English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Although laboratory stress research is a popular and vibrant area of research activity, there is surprisingly little evidence that laboratory stress models are clinically useful (i.e. that they can explain and predict the development of disease). This article summarizes evidence that the usefulness of lab stress research can be improved with the use of social stressors. Two lines of evidence are presented in support of this argument: (a) studies comparing physiological reactivity to different lab stressors with ambulatory activity, and (b) a meta-analysis of investigations of cortisol responses to laboratory stressors. Further issues of importance in understanding social stressors are gender differences and the vulnerability (i.e. weak reliability) of social stressor impact to relatively small changes in the experimental protocol itself.

A case for the usefulness of laboratory social stressors