Research

What research has actually found about people under pressure.

Who gets affected, what changes, what lingers, and what helps. Every finding comes with the people studied, the circumstances, and the method used.

Three things, kept apart on this page

What’s established
What published studies found, in the people and circumstances they studied. Each card says how strong that is: cause and effect, prediction, association or a pooled pattern.
What’s ours
What Calmistry hypothesises from those findings: the 13 measures and the material names. Marked as a Calmistry hypothesis wherever it appears, never as a finding.
What isn’t validated yet
Calmistry's own questions. Not yet tested on real respondents for consistency, retest stability or prediction. 8 planned papers · 6 collecting data now.

The findings

Each card is one finding from one or more published papers, checked against the original. Filter by moment or by situation.

60 findings

On every card: the finding is what the study established. The Calmistry line is our hypothesis. Calmistry's own questions have not yet been validated.

Getting stressed · Being judged

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Being judged while lacking control produced the biggest stress-hormone responses

Among participants in laboratory stress studies, when a performance task was both uncontrollable and open to negative judgement by others, cortisol responses were the largest and took the longest to recover, as found using a meta-analysis of 208 laboratory studies.
Details
Who was studied
208 laboratory studies

Observation window
Single lab sessions

What was measured
Cortisol and its recovery after a stressful task

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Limits: Laboratory tasks lasting minutes; the abstract reports no single pooled effect size for the combination.

What it does not show: This establishes that judgement plus low control goes with bigger cortisol responses in the lab, but not that a person's self-reported stress follows cortisol, or that everyday workload acts the same way.

Relationship to Calmistry

Supports describing being judged and lacking control as different from simply having a lot to do. It does not test any Calmistry measure.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Challenges and obstacles are different kinds of pressure
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355 · PMID 15122924
Dickerson & Kemeny (2004), Psychological Bulletin · Original publication
Getting stressed · Repeated hassles

Longitudinal diary Prediction

How strongly you react to small hassles predicted distress a decade later

Among 711 adults aged 25 to 74, when ordinary daily stressors occurred, stronger negative emotional reactions were associated with more psychological distress and a higher likelihood of reporting an affective disorder 10 years later, as found using an 8-evening diary with a 10-year follow-up.
Details
Who was studied
711 adults aged 25 to 74

Observation window
8 evenings + 10-year follow-up

What was measured
Daily stressors and emotions, later distress and reported disorders

What this establishes
Prediction, not causation

Limits: Observational; outcomes are self-reported; one 8-evening snapshot stands in for a person's usual reactivity.

What it does not show: This establishes that daily reactivity predicts later distress, but not that each small stressor causes later illness.

Relationship to Calmistry

Supports treating reaction strength as something worth measuring apart from how many stressors happen. It does not validate the Fatigue or Yield point questions.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Repeats Reactions to everyday hassles also predicted physical health
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1177/0956797612462222 · PMID 23531486
Charles et al. (2013), Psychological Science · Original publication
Getting stressed · Repeated hassles

Longitudinal diary Prediction

Reactions to everyday hassles also predicted physical health

Among 435 adults in a national daily-diary study, when ordinary daily stressors occurred, greater emotional reactivity was associated with a higher risk of reporting a chronic physical health condition 10 years later, as found using daily interviews with a 10-year follow-up.
Details
Who was studied
435 adults

Observation window
Daily interviews + 10-year follow-up

What was measured
Emotional reactions to daily stressors, later chronic conditions

What this establishes
Prediction, not causation

Limits: Health conditions were self-reported; observational.

What it does not show: This establishes that reactivity to hassles predicts later reported health conditions, but not that reactivity causes them.

Relationship to Calmistry

Suggests reactivity deserves its own measurement, separate from how often stress happens. Calmistry's own questions have not been tested against later health.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Repeats How strongly you react to small hassles predicted distress a decade later
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1007/s12160-012-9423-0 · PMID 23080393
Piazza et al. (2013), Annals of Behavioral Medicine · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

The coping method that fits matters more than having many

Among 58,946 participants across 329 effect sizes, greater coping flexibility was associated with better psychological adjustment, and fitting the strategy to the situation showed a stronger association than simply having a broad repertoire, as found using a meta-analysis of studies published 1978 to 2013.
Details
Who was studied
58,946 participants

Observation window
Studies published 1978 to 2013

What was measured
Coping flexibility and psychological adjustment

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: r = .23, 95% CI [.19, .28], k = 329, N = 58,946

Limits: The pooled association is modest and varied widely between studies (80% credibility interval from -.02 to .49).

What it does not show: This establishes that coping flexibility goes with better adjustment, but not that matching a practice to a measured profile helps more than good generic advice.

Relationship to Calmistry

Calmistry hypothesis: matching a practice to someone's response pattern may help more than generic stress advice. That needs a fair test against matched, mismatched and standard practices.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Depends on who Coping flexibility mattered more in less individualistic countries and older samples
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/a0037913 · PMID 25222637
Cheng, Lau & Chan (2014), Psychological Bulletin · Original publication
People & context

Meta-analysis moderators Pooled evidence

Coping flexibility mattered more in less individualistic countries and older samples

Among the samples in this meta-analysis, the link between coping flexibility and adjustment was stronger in countries lower in individualism and in samples with a higher average age, as found using moderator analysis across 329 effect sizes.
Details
Who was studied
58,946 participants

Observation window
Studies published 1978 to 2013

What was measured
Country individualism and average age as moderators

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: Individualism and age explained 10% and 13% of the variance

Limits: A country-level average says nothing certain about any one person in that country.

What it does not show: This establishes that the association varies by culture and age across samples, but not how any particular respondent in India or elsewhere will behave.

Relationship to Calmistry

Makes measuring in India, where most Calmistry participants live, more informative. It does not tell us how Indian respondents will score.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Extends The coping method that fits matters more than having many
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/a0037913 · PMID 25222637
Cheng, Lau & Chan (2014), Psychological Bulletin · Original publication
Getting stressed · Sustained overload

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Challenges and obstacles are different kinds of pressure

Among employees in workplace studies, demands experienced as challenges had a positive direct relationship with performance, partly offset through strain, while demands experienced as hindrances had a negative relationship with performance, as found using a meta-analysis of workplace studies.
Details
Who was studied
Employees across workplace studies

Observation window
Pooled studies

What was measured
Challenge and hindrance stressors, strain, motivation, performance

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Limits: The abstract does not give the number of studies; most underlying studies are correlational.

What it does not show: This establishes that the kind of demand matters as well as the amount, but not that challenge-type pressure is harmless.

Relationship to Calmistry

A caution against treating all pressure as one quantity. Piezo (pressure turning into action) is a Calmistry construct this research only borders on.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Even productive pressure was tiring
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.5465/amj.2005.18803921
LePine, Podsakoff & LePine (2005), Academy of Management Journal · Original publication
Staying stressed · Sustained overload

Field survey Association

Even productive pressure was tiring

Among 696 learners, challenge-related stress was positively related to learning performance and hindrance-related stress negatively, yet both kinds of stress were positively related to exhaustion, as found using a field survey with mediation analysis.
Details
Who was studied
696 learners

Observation window
One course

What was measured
Challenge and hindrance stress, exhaustion, motivation, grades

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Correlational, from one setting.

What it does not show: This establishes that performing well under pressure can go with exhaustion, but not which one causes the other.

Relationship to Calmistry

Supports keeping 'pressure turns into output' and 'pressure wears on you' as separate readings rather than one score.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Challenges and obstacles are different kinds of pressure
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883 · PMID 15506867
LePine, LePine & Jackson (2004), Journal of Applied Psychology · Original publication
People & context · Helping someone else

Brain-scan experiment Cause and effect

A trusted hand changed the brain's response to threat

Among 16 married women facing the threat of an electric shock, holding their husband's hand reduced activity in threat-related brain systems broadly and a stranger's hand more narrowly, with larger reductions where marital quality was higher, as found using a within-person brain-scanning experiment.
Details
Who was studied
16 married women

Observation window
One scanning session

What was measured
Brain activity under threat; marital quality

What this establishes
Cause and effect, in this setting

Limits: Very small sample; women only; one kind of threat.

What it does not show: This establishes that a partner's hand can change the brain's threat response in this setting, but not that any touch from anyone reduces stress for everyone.

Relationship to Calmistry

Supports treating who is present as part of the situation. Calmistry measures how much of the room gets in, not how others calm you; that link is untested.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Support you can count on differs from simply knowing many people
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01832.x · PMID 17201784
Coan, Schaefer & Davidson (2006), Psychological Science · Original publication
People & context · Helping someone else

Literature review Pooled evidence

Support you can count on differs from simply knowing many people

Across the studies reviewed, support that people saw as available and suited to the needs a stressful event created was associated with a buffering of stress effects, while being part of a large social network showed a general, direct association with well-being, as found using an integrative literature review.
Details
Who was studied
Published studies of support and stress

Observation window
Not applicable

What was measured
Kinds of social support and well-being

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Limits: A narrative review, not a meta-analysis; the reviewed studies were mostly correlational.

