Sex differences in stress hormone functions are presumed to depend on sex hormones. And yet, surprisingly few psychoneuroendocrine studies actually assess within-sex variations of testosterone, estradiol, and progesterone when investigating sex-specific activities of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. In this methodological study of 204 healthy adults (60 men), we assessed whether cortisol profiles would differ between the sexes when unadjusted or adjusted for basal sex hormones among both sexes. Reactive cortisol was sampled using 6 saliva samples measured every 10-min as part of the Trier Social Stress Test that generally activates cortisol among men more than women. Diurnal cortisol was sampled over two days at (1) awakening, (2) 30-min thereafter, (3) 1400 h, (4) 1600 h, and (5) bedtime. Sex hormones were collected at baseline before the psychosocial stressor and on two occasions during diurnal cortisol assessment. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance controlled for key covariates in analyses unadjusted or adjusted for sex hormones. Results revealed that men had higher reactive cortisol than women in unadjusted analysis, but this sex difference was attenuated when adjusting for sex hormones. While diurnal cortisol showed no sex differences in unadjusted models, adjusting for sex hormones revealed that women have higher morning cortisol. Correlations using area under the curve formulae revealed intriguing sex-specific associations with progesterone in men and testosterone in women that we propose have implications for social and affective neuroscience. In summary, our results reveal that adjusting for sex hormones alters "sex-specific" reactive and diurnal cortisol profiles.

Beyond providing psychobiological evidence for Bem's theory, this study highlights how sex-specific AL formulations detect the effects of sociocultural gender.

No abstract

No abstract

In this commentary, we show that Bradshaw et al. (2014) conclusion is premature, because of several serious methodological limitations. The authors did not verify for pre-test groups equivalence, though the clinical severity between the experimental and control group at baseline clearly calls for it. Moreover, we question the lack of control of the effect of exposure to trauma narrative during Switching. We also wonder on what basis Bradshaw and his colleagues concluded that OEI can be effective for cases of complex PTSD. Finally, since only one component of the Observed Experiential Integration (OEI) has been used to assess the participants, one cannot draw conclusions on treatment efficacy. All these issues are detailed in the paper.

No abstract