R-Stress, Hormones & Hierarchies PDF

Reading 14 January 2024 00:31 Source Notes Leadership is associated with lower levels of stress Background/Introduction: 1. Common belief: Leaders face high stress due to increasing demands. 2. Contrary theory: Leaders might have lower stress levels due to a heightened sense of control. 3. Previous...

Reading 14 January 2024 00:31 Source Notes Leadership is associated with lower levels of stress Background/Introduction: 1. Common belief: Leaders face high stress due to increasing demands. 2. Contrary theory: Leaders might have lower stress levels due to a heightened sense of control. 3. Previous studies: Mixed results on leadership and stress, requiring more investigation. 4. Study's focus: Examine stress levels in leaders compared to non-leaders. 5. Stress indicators used: Levels of cortisol (stress hormone) and self-reported anxiety. 6. Leadership and control: A potential factor in buffering leaders against stress. 7. Research gap: Lack of studies on real-world leaders. 8. Study's uniqueness: Samples of actual leaders including military officers and government officials. 9. Two studies conducted: To assess the relationship from different perspectives. 10. Hypothesis: Leadership, particularly higher-level positions, is associated with lower stress. (Sherman et al., 2012) Methods: 11. Participants: Government and military leaders, and community members. 12. Leadership identification: Based on responsibility for managing others. 13. Stress measurement: Salivary cortisol levels and self-reported anxiety. 14. Study 1: Compared leaders and non-leaders. 15. Study 2: Focused only on leaders, examining the effect of leadership level. 16. Data analysis: Statistical techniques to compare groups and understand relationships. 17. Control variables: Demographics, mood, and other factors that could influence stress. 18. Additional measures: Sense of control, tenure, and leadership level specifics. 19. Sample diversity: Included a range of ethnicities and job sectors. 20. Data collection: Hormone testing and questionnaires. Results: 21. Lower stress in leaders: Both cortisol levels and anxiety reports were lower in leaders. 22. Independent manifestations: Cortisol and anxiety reports were uncorrelated, suggesting different stress aspects. 23. Study 1 findings: Significant difference in stress markers between leaders and non-leaders. 24. Study 2 findings: Higher-level leaders showed lower stress levels than lower-level leaders. 25. Sense of control: Mediated the relationship between leadership level and stress. 26. Specific leadership aspects: Total number of subordinates and authority over them were significant factors. 27. Direct reports: No significant mediation effect on stress. 28. Stability and tenure: No moderation effect found on the leadership-stress relationship. 29. Gender differences: Significant differences in cortisol levels between males and females. 30. Demographic factors: Controlled for in the analysis to isolate the effect of leadership. Discussion and Critical Analysis: 31. Leadership reduces stress: Contrary to common belief, leadership positions are associated with lower stress. 32. Sense of control: A crucial factor that mediates the relationship between leadership and stress. 33. Hierarchy and health: Similar patterns found in nonhuman primates, where higher social rank leads to lower stress. 34. Implications for leaders: High-ranking positions offer psychological benefits that buffer against stress. 35. Nature of leadership: Not just managing many people, but authority and total subordinates matter more. 36. Gender considerations: The study highlights physiological differences in stress response. 37. Limitations: Sample predominantly from public sector; may not generalize to all leadership contexts. 38. Future research: Explore other factors like social support and active coping in relation to leadership and stress. 39. Selection vs. effect: Unclear if low-stress individuals are more likely to become leaders or if leadership reduces stress. 40. Practical application: Insights for leadership development and stress management interventions. Hierarchy stability moderates the effect of status on stress and performance in humans. Background/Introduction: 1. High social status is linked with reduced stress responses across many species. 2. Previous research indicates that high status buffers against stress, particularly in stable hierarchies. 3. However, this stress-buffering effect might reverse in times of hierarchical instability. 4. The threat of losing high status in an unstable hierarchy could actually increase stress responses. 5. The hierarchy instability hypothesis proposes that high status only reduces stress and improves performance in stable hierarchies. 6. This hypothesis has implications for understanding the link between status, stress, and health outcomes. 7. The study aims to experimentally test this hypothesis across hormonal, psychological, and behavioral responses to stress. 8. Investigating hierarchy instability can reveal situations where high status may lead to poor health. 9. The research also explores the potential mechanisms behind the effects of status and hierarchy stability on stress and performance. 10. The study uses the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) in a 2x2 experimental design to assess these effects. (Knight & Mehta, 2017) Methods: 11. The study involved 118 participants, randomly assigned to high or low-status roles in either a stable or unstable hierarchy. 12. Participants were exposed to a social-evaluative stressor, a mock job interview. 13. The study measured endocrine responses (cortisol and testosterone levels), psychological states (feeling in control), and behavioral responses (competence, dominance, and warmth). 14. Cortisol and testosterone were measured at four points to assess reactivity and recovery. 15. Participants' feelings of control were reported before and after the stressor. 16. Independent observers evaluated the participants' videotaped speeches on various performance criteria. 17. The study used general linear model (GLM) analyses for statistical evaluation. 18. Cortisol and testosterone levels were log-transformed for analysis due to nonnormal distributions. 19. The study design aimed to mimic real-world hierarchical settings, considering aspects of both status and power. Results: 20. High status in a stable hierarchy buffered cortisol responses and improved interview performance. 21. In contrast, high status in an unstable hierarchy increased cortisol responses and did not improve performance. 22. High-status individuals in an unstable hierarchy exhibited increased cortisol reactivity and recovery levels. 23. Testosterone responses followed a similar pattern, with high status in an unstable hierarchy leading to increased reactivityand recovery levels. 24. High status boosted feelings of control in a stable hierarchy but not in an unstable one. 25. In terms of behavior, high-status individuals in a stable hierarchy performed better and showed greater dominance and warmth than those in unstable hierarchies. 26. Low-status individuals showed better performance and increased dominance in unstable hierarchies. 27. The study found no significant sex differences in most measures, except for dominance. 28. Mediation analyses revealed that feelings of control and testosterone reactivity mediated the relationship between status, hierarchy stability, and interview performance. Discussion and Critical Analysis: 29. The study confirms the hierarchy instability hypothesis, showing that status affects stress responses and performance based on hierarchy stability. 30. High status in stable hierarchies buffers stress responses and enhances performance, but this is not true in unstable hierarchies. 31. The study highlights the role of perceived control and testosterone reactivity in mediating these effects. 32. These findings have practical applications in reducing stress and improving performance in social-evaluative situations like job interviews. 33. The study suggests that interventions targeting beliefs about hierarchy and role-playing exercises might improve performance. 34. The findings contribute to understanding the relationship between social status, stress responses, and health outcomes. 35. The study notes the importance of considering hierarchy stability in research on status and health. 36. It also raises questions about the interaction between social status, power, and stress responses. 37. The research methodology, particularly the use of enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for hormone measurement, is acknowledged as a limitation, suggesting the need for more precise methods in future studies. 38. The study opens avenues for further research to understand the causal directions and underlying mechanisms of these findings. Dimensions of human hierarchy as determinants of health and happiness. 1. Hierarchy and Humanity Explores two ranking systems in human hierarchies: dominance/power and prestige/status. Dominance hierarchy is based on inducing fear and controlling resources. Prestige hierarchy depends on culturally valued skills and abilities. Critical Analysis: This dual hierarchy concept highlights the complexity of social structures, impacting individual experiences within societies. (Fournier, 2020) 2. Hierarchy and Health Discusses the correlation between lower socioeconomic status (SES) and higher risks of various diseases. Highlights that this gradient is not solely due to lifestyle or healthcare access but also linked to psychosocial factors. Critical Analysis: Emphasizes the multifaceted nature of health disparities, suggesting that social structures significantly contribute to health outcomes. 3. Hierarchy and Happiness SES is a significant predictor of happiness, with social standing contributing to life satisfaction. Distinguishes between life satisfaction and affective experiences in the context of SES. Critical Analysis: This section underlines the psychological impact of social ranking, suggesting a strong interplay between societal position and personal well-being. 4. Hierarchy and Anti-Hierarchy Examines the effects of societal stratification, showing that more unequal societies have steeper gradients in health and happiness. Discusses the role of income redistribution in reducing inequality and improving happiness. Critical Analysis: Highlights the potential of policy measures in mitigating the adverse effects of hierarchical structures, particularly for lower SES individuals 5. Conclusion Summarizes findings on the consistent influence of social hierarchies on health and happiness. Proposes further research into how hierarchies affect basic psychological needs. Critical Analysis: Suggests a broader perspective is needed to fully understand and address the implications of social hierarchies on human experiences. Stress, cortisol, and social hierarchy. Background/Introduction: 1. Focus on the relationship between cortisol, stress, and various social statuses. 2. Reviewing evidence on cortisol as an output (stress indicator) and input (behavioral inhibition factor). 3. Exploration of how cortisol levels vary with status in different social contexts. 4. Highlighting the role of psychological sense of control. 5. Examining the moderation of cortisol-status relationship by hierarchy stability. 6. Contexts include organizational hierarchies, socioeconomic status (SES), and social networks. 7. Investigating cortisol's differing roles as both a result and cause of social status. 8. Examining cortisol's interaction with other factors like stability and control. 9. Exploring how cortisol levels relate to health outcomes. 10. Synthesizing existing studies to present a comprehensive understanding. (Sherman & Mehta, 2020) Methods: 11. Literature review methodology, focusing on recent research. 12. Selection of studies spanning various forms of social status. 13. Analysis includes both physiological and psychological dimensions. 14. Studies reviewed from diverse contexts including workplaces, social networks, and different cultural settings. 15. Examination of cortisol's diurnal patterns in relation to stressors. 16. Consideration of both acute and chronic stress effects. 17. Analysis of cortisol’s relationship with behavioral responses like inhibition. 18. Incorporation of cross-species evidence for comprehensive understanding. 19. Assessment of cortisol's role in hierarchical dynamics. 20. Utilization of varied methodological approaches across studies (e.g., qualitative and quantitative analyses). Results: 21. Cortisol typically elevated in individuals lacking or about to lose status. 22. Lower cortisol levels associated with higher status in stable situations. 23. In organizational hierarchies, higher status linked to lower cortisol but moderated by sense of control. 24. Lower SES associated with a stronger inflammatory response and flatter diurnal cortisol slope. 25. Higher cortisol levels connected to less central positions in social networks. 26. Unstable hierarchies lead to different stress responses compared to stable ones. PSYC0010 Social Psychology Page 1 26. Unstable hierarchies lead to different stress responses compared to stable ones. 27. Cortisol's role as an input can lead to behavioral inhibition. 28. Complex interplay between job demands, control, and cortisol levels. 29. Interaction of cortisol and testosterone in determining social status. 30. The psychological sense of control is crucial in moderating cortisol's impact on health and status. Discussion: 31. Cortisol's role in social hierarchy is complex and context-dependent. 32. Not just status, but the meaning and implications of status are crucial. 33. Cortisol's diurnal pattern is influenced by chronic stressors, especially in lower SES. 34. In organizational contexts, status affects cortisol through control and job demands. 35. Unstable power leads to stress responses, differing from stable power situations. 36. Behavioral inhibition linked to cortisol could influence social navigation in low-status individuals. 37. High-status individuals might attain status partly due to lower cortisol levels. 38. Implications for understanding leadership and management styles. 39. Importance of considering both biological and psychological factors in social status research. 40. Cortisol can act as both a cause and consequence of social status changes. Critical Analysis: 41. The study emphasizes the multi-faceted nature of cortisol, challenging simplistic interpretations. 42. Highlights the importance of stability and control in the cortisol-status relationship. 43. Demonstrates how social status can have both direct and indirect effects on cortisol levels. 44. Shows that cortisol's impact on social behavior is contextually dependent. 45. Points to a potential bi-directional relationship between cortisol and social status. 46. Suggests that cortisol's role extends beyond a mere stress indicator to influencing social dynamics. 47. Raises questions about the generalizability of findings across different social and cultural contexts. 48. Highlights the need for more longitudinal and experimental studies to unravel causal relationships. 49. The study underscores the complexity of interpreting cortisol levels in social hierarchies. 50. Encourages a holistic view of social status, integrating psychological, physiological, and environmental factors. can you synthesise this article into detailed bullet points outlining the background/introduction, methods, results including figures and stats, discussion and critical analysis (elaborate the critical analysis points in the context of the study i.e., what does it mean for the study). Also use easy -tounderstand language. at least 10 bullet point per subheading and please have a high level of granularity especially on the critical analysis PSYC0010 Social Psychology Page 2