5 ms·
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cobeha.2019.01.009 https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cobeha.2019.01.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2003.09.003 https://doi.org/10.101
by 4gotunameagain 3y ago
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cobeha.2019.01.009 https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cobeha.2019.01.009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2003.09.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2003.09.003
https://doi.org/10.1080/16506078809455814 https://doi.org/10.1080/16506078809455814
https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.130.4.601 https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.130.4.601
- master-lincoln 3y agothe last link is the same study I linked to come to the opposite result of you :D
- 4gotunameagain 3y agoWhy do I read the opposite? Brief naturalistic stressors (such as exams) tended to suppress cellular immunity while preserving humoral immunity. Chronic stressors were associated with suppression of both cellular and humoral measures The more a stressor deviated from those parameters by becoming more chronic, however, the more components of the immune system were affected in a potentially detrimental way.