Why the study?
It was unknown whether a non-human robot audience can elicit a stress response in human participants.
Does a non-human robot audience induce stress reactivity in human participants?
Does a non-human robot audience induce stress reactivity in human participants?
A non-human robot audience can successfully elicit physiological stress responses, including increased cortisol and heart rate, in human participants during a social stress testing paradigm.
Robot audiences may elicit cortisol/HR stress responses in lab settings; leaves open real-world or therapeutic translation.
This study examined whether a non-human robot audience can elicit a stress response in human participants. A 90-min experimental laboratory session based on the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) using a pre-recorded robot audience, was presented as a live on-screen simulation. Nineteen participants (female = 16) aged 21–57 years (M = 29.74) underwent a 10-min mock interview and mathematics task in front of the robot audience. Salivary cortisol was assessed at 10-min before and immediately prior to the start of the stress test, and +10-, +30- and +40-min after the start of the test. Heart rate was assessed 20 min before, at 5 min into and 40-min after the test. Perceived stress and trait coping responses were provided at entry and participants were interviewed post task about their subjective experience. Significant increases in salivary cortisol and heart rate were observed over time with no significant interactions by participant subjective report. Coping responses including active coping and planning showed significant relationships with cortisol and heart rate reactivity and recovery. Until now, a non-human robot audience has not been used in a social stress testing paradigm. This methodology offers an innovative application with potential for further in-depth evaluation of stress reactivity and adaptation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Turner‐Cobb et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: