Evaluation of the socially evaluated cold-pressor group test (SECPT-G) in the general population
A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.
Author and article information
Abstract
Background. In stress research, economic instruments for introducing acute stress responses are needed. In this study, we investigated whether the socially evaluated cold-pressor group test (SECPT-G) induces salivary alpha-amylase and/or cortisol responses in the general population and whether this is associated with anthropometric, experimental, and lifestyle factors.
Methods. A sample of 91 participants from the general population was recruited. Salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase (sAA) levels were assessed prior to (t0), immediately after (t1), and ten minutes after the SECPT-G (t2).
Results. A robust cortisol increase was found immediately after the SECPT-G, which further increased between t1 and t2. This was independent of most of the control variables. However, men showed a trend towards higher cortisol increases than women (p = .005). No sAA responses were found at all. However, sAA levels were dependent on measurement time point with highest levels between 9 pm and 9:30 pm. Participants who immersed their hands into the ice water for the maximally allowed time of three minutes showed higher sAA levels at all time points than participants who removed their hands from the water earlier.
Conclusions. We conclude that the SECPT-G is a good means of an acute stress test when cortisol – but not necessarily sAA – responses are intended.
Cite this as
2019. Evaluation of the socially evaluated cold-pressor group test (SECPT-G) in the general population. PeerJ Preprints 7:e27658v2 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27658v2Author comment
The statistical analysis has been revised and new control variables (caffeine consumption and SECPT-G performance) have been included.
Sections
Supplemental Information
Additional Information
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Linda Becker conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Ursula Schade conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, approved the final draft.
Nicolas Rohleder contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Human Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
Data Deposition
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The data is provided in the supplementary file 1.
Funding
Linda Becker was supported by the Bavarian Equal Opportunities Sponsorship – Förderung von Frauen in Forschung und Lehre (FFL) – Promoting Equal Opportunities for Women in Research and Teaching. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.