What it does not show: This establishes that how support is measured changes what is found, but not that more friends means less stress.

Relationship to Calmistry

Support availability, fit and safety should not collapse into one 'has friends' variable.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with A trusted hand changed the brain's response to threat
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 · PMID 3901065
Cohen & Wills (1985), Psychological Bulletin · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

How you handle a feeling changes the outcome

Among participants in emotion-regulation experiments, instructions that changed how people thought about a situation improved emotional outcomes more on average than redirecting attention, as found using a meta-analysis of 306 experimental comparisons.
Details
Who was studied
306 experimental comparisons

Observation window
Immediate effects

What was measured
Emotional experience, behaviour and physiology after an instruction

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: cognitive change d+ = 0.36; response modulation d+ = 0.16; attentional deployment d+ = 0.00

Limits: Group averages from short experiments; strategies within each family differed a lot.

What it does not show: This establishes average differences between instructed strategies, but not a ranking that holds for every person or every situation.

Relationship to Calmistry

Supports matching a practice to the kind of change it targets. Average rankings are not personal recommendations.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with The coping method that fits matters more than having many
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/a0027600 · PMID 22582737
Webb, Miles & Sheeran (2012), Psychological Bulletin · Original publication
Recovering

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Hiding a feeling is not the same as not having it

Among participants in emotion-regulation experiments, instructions to suppress the outward expression of emotion had a small positive effect on measured outcomes, while instructions to suppress the experience of emotion or thoughts about the event had none, as found using a meta-analysis of 306 experimental comparisons.
Details
Who was studied
306 experimental comparisons

Observation window
Immediate effects

What was measured
Emotional outcomes after suppression instructions

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: suppressing expression d+ = 0.32; suppressing experience d+ = -0.04; suppressing thoughts d+ = -0.12

Limits: Experimental instructions, not people's habits.

What it does not show: This establishes that hiding expression and changing the feeling are different processes, but not that holding stress inside, as Absorb describes, is suppression.

Relationship to Calmistry

Absorb (stress goes in and is held) is not the same as suppression. Whether the two overlap is a Calmistry hypothesis to test.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Extends How you handle a feeling changes the outcome
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/a0027600 · PMID 22582737
Webb, Miles & Sheeran (2012), Psychological Bulletin · Original publication
People & context

Systematic review Pooled evidence

Feeling stressed and the body's stress response don't always line up

Among studies that measured stress repeatedly in daily life, direct links between moments of stress and cortisol, blood pressure or heart rate appeared in only about half of those testing each measure, as found using a systematic review of 104 studies.

Details

Who was studied
104 everyday-life studies

Observation window
Repeated same-day measurements

What was measured
Reported stress and concurrent cortisol, blood pressure, heart rate

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: cortisol 44% (11/25); systolic blood pressure 44% (8/18); diastolic blood pressure 53% (8/15); heart rate 53% (9/17) of studies testing each

Limits: Methods varied across studies; sparse measurements can miss short responses.

What it does not show: This establishes that reported stress and physiology are related but not interchangeable, but not that either one is the true measure.

Relationship to Calmistry

Calmistry asks questions; it does not measure the body. A self-report profile should not be described as a physiological reading.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0271996 · PMID 35895674

Weber, Angerer & Apolinário-Hagen (2022), PLoS ONE · Original publication
Getting stressed · Repeated hassles

Repeated survey Prediction

Everyday hassles predicted symptoms better than major life events

Among middle-aged community adults, when stress was measured once a month for 10 consecutive months, scores for everyday hassles predicted current and later psychological symptoms better than scores for major life events, as found using repeated monthly questionnaires.
Details
Who was studied
Middle-aged community adults

Observation window
Monthly for 10 months

What was measured
Daily hassles, major life events, psychological symptoms

What this establishes
Prediction, not causation

Limits: Hassles and symptoms were both self-reported, so some overlap may come from the same way of answering.

What it does not show: This establishes that small, frequent stressors carry predictive weight, but not that hassles cause symptoms.

Relationship to Calmistry

Supports looking at small repeated stressors, not only big events. Fatigue asks how repeats wear on a person, which this study did not measure directly.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with How strongly you react to small hassles predicted distress a decