chambless, 1990;Katkin & Hoffman, 1976; Kelly, Forsyth, & Karekla, 2006; Sgoifo et al., 2003), although age-related sex differences in heart rate responses have been observed in response to laboratory social stressors (Kudielka, Buske-Kirschbaum, Hellhammer, & Kirschbaum, 2004b).

Despite conflicting evidence on physiological reactivity to human stress challenge paradigms, studies have consistently demonstrated that women report more distress to fear-producing and stressful experiences than men (Kelly et al., 2006; Kudielka et al., 2004a). In addition, research has shown that women tend to report more depressive and anxiety-related symptoms (Fujita, Diener, & Sandvik, 1991; Thomsen et al., 2005;Turgeon, Marchand, & Dupuis, 1998), demonstrating a female tendency to experience negative emotions at a greater frequency and intensity than men (Barlow, 2001; Craske, 2003; Nolen-Hoeksema, Larson, & Grayson, 1999).

These links suggest the hypothesis that sex differences in stress reactivity may contribute to the female predominance of diagnoses of major depression and anxiety disorders. It is therefore valuable to extend this research using experimentally controlled procedures known to induce stress and anxiety (e.g., a social stress challenge), while concurrently assessing autonomic, neuroendocrine and affective responses. Moreover, as existing mood and anxiety disorders are known to influence stress reactivity, it is important to study individuals without current psychopathology in order to identify potential risk factors.

In light of these considerations, the aim of the present study was to evaluate sex differences in autonomic, neuroendocrine and self-report responses to a social stress task (i.e., Trier Social Stress Test (TSST)) in a healthy, nonclinical sample. We hypothesized that women would manifest greater subjective distress than men in response to the task. In addition, due to conflicting evidence of sex differences in physiological reactivity to stress challenge studies, the present study evaluated potential sex differences in cortisol and autonomic responses to the TSST and whether these results would correspond to sex differences in evaluative responses to the stress challenge procedures.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Study candidates (adults aged 18–65) were recruited from the community and invited to participate in one of the four thematically and methodologically similar studies on stress reactivity. Sixty-two participants (32 women, 30 men; M = 28.03 years of age, SD = 11.31) meeting inclusion criteria gave voluntary written informed consent on forms approved by the Butler Hospital Institutional Review Board. Participants were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID) (First, Spitzer, Gibbon, Williams, 2002) and a medical history questionnaire, and were excluded if they reported any of the following: (a) current Axis I psychiatric disorder, (b) significant current acute or chronic medical conditions, (c) participation in current psychological or psychopharmacological treatment or (d) current use of any medication which might influence HPA axis function, including psychotropics, beta blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ketoconazole, metyrapone, corticosteroids and oral contraceptives.

2.2. Materials and apparatus

2.2.1. Pre-experimental questionnaires

A battery of psychometrically sound measures was administered during the first session. This battery included the following measures: (a) the Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology, Self-report version (IDS-SR; Rush et al., 1986; Rush, Gullion, Basco, Jarrett, & Trivedi, 1996), a 30-item questionnaire designed to assess symptoms of depression; (b) the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; Bernstein & Fink, 1998), a 70-item self-report instrument that assesses history of childhood maltreatment; (c) the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983), a 14-item instrument that assesses the degree to which recent situations in one’s life are stressful; and (d) the Spielberger State–Trait Anxiety Inventory Form-Y (STAI-S–T; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), which consists of two 20-item questionnaires used to assess state and trait levels of anxiety in clinical and nonclinical populations.

2.2.2. Experimental biochemical and physiological measures

Plasma cortisol concentrations were determined using the GammaCoat cortisol I-125 coated-tube radioimmunoassay (RIA) kit (INCSTAR Corp., Stillwater, MN). The intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation observed for quality assessment samples (5 and 20 μg/dl) were less than 5% and 10%, respectively. Continuous heart rate recordings were obtained with a wireless Polar™ cardiac monitor and heart rate data were averaged across 10-min epochs during the TSST protocol.

