Cited by 418Stress Responses and CortisolWorkplace Health and Well-beingWorkaholism, burnout, and well-being

Perceived work overload and chronic worrying predict weekend-weekday differences in the cortisol awakening response

Schlotz, Wolff, Hellhammer, Juliane, Schulz, Peter, Stone, Arthur A.·2004·Psychosomatic Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The cortisol increase after awakening has been shown to be associated with work-related stress. Several studies demonstrated a moderate stability of cortisol awakening responses on subsequent days, suggesting situation-dependent variance. This study tests whether cortisol awakening responses are different on weekdays compared with weekend days and whether such differences may be explained by chronic work overload and worrying. METHODS: Two hundred nineteen participants took saliva samples immediately after awakening and 30, 45, and 60 minutes later on 6 consecutive days starting on Saturday. Perceived chronic work overload and worrying were assessed by a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: There is a clear weekend-weekday difference in the cortisol response to awakening. This difference is associated with chronic work overload and worry. Independent of sex and weekend-weekday differences in time of awakening and sleep duration, participants who report higher levels of chronic work overload and worrying show a stronger increase and higher mean levels of cortisol after awakening on weekdays, but not on weekend days. CONCLUSIONS: The weekend-weekday differences in the cortisol awakening response and their association with chronic stress clearly demonstrate that the day of cortisol assessment is crucial in psychoendocrinological stress studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.psy.0000116715.78238.56

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schlotz, W., Hellhammer, J., Schulz, P., & Stone, A. A.
Affiliations
  • Universität Trier (DE)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
Corresponding author
Schlotz, Wolff
Venue
Psychosomatic Medicine
Published
2004-03
Volume
66
Issue
2
Pages
207-214
ISSN
0033-3174 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2020513581
Cited by
418
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 24
FWCI
5.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychosomatic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Workaholism, burnout, and well-being
Keywords
cortisol awakening response, chronic worry, chronic occupational stress, diurnal cortisol rhythm, stress biomarkers, salivary cortisol
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Circadian Rhythm, Female, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Periodicity, Personality Inventory, Saliva, Sex Factors, Sleep, Stress, Psychological, Wakefulness, Work Schedule Tolerance, Biomarkers, Workload

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.

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