Cited by 142Stress Responses and CortisolHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 1 of the 59 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Cortisol response to stress: The role of expectancy and anticipatory stress regulation

Open access
Pulopulos, Matias M., Baeken, Chris, De Raedt, Rudi·2020·Hormones and Behavior

Abstract

An exacerbated physiological response to stress is associated with the development of stress-related disorders (e.g., depression and anxiety disorders). Recently, it has been proposed that individuals with high expectancies of being able to deal with stressful situations will activate regulatory mechanisms during the anticipation of the stressful event that would improve stress regulation. To test this hypothesis, 52 women in young adulthood (M = 21.06; SD = 2.58) anticipated and performed a laboratory-based stress task after receiving positive or negative feedback on their abilities to deal with stressful events. Heart rate variability and salivary cortisol were assessed throughout the experimental protocol. Participants receiving positive feedback (i.e., High Expectancy group) showed a more positive anticipatory cognitive stress appraisal (i.e., they anticipated the stress task as less threatening/challenging, and they perceived that they were more able to deal with it), and they showed a lower cortisol response to stress. Moreover, a more positive anticipatory cognitive stress appraisal was associated with better anticipatory stress regulation (indexed as less decrease in heart rate variability), leading to a lower cortisol response. Our results indicate that people with positive expectancy initiate mechanisms of anticipatory stress regulation that enhance the regulation of the physiological stress response. Expectancy and anticipatory stress regulation may be key mechanisms in the development and treatment of stress-related disorders.

Verified 2026-10-09 · 1 reference not checked yet

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a laboratory stress study with 52 young women, positive expectancy feedback led to more positive anticipatory cognitive appraisal and, after controlling for reflection, lower cortisol response to stress than negative expectancy feedback. Mediation suggested that more negative appraisal predicted worse anticipatory HRV regulation, which in turn predicted higher cortisol reactivity.

Key findings

  • The Low Expectancy group showed higher primary appraisal (t(50)=2.25, p=0.029, d=0.31), lower secondary appraisal (t(50)=-2.04, p=0.047, d=0.28), and more negative global anticipatory cognitive stress appraisal (t(50)=-2.46, p=0.017, d=0.34) than the High Expectancy group.
  • In unadjusted t-tests, the Low Expectancy group had higher cortisol AUCi (mean=-1.31, SD=111.25 vs. High mean=-42.77, SD=71.15) and cortisol reactivity (mean=0.550, SD=0.49 vs. High mean=-0.375, SD=0.29), but these differences were not statistically significant (AUCi: t(44.39)=1.61, p=0.114, d=0.22; reactivity: t(50)=1.48, p=0.141, d=0.21). After controlling for reflection, the Low Expectancy group showed significantly higher AUCi (F(1,49)=4.87, p=0.032, ηp²=0.09) and cortisol reactivity (F(1,49)=4.42, p=0.041, ηp²=0.08).
  • No significant group differences were found for HRV response: Group F(1,49)=0.54, p=0.468, ηp²=0.01; Time × Group F(2.03,99.42)=0.79, p=0.460, ηp²=0.02. Mood changes over time were significant for several VAS scales, but Time × Group interactions were not significant for the nine VASs (ps>0.115).
  • Mediation: more negative anticipatory cognitive stress appraisal was associated with larger HRV decreases during anticipation (b=0.370, p=0.004), and larger HRV decreases were associated with higher cortisol reactivity (b=-0.357, p=0.030). The indirect effect was significant for cortisol reactivity (Indirect effect=-0.133, SE=0.071) but not for AUCi in the main analysis (Indirect effect=-0.124, SE=0.072, 95% CI=-0.280 to 0.006); supplementary analyses including participants who suspected the manipulation reported significant indirect effects for both cortisol reactivity and AUCi.

Methods

  • Experimental study with healthy female undergraduates from Ghent University, all taking hormonal contraceptives. Sixty-seven women participated; final main analyses included 52 participants (High Expectancy n=25, Low Expectancy n=27) after exclusions.
  • Expectancy was manipulated by giving positive or negative feedback about participants’ ability to deal with socially stressful situations. Participants then completed a modified Trier Social Stress Test with a 15-min anticipatory phase followed by a free speech and arithmetic task.
  • Measures included salivary cortisol at six time points, HRV (RMSSD) at baseline, anticipation, stress, and recovery, the Primary Appraisal Secondary Appraisal scale for anticipatory cognitive stress appraisal, and Visual Analogue Scales for mood. Analyses used t-tests, mixed ANOVAs, ANCOVAs controlling for general self-efficacy and reflection, and PROCESS mediation models.

Limitations

  • The paper states that only women taking hormonal contraceptives were included, which may reduce generalizability, and that the groups were not assessed for similar levels of social anxiety.
  • The authors note that hormonal contraceptives reduce the cortisol response to stress and that the TSST version used had moderate-low stress severity, which may have contributed to the blunted cortisol response in the High Expectancy group.
  • Evident from the text: the final sample was small (52), seven participants who disbelieved the expectancy feedback were excluded from the main analyses, and the main unadjusted cortisol group differences were non-significant, only emerging after covarying reflection.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2019.104587

Cites

95 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

54 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

37 Own result · 36 Not checked yet · 15 Own method · 15 Own interpretation · 1 Supported so far · 1 No basis given

Verify all 58 references — free account

Show all 59 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 28
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 26
46 of 46
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is not well understood how psychological and physiological processes that occur during stress anticipation affect the regulation of the cortisol response to stress.

    “However, it is still not well understood how psychological and physiological processes that occur during stress anticipation affect the regulation of the cortisol response to stress.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are large inter-individual differences in the cortisol response to stress.

    “There are large inter-individual differences in the cortisol response to stress, and it has been proposed that cortisol and the activity of the HPA axis play a central role in the onset and maintenance of stress-related psychological illnesses such as depression and anxiety disorders (Faravelli et al., 2012;Herbert, 2013;Morris et al., 2012).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The mechanism by which expectancy affects the cortisol response to stress has never been investigated.

    “However, this mechanism has never been investigated; and research using an experimental manipulation is needed to establish such a causal pathway.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The expectancy manipulation (positive/negative feedback) was effective in changing expectancy in the analyzed participants.

    “Finally, seven participants indicated that they did not believe the feedback used to manipulate expectancy.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The version of the TSST used in this study had moderate-low stress severity.

    “Second, the stress severity of the version of the TSST used in this study was moderate-low.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    One of the functions of the hormone cortisol is to mobilize resources to deal with stressful situations.

    “Given that one of the functions of the hormone cortisol is to mobilize resources to deal with stressful situations”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The anticipatory cognitive stress appraisal index validly measures perceived threat, challenge, and coping resources.

    “The result of anticipatory cognitive stress appraisal indicates that the Low expectancy group perceived the situation as more threatening and challenging, and that they perceived that they have fewer resources to deal with the stressful situation than the High expectancy group.”
7 of 7

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

8 of 8

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upt(50) = 1.48reported p = .141 · recomputed p = .145

    “t(50)=1.48,p = .141”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 48) = 4.03reported p = .47 · recomputed p = .050

    “F(1,48)=4.03,p = .470”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 56) = 2.31reported p = .633 · recomputed p = .134

    “F(1,56)=2.31,p = .633”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 56) = 0.32reported p = .858 · recomputed p = .574

    “F(1,56)=0.32,p = .858”

  • Doesn’t add upF(3.3, 135.35) = 0.64reported p = .64 · recomputed p = .605

    “F(3.30,135.35)=0.64, p = .640”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 41) = 2.93reported p = .093 · recomputed p = .095

    “F(1,41)=2.93, p = .093”

  • Doesn’t add upF(3.73, 152.93) = 0.96reported p = .418 · recomputed p = .427

    “F(3.73,152.93)=0.96, p = .418”

  • Doesn’t add upF(3.53, 137.46) = 0.36reported p = .807 · recomputed p = .814

    “F(3.53,137.46)=0.36, p = .807”

  • Consistentt(50) = 2.25reported p = .029 · recomputed p = .029

    “t(50)=2.25,p = .029”

  • Consistentt(50) = -2.04reported p = .047 · recomputed p = .047

    “t(50)=-2.04,p = .047”

  • Consistentt(50) = -2.46reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .017

    “t(50)=-2.46,p = .017”

  • ConsistentF(2.03, 99.42) = 57.97reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2.03,99.42)=57.97,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 0.54reported p = .468 · recomputed p = .466

    “F(1,49)=0.54,p = .468”

  • ConsistentF(2.03, 99.42) = 0.79reported p = .46 · recomputed p = .458

    “F(2.03,99.42)=0.79,p = .460”

  • Consistentt(44.39) = 1.61reported p = .114 · recomputed p = .115

    “t(44.39)=1.61,p = .114”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 5.92reported p = .019 · recomputed p = .019

    “F(1,49)=5.92,p = .019”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 0.66reported p = .419 · recomputed p = .420

    “F(1,49)=0.66,p = .419”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 6.46reported p = .014 · recomputed p = .014

    “F(1,49)=6.46,p = .014”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 6.57reported p = .014 · recomputed p = .013

    “F(1,49)=6.57,p = .014”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 4.87reported p = .032 · recomputed p = .032

    “F(1,49)=4.87,p = .032”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 4.42reported p = .041 · recomputed p = .041

    “F(1,49)=4.42,p = .041”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.79reported p = .033 · recomputed p = .034

    “F(1,48)=4.79,p = .033”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 1.78reported p = .188 · recomputed p = .188

    “F(1,48)=1.78,p = .188”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 4.03reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .050

    “F(1,48)=4.03,p = .050”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 5.29reported p = .026 · recomputed p = .026

    “F(1,48)=5.29,p = .026”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 2.23reported p = .142 · recomputed p = .142

    “F(1,48)=2.23,p = .142”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 5.45reported p = .024 · recomputed p = .024

    “F(1,49)=5.45,p = .024”

  • ConsistentF(2.08, 116.54) = 69.8reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2.08,116.54)=69.80,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2.08, 116.54) = 0.42reported p = .665 · recomputed p = .666

    “F(2.08,116.54)=0.42,p = .665”

  • ConsistentF(1, 56) = 9.73reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(1,56)=9.73,p = .003”

  • ConsistentF(1, 56) = 4.83reported p = .032 · recomputed p = .032

    “F(1,56)=4.83,p = .032”

  • ConsistentF(1, 56) = 5.44reported p = .023 · recomputed p = .023

    “F(1,56)=5.44,p = .023”

  • ConsistentF(1, 56) = 4.81reported p = .032 · recomputed p = .032

    “F(1,56)=4.81,p = .032”

  • ConsistentF(2.74, 112.4) = 3.78reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .015

    “F(2.74,112.40)=3.78, p = .015”

  • ConsistentF(1, 41) = 0.23reported p = .634 · recomputed p = .634

    “F(1,41)=0.23, p = .634”

  • ConsistentF(2.74, 112.4) = 0.81reported p = .483 · recomputed p = .481

    “F(2.74,112.40)=0.81, p = .483”

  • ConsistentF(2.64, 108.2) = 7.02reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2.64,108.20)=7.02, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 41) = 2.36reported p = .132 · recomputed p = .132

    “F(1,41)=2.36, p = .132”

  • ConsistentF(2.64, 108.2) = 2.08reported p = .115 · recomputed p = .115

    “F(2.64,108.20)=2.08, p = .115”

  • ConsistentF(2.53, 103.6) = 4.34reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .010

    “F(2.53,103.60)=4.34, p = .010”

  • ConsistentF(1, 41) = 0.46reported p = .5 · recomputed p = .501

    “F(1,41)=0.46, p = .500”

  • ConsistentF(2.53, 103.6) = 1.45reported p = .238 · recomputed p = .236

    “F(2.53,103.60)=1.45, p = .238”

  • ConsistentF(3.85, 157.67) = 22.75reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3.85,157.67)=22.75, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 41) = 0.666reported p = .419 · recomputed p = .419

    “F(1,41)=0.666, p = .419”

  • ConsistentF(3.85, 157.67) = 0.43reported p = .778 · recomputed p = .780

    “F(3.85,157.67)=0.43, p = .778”

  • ConsistentF(3.3, 135.35) = 1.34reported p = .262 · recomputed p = .264

    “F(3.30,135.35)=1.34, p = .262”

  • ConsistentF(1, 41) = 5.39reported p = .025 · recomputed p = .025

    “F(1,41)=5.39, p = .025”

  • ConsistentF(3.87, 158.63) = 29.74reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3.87,158.63)=29.74, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 41) = 0.23reported p = .635 · recomputed p = .634

    “F(1,41)=0.23, p = .635”

  • ConsistentF(3.87, 158.63) = 0.92reported p = .451 · recomputed p = .454

    “F(3.87,158.63)=0.92, p = .451”

  • ConsistentF(3.73, 152.93) = 10.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3.73,152.93)=10.70, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(3.53, 137.46) = 10.35reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3.53,137.46)=10.35, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 41) = 0.52reported p = .474 · recomputed p = .475

    “F(1,41)=0.52, p = .474”

  • ConsistentF(1, 41) = 1.04reported p = .314 · recomputed p = .314

    “F(1,41)=1.04, p = .314”

54 of 54

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

6 of 6

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Raes, 2003, De Nederlandstalige versie van de ruminative response scale en de rumination on sadness scale (the Dutch version of the rumination response scale and the rumination on sadness scale), Gedragstherapie, 36, 97

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 142

Metadata

Authors
Pulopulos, M. M., Baeken, C., & De Raedt, R.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Venue
Hormones and Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
117
Pages
104587
ISSN
0018-506X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2981475429
Cited by
142
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 6
FWCI
6.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hormones and Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Universiteit Gent
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
expectancy, heart rate variability, salivary cortisol, stress-related disorders, depression, anxiety disorders, young women
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Male, Motivation, Psychological Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Saliva, Stress, Psychological, Young Adult, Anticipation, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review