2.2.3. Experimental self-report measures

Participants were asked to complete paper-and-pencil visual analogue rating scales 30 min prior to, immediately following and again 45 min after the TSST. These scales included the following emotions: (a) calm, (b) fear, (c) happiness and (d) irritability. All scales were anchored from 0 = not at all to 100 = most ever.

The Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1984) was used to assess participants’ mood states at baseline (i.e., 30 min before the TSST), immediately following the TSST and once again 45 min after the TSST. The POMS consists of 72 items, and 6 subscales are derived measuring tension–anxiety, depression, anger–hostility, fatigue, confusion and vigor. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = not at all to 4 = extremely.

2.3. Procedure

Participants were seen in two sessions, with the first visit involving the clinical assessment described above to determine eligibility. If eligibility requirements were met, participants were invited to a second session for the experimental portion of the study. All experimental sessions were scheduled to take place between 1200 and 1600 h to minimize confounds from diurnal variation in hormone levels. Physical exams were conducted in order to rule out acute or unstable medical illness. Fifty minutes before the stress challenge, a wireless cardiac monitor was placed on the subject’s wrist and chest, and an indwelling IV catheter was inserted at the antecubital fossa. The TSST is a valid and reliable protocol used to induce moderate psychosocial stress, with associated HPA axis and autonomic nervous system arousal, in laboratory settings (Kirschbaum, Pirke, & Hellhammer, 1993; cf. Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004, for a review). The TSST protocol consisted of a 10-min preparatory period, a 5-min speech and a 5-min mental arithmetic task. Total plasma cortisol was measured at baseline (i.e., 15 min prior to the social stress challenge), immediately prior to the onset of the challenge, and at five time points after the TSST (15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 min after the onset of the challenge). Mean heart rate responses were assessed every 10 min beginning 20 min prior to the TSST and continuing until 20 min following the challenge. Participants completed the self-report measures at baseline, immediately following the TSST, and 45-min post-challenge.

2.4. Data reduction and statistical analyses

2.4.1. Plasma cortisol

Total plasma cortisol responses were analyzed with a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). A repeated-measures time factor and a between-subjects sex factor were included in the analysis. Since cortisol responses may be affected by age, this factor was included as a covariate. When appropriate, the Greenhouse–Geisser degrees of freedom adjustment procedure was applied to the repeated-measures time factor to correct for violations of sphericity that often occur with repeated-measures analyses. In addition, net area under the cortisol curve over time (net AUC) was calculated using the trapezoidal method, and the change in cortisol concentration from baseline to peak (peak delta) was measured. Calculated measures of net AUC and peak delta were both analyzed using ANCOVAs (with the between-subjects sex factor and using age as a covariate).

2.4.2. Heart rate

A repeated-measures ANCOVA was used to analyze sex differences in mean heart rate during the TSST, with the repeated-measures time factor and the between-subjects sex factor included in the analysis. Due to previously observed sex differences in heart rate reactivity related to age, this factor was included as a covariate. Again, the Greenhouse–Geisser degrees of freedom adjustment procedure was applied to the repeated-measures time factor to correct for violations of sphericity. An ANCOVA was used to analyze heart rate summary variables (i.e., net AUC, peak delta), with age as a covariate.

2.4.3. Self-report measures

Pre-experimental psychological questionnaires (i.e., IDS-SR, CTQ, PSS, STAI) were analyzed using one-way ANOVAs. In order to control for baseline responses on experimental self-report measures (visual analogue scales, POMS subscales), change scores were calculated (i.e., subtracting baseline responses from values measured immediately following and 45 min after the TSST) and were analyzed separately using one-way ANOVAs. A Holm’s modified Bonferroni approach was adopted to control for experimentwise error (Holm, 1979), as this correction is more powerful than more traditional approaches (i.e., Tukey test and the Bonferroni correction) when guarding against artificial inflation of Type I error rates (Jaccard, 1998).

3. Results

3.1. Pre-experimental questionnaires

Means and standard deviations for the pre-experimental questionnaires are presented inTable 1. We first evaluated whether women and men differed on several variables related to negative affect. Women reported significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms, F (1, 56) = 8.85, p = 0.004, and trait anxiety, F (1, 60) = 8.11, p = 0.006, than men. Women also reported significantly higher levels of perceived stress than men, F (1, 60) = 4.55, p = 0.037. No significant differences were observed as a function of sex for measures of state anxiety or childhood trauma. Overall, responses on measures of anxiety and negative affect were within normal limits for a nonclinical population (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Means and standard deviations for pre-experimental measures

Variable Men
 Women
M SD M SD
IDS-SR 6.52a 3.97 10.45a 5.91
CTQ 6.61 1.96 7.51 2.35
PSS 31.57b 6.50 34.94b 5.90
STAI-S 28.38 7.78 30.99 6.93
STAI-T 29.50c 8.61 35.45c 7.84
Open in a new tab

Note: N = 62 (32 women); IDS-SR = Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology, Self-report version, CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (total score), PSS = Perceived Stress Scale, STAI-S = State Anxiety Inventory (Form Y), STAI-T = Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). ANOVA sex effect p values:

a

, p = 0.004;

b

, p = 0.037;

c

, p = 0.006.

3.2. Biochemical and physiological measures

3.2.1. Plasma cortisol

Since cortisol responses may be affected by hormonal variations related to the menstrual cycle, a univariate ANOVA was conducted to check for differences in cortisol responses based on self-reported menstrual cycle phase. No significant differences in cortisol reactivity were observed for participants in different phases of the menstrual cycle. A repeated-measures ANCOVA of cortisol responses (controlling for age) demonstrated a significant main effect for time, F (6, 46) = 4.08, p = 0.013 (see Fig. 1). No significant sex differences were found in the repeated-measures ANCOVA, or in analyses of cortisol summary variables in response to the TSST (i.e., net AUC, peak delta).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Mean total plasma cortisol (nmol/l) responses in men and women before and after the TSST.

3.2.2. Heart rate

Heart rate responses during the TSST challenge evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA similarly revealed a significant main effect of time, F (5, 23) = 4.42, p = 0.007 (see Fig. 2). No other effects were significant. Summary measures of heart rate (i.e., net AUC, peak delta) did not vary significantly as a function of sex.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Mean heart rate, recorded in beats per minute (bpm) across time for men and women before and after the TSST.

3.3. Self-report measures

3.3.1. Visual analogue scales

Table 2 shows means and standard deviations of the self-report measures (i.e., change scores for the visual analogue scales) assessed before and after the TSST as a function of sex. Immediately following the TSST, women reported greater increases in irritability and fear than men (F (1, 51) = 4.13, p = 0.047, and F (1, 51) = 7.07, p = 0.010). In addition, women had greater decreases in happiness following the TSST, F (1, 49) = 4.80, p = 0.033. No other significant effects were observed for the change in visual analogue scales immediately post-challenge. Change scores for the self-report ratings assessed 45 min following the TSST failed to discriminate between women and men.

Table 2.

Means and standard deviations of visual analogue scale change scores assessed immediately following and 45 min after the TSST

Post-challenge
 After 45 min
Men
 Women
 Men
 Women
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Calm −14.30 19.59 −9.31 18.55 −2.74 17.75 0.33 16.90
Fear 0.14a 4.19 4.31a 6.92 −0.96 3.35 −2.69 8.04
Happiness 0.74b 7.17 −3.92b 8.01 4.00 14.22 1.92 10.67
Irritability 3.33c 6.45 8.96c 12.81 −1.41 4.07 1.40 8.52
Open in a new tab

ANOVA sex effect p values:

a

, p = 0.010;

b

, p = 0.033;

c

, p = 0.047.

3.3.2. POMS

Table 3 shows means and standard deviations for change scores derived from the POMS before and after the TSST. Immediately following the TSST, women had significantly greater increases in confusion than men, F (1, 52) = 8.30, p = 0.006. No other significant effects were observed for the POMS subscales shortly after the TSST or 45 min following the TSST.

Table 3.

Means and standard deviations of POMS change scores assessed immediately following and 45-min after the TSST

Post-challenge
 After 45 min
Men
 Women
 Men
 Women
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Tension-anxiety 2.48 4.63 2.85 4.53 −0.92 2.00 −2.46 3.51
Depression −0.54 2.42 0.16 1.72 −0.36 0.76 −0.24 0.70
Anger-hostility −1.14 2.22 0.71 3.76 −0.17 0.76 −0.23 0.76
Fatigue −0.53 1.02 −0.72 3.47 −0.64 1.47 −0.03 3.78
Confusion 0.00a 1.79 1.86a 2.80 −0.74 2.02 −0.81 1.33
Vigor −0.93 3.38 −1.19 4.21 −0.43 3.46 −1.89 3.14
Open in a new tab

Note: POMS = profile of mood states. ANOVA sex effect p value:

a

, p = 0.006.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine, in a nonclinical healthy sample, possible sex differences in response to a psychological stress challenge. Results showed that healthy women reported greater increases in negative affect, fear and confusion and decreases in happiness immediately following a social stress challenge. Sex differences in self-reported negative affect corresponded to pre-experimental differences in depressive symptomatology and trait anxiety between men and women, even though these baseline differences were not clinically significant. Moreover, as the analyses involved change scores, the differences in emotional reactivity to the stress test are not simply due to baseline differences in affective state. These differences are also not accounted for by sex differences in autonomic or cortisol reactivity during the challenge procedure, or by a history of adverse childhood experiences.

The lack of observed sex differences in HPA axis reactivity to laboratory stress and biological challenges is consistent with several previous studies (Kirschbaum et al., 1999, 1992; Stoney et al., 1987). It has been hypothesized that sex differences in cortisol reactivity to stress may be modulated by hormonal variation occurring during the menstrual cycle (Weiss, Longhurst, & Mazure, 1999) and it has been suggested that reproductive hormones, particularly androgens and estrogen, may potentiate psychiatric symptoms (Seeman, 1997; Yonkers, 1994), modify HPA stress reactivity and predispose individuals to the development of affective and anxiety disorders. In this study, we did not focus our investigation on differences in acute stress reactivity due to the phase of menstrual cycle, although in preliminary analyses, we did not find differences in HPA stress reactivity based on menstrual cycle phase. However, our results do not rule out a more pervasive influence of gonadal hormones on affect and cognition in response to stress (Rehman, & Masson, 2005; Sanders, Sjodin, & de Chastelaine, 2002; Steiner, Dunn, & Born, 2003). Moreover, sex differences in stress responses have been found with other measures of stress reactivity. For instance, studies of sex differences in catecholamine reactivity to stress have found larger epinephrine responses to stressors in men compared to women (Lundberg, 2005). In addition, though no sex differences were found in the present study on the peripheral physiological measures of stress reactivity we examined, these results do not necessarily exclude the possibility of differences between men and women on more central mechanisms related to stress reactivity and depression.

The results of the current study draw attention to the debate about sex differences in response to specific stressors (e.g., achievement vs. social stressors) and the use of emotion regulation strategies (Stroud, Salovey, & Epel, 2002). Though the current stress challenge has been characterized as a “social stress” paradigm, it has elements that tend to be achievement- or instrumentally oriented (e.g., arithmetic tasks, public speaking tasks). Results of studies examining sex differences in response to similar achievement-oriented tasks have been either unsuccessful in demonstrating sex differences in physiological reactivity, or have demonstrated elevated reactivity in men rather than women (Kirschbaum et al., 1999, 1992; Kudielka et al., 2004a; Stroud et al., 2002). Thus, since achievement and instrumental stressors may not be, on the average, as salient for women as for men, such stressors may not be expected to elicit HPA axis hyperactivity in women. However, studies that use stressors that are associated with an increased risk of depression in women, namely interpersonal stressors (e.g., social rejection tasks and marital conflict), have successfully identified elevated cortisol reactivity, as well as increases in subjective distress and negative affect in women (Fehm-Wolfsdorf, Groth, Kaiser, & Hahlweg, 1999;Stroud et al., 2002). Thus, further research that employs the use of interpersonal stress challenges may be particularly useful in eliciting HPA axis hyperactivity and negative affect that is more closely associated with the pathogenesis of depression in women.

Sex differences in irritability and fear in response to a social stress challenge are consistent with previous studies that demonstrate that women are more likely to endorse negative affect than men in response to interpersonal stressors (Rudolph, 2002; Rudolph & Hammen, 1999; van Os & Jones, 1999). Previous research has demonstrated that women report more stressful life events than men, especially interpersonal stressors, and that women are more likely to become depressed in response to these stressors than men (McGonagle & Kessler, 1990). However, it does not appear that women differ from men in their actual exposure to acute stressors (Bebbington, 1996; Maciejewski, Prigerson, & Mazure, 2001). Thus, a female tendency to perceive events as more stressful and to be more sensitive to interpersonal stress than their male counterparts could constitute a vulnerability for the development of mood- and anxiety-related disorders. It is notable that women in our study reported significantly more perceived stress than men, as this supports the idea that women may be perceiving similar life events as more negative compared to men, and contributing to their tendency to report higher trait anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Sex differences in the use of emotion regulation strategies (e.g., suppression, reappraisal, rumination) during and following episodes of acute stress (Craske, 2003; Gross, 2002; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1999) may also explain sex differences in the prevalence of mood and anxiety pathology. Women are more likely than men to ruminate when they are experiencing negative affect (Butler & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1994; Thomsen et al., 2005), which may, in turn, lead to the feeling of less perceived control and, subsequently, more depressive and anxious symptomatology (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1999). Interestingly, women reported more confusion than men following the TSST, which may support the notion that women may be engaging in rumination and are more distracted by the emotional nature of the social stress challenge, causing interference with their cognitive processing of the task.

Further research into the association between stress, anxiety and depression, especially studies of high-risk or clinical populations, would help elucidate causes for a female predisposition to report higher levels of negative affect in stressful situations. Of particular need are more prospective and longitudinal studies of sex differences in stress reactivity that examine the interplay between biological and psychosocial mechanisms in the development of depression and anxiety. For instance, differences in coping styles may provide a psychological basis for the observed sex differences (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1999). Additionally, other vulnerabilities (i.e., social roles genetic predispositions, hormonal factors, emotion regulation strategies) may play a substantial role in how women and men differentially respond to acute stressors. In addition, more research is necessary to elucidate the potential benefits of heightened emotional sensitivity and expressiveness in women, which may include more willingness to seek out emotional experiences, the facilitation of social roles and the ability to experience amplified positive emotions as well as negative emotions (see Grossman & Wood, 1993). Empirical studies focused on the factors involved in sex differences in the clinical presentation of affective and anxiety disorders would also provide direction in the creation of more efficacious interventions and prevention approaches that target processes involved in the differential development of anxiety and mood disorders in men and women.

In summary, the results of the present study demonstrate that women are more likely than men to report higher levels of negative affect and fear to social stress challenges. In contrast, they do not significantly differ in the extent of autonomic arousal and cortisol reactivity. The findings are consistent with most previous studies and further support the notion that, on average, women tend to perceive stressful life events as more stressful than men. These basic sex differences in the perception and response to stress could constitute a vulnerability to the subsequent development of depression and anxiety in women, especially in situations of chronic stress. The nature of the observed sex differences in the self-report of negative affect warrant further investigation as they may lie at the heart of the sex differences in occurrence of anxiety and depression and may provide an approach to understanding etiology and to improving treatment.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by the Pfizer/Society for Women’s Health Research 2002 Research Scholar Award (L.L.C.). The authors gratefully acknowledge Butler Hospital Mood Disorder Research Program staff Kobita Rikhye, Psy.D., Lauren Wier, B.S., John Carvalho, B.A., Margaret Wyche, B.S., and Sandra Tavares, R.N., for their help in collecting the data. Thanks are also due to Kelly Colombo, B.A., for assistance with data analysis.

Footnotes

✰

This work was supported in part by a Pfizer/Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR) 2004 Research Scholar Award to Linda L. Carpenter, M.D.

References

  1. Barlow DH. Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and Panic. 2nd ed Guilford; New York: 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bebbington PE. The origins of sex differences in depressive disorder: Bridging the gap. International Review of Psychiatry. 1996;8:295–332. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernstein DP, Fink L. Childhood trauma questionnaire: A retrospective self-report manual. The Psychological Corporation; San Antonio: 1998. [Google Scholar]
  4. Butler LD, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Gender differences in responses to depressed mood in a college sample. Sex Roles. 1994;30:331–346. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chambless DL, Mason J. Sex, sex-role stereotyping and agoraphobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1986;24:231–235. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(86)90098-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1983;24:385–396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Craske MG. Origins of phobias and anxiety disorders: Why women more than men? Oxford; Elsevier: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dickerson SS, Kemeny ME. Acute stressors and cortisol reactivity: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin. 2004;130:355–391. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fehm-Wolfsdorf G, Groth T, Kaiser A, Hahlweg K. Cortisol responses to marital conflict depend on marital interaction quality. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1999;6:207–227. doi: 10.1207/s15327558ijbm0603_1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Feijoó de Mello A, Feijoó de Mello M, Carpenter LL, Price LH. Update on stress and depression: The role of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria. 2003;25:231–238. doi: 10.1590/s1516-44462003000400010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JBW. Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV-TR axis I disorders—Patient edition (SCID-I/P, 11/2002 revision) New York State Psychiatric Institute; New York: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fujita F, Diener E, Sandvik E. Gender differences in negative affect and well-being: The case for emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991;61:427–434. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.61.3.427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gater R, Tansella M, Korten A, Tiemens BG, Mavreas VG, Olatawura MO. Sex differences in the prevalence and detection of depressive and anxiety disorders in general health care settings: Report for the World Health Organization collaborative study on psychological problems in general health care. Archives of General Psychology. 1998;55:405–413. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.55.5.405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gross JJ. Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology. 2002;39:281–291. doi: 10.1017/s0048577201393198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Grossman M, Wood W. Sex differences in intensity of emotional experience: A social role interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993;65:1010–1022. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.5.1010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hedlund MA, Chambless DL. Sex differences and menstrual cycle effects in aversive conditioning: A comparison of premenstrual and intermenstrual women with men. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 1990;4:221–231. [Google Scholar]
  17. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics. 1979;6:65–70. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jaccard J. Interaction effects in factorial analysis of variance. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1998. [Google Scholar]
  19. Katkin ES, Hoffman LS. Sex differences and self-report of fear: A psychophysiological assessment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1976;85:607–610. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.85.6.607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kelly MM, Forsyth JP, Karekla M. Sex differences in response to a panicogenic biological challenge procedure: An experimental evaluation of panic vulnerability in a non-clinical sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2006;44:1421–1430. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.10.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kirschbaum C, Kudielka BM, Gaab J, Schommer N, Hellhammer DH. Impact of gender, menstrual cycle phase, and oral contraceptives on the activity of the hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal axis. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1999;61:154–162. doi: 10.1097/00006842-199903000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kirschbaum C, Pirke KM, Hellhammer DH. The “trier social stress test”—A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology. 1993;28:76–81. doi: 10.1159/000119004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kirschbaum C, Wüst S, Hellhammer D. Consistent sex differences in cortisol responses to psychological stress. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1992;54:648–657. doi: 10.1097/00006842-199211000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kudielka BM, Buske-Kirschbaum A, Hellhammer DH, Kirschbaum C. HPA axis responses to laboratory psychosocial stress in healthy elderly adults, younger adults, and children: Impact of age and gender. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2004a;29:83–98. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(02)00146-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kudielka BM, Buske-Kirschbaum A, Hellhammer DH, Kirschbaum C. Differential heart rate reactivity and recovery after psychosocial stress (TSST) in healthy children, younger adults, and elderly adults: The impact of age and gender. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2004b;11:116–121. doi: 10.1207/s15327558ijbm1102_8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lundberg U. Stress hormones in health and illness: The roles of work and gender. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2005;30:1017–1021. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.03.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Maciejewski PK, Prigerson HG, Mazure CM. Sex differences in event-related risk for major depression. Psychological Medicine. 2001;31:593–604. doi: 10.1017/s0033291701003877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. McGonagle KA, Kessler RC. Chronic stress, acute stress, and depressive symptoms. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1990;18:681–706. doi: 10.1007/BF00931237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. McNair D, Lorr M, Droppleman L. Bi-polar profile of mood states. Educational and Industrial Testing Service; San Diego: 1984. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nolen-Hoeksema S, Larson J, Grayson C. Explaining the gender difference in depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;77:1061–1072. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.77.5.1061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Rehman HU, Masson EA. Neuroendocrinology of female aging. Gender Medicine. 2005;2:41–56. doi: 10.1016/s1550-8579(05)80008-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Rudolph KD. Gender differences in emotional responses to interpersonal stress during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2002;30:3–13. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(01)00383-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rudolph KD, Hammen C. Age and gender as determinants of stress exposure, generation, and reactions in youngsters: A transactional perspective. Child Development. 1999;70:660–677. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Rush AJ, Giles DE, Schlesser MA, Fulton CL, Weissenburger J, Burns C. The inventory for depressive symptomatology (IDS): Preliminary findings. Psychiatry Research. 1986;18:65–87. doi: 10.1016/0165-1781(86)90060-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Rush AJ, Gullion CM, Basco MR, Jarrett RB, Trivedi MH. The inventory of depressive symptomatology (IDS): Psychometric properties. Psychological Medicine. 1996;26(3):477–486. doi: 10.1017/s0033291700035558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sanders G, Sjodin M, de Chastelaine M. On the elusive nature of sex differences in cognition: Hormonal influences contributing to within-sex variation. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2002;31:145–152. doi: 10.1023/a:1014095521499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Seeman MV. Psychopathology in women and men: Focus on female hormones. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1997;154:1641–1647. doi: 10.1176/ajp.154.12.1641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sgoifo A, Braglia F, Costoli T, Musso E, Meerlo P, Ceresini G, et al. Cardiac autonomic reactivity and salivary cortisol in men and women exposed to social stressors: Relationship with individual ethological profile. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2003;27:179–188. doi: 10.1016/s0149-7634(03)00019-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Silberg J, Pickles A, Rutter M, Hewitt J, Simonoff E, Maes H, et al. The influence of genetic factors and life stress on depression among adolescent girls. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1999;56:225–232. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.56.3.225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. Manual for the state– trait anxiety inventory (form Y) Consulting Psychologists Press; Palo Alto, CA: 1983. [Google Scholar]
  41. Steiner M, Dunn E, Born L. Hormones and mood: From menarche to menopause and beyond. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2003;74:67–83. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0327(02)00432-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Stoney CM, Davis MC, Matthews KA. Sex differences in physiological responses to stress and in coronary heart disease: A causal link? Psychophysiology. 1987;24:127–131. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00264.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Stroud LR, Salovey P, Epel ES. Sex differences in stress responses: Social rejection versus achievement stress. Biological Psychiatry. 2002;52:318–327. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3223(02)01333-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Thomsen DK, Mehlson MY, Viidik A, Sommerland B, Zachariae R. Age and gender differences in negative affect—Is there a role for emotion regulation? Personality and Individual Differences. 2005;38:1935–1946. [Google Scholar]
  45. Turgeon L, Marchand A, Dupuis G. Clinical features of panic disorder with agoraphobia: A comparison of men and women. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 1998;12:539–553. doi: 10.1016/s0887-6185(98)00031-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. van Os J, Jones PB. Early risk factors and adult person–environment relationships in affective disorder. Psychological Medicine. 1999;29:1055–1067. doi: 10.1017/s0033291799001026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Weiss EL, Longhurst JG, Mazure CM. Childhood sexual abuse as a risk factor for depression in women: Psychological and neurobiological correlates. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1999;156:816–828. doi: 10.1176/ajp.156.6.816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Weissman MM, Bland RC, Canino GJ, Faravelli C, Greenwald S, Hwu HG, et al. Cross-national epidemiology of major depression and bipolar disorder. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1996;276:293–299. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Yonkers KA. Panic disorder in women. Journal of Women’s Health. 1994;3:481–486. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES