Neuroendocrine stress responses to an oral academic examination: No strong influence of sex, repeated participation and personality traits

Figures & data

Table I.  ANOVA results summary of the influence of sex on salivary cortisol- and alpha-amylase-responses to an oral examination.

Effect	n	F	p
Cortisol
Exam × sex	40	0.546	0.465
Time	40	5.339	0.026
Time × sex	40	0.018	0.895
Exam × time	40	6.847	0.013
Exam × time × sex	40	0.130	0.909
Alpha-amylase
Exam	37	22.245	< 0.001
Exam × sex	37	0.433	0.515
Time	37	20.513	< 0.001
Time × sex	37	0.304	0.585
Exam × time	37	13.657	0.001
Exam × time × sex	37	0.151	0.700

The ANOVA model contained the between group factor sex and the within group factors examination (exam vs. control) and time (pre vs. post).

Figure 1 Significant main effect of examination (ED) vs. control (CD; **p < 0.001); significant main effect for time (pre vs. post; #p < 0.05); and significant interaction between examination *time (p < 0.05) for cortisol (Figure 1a) and sAA (Figure 1b). No significant influence of hormonal status (free cycling women (FC); women using oral contraceptives (OC); men) for Cortisol or sAA. Data presented as group mean ± SEM.

Table II.  ANOVA result summary of the influence of hormonal status on salivary cortisol- and alpha-amylase-responses to an oral examination.

Effect	n	F	p
Cortisol
Exam	40	60.475	< 0.001
Exam × hormonal status	40	0.349	0.708
Time	40	6.545	0.015
Time × hormonal status	40	0.017	0.983
Exam × time	40	7.284	0.010
Exam × time × hormonal status	40	0.100	0.905
Alpha-amylase
Exam	37	28.173	< 0.001
Exam × hormonal status	37	0.247	0.782
Time	37	20.921	< 0.001
Time × hormonal status	37	0.155	0.857
Exam × time	37	16.117	< 0.001
Exam × time × hormonal status	37	0.085	0.918

The ANOVA model contained the between group factor hormonal status (males, naturally cycling women, hormonal contraceptive users) and the within group factors examination (exam vs. control) and time (pre vs. post).

Figure 2 Mean cortisol (A) and sAA (B) concentrations for those participants who also took part in the second oral examination. Results revealed no significant differences between first and second examinations for both measures (main effect as well as interactions). Data presented as group mean ± SEM.