Psychosomatic Medicine
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Published online before print August 6, 2009, 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181b492e6
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Campbell, L.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Campbell, L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Social Support
Right arrow Neuroendocrine
Right arrow Stress and Coping
Psychosomatic Medicine 71:843-851 (2009)
© 2009 American Psychosomatic Society


ORIGINAL ARTICLES

What’s Closeness Got to Do with It? Men’s and Women’s Cortisol Responses When Providing and Receiving Support

Ashley M. Smith, BA, Timothy J. Loving, PhD, Erin E. Crockett, MA and Lorne Campbell, PhD

From the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences (A.M.S., T.J.L., E.E.C.), University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; and the Department of Psychology (L.C.), University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Timothy J. Loving, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, Box A2700, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: tjloving{at}mail.utexas.edu

Objective: To examine the effects of social support role (i.e., recipient versus provider) and experimentally manipulated closeness on men’s and women’s cortisol responses during an acute stress paradigm.

Methods: We manipulated psychological closeness (high versus low) between 50 same-sex stranger pairs and subsequently randomly assigned individuals to either prepare a speech (i.e., support recipient) or provide support to the speech presenter (i.e., support provider).

Results: When receiving support, cortisol responses of men in the high closeness condition increased over time relative to a) men in the low closeness condition and b) women in the high closeness condition. Cortisol responses of female support recipients did not differ as a function of condition. For support providers, whereas both men’s and women’s cortisol declined throughout the procedure, the decline for men was steeper than the decline for women.

Conclusions: With few exceptions, psychological closeness, sex, and social support role interacted in theoretically consistent ways and each significantly contributed to the pattern of cortisol responses observed in men and women during a standardized acute stress paradigm. This work expands the growing literature on potential mechanisms underlying the social support-health link. Further, the employed methodology highlights the utility of borrowing established paradigms from the close relationships literature to help illuminate specific interpersonal characteristics that might affect social support dynamics in naturally existing relationships and at the same time control for extraneous variables.

Key Words: closeness • social support • support provider • support recipient • anticipatory stressor • cortisol

Abbreviations: Cond = condition; dL = deciliter; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; TSST = Trier Social Stress Test.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Psychosomatic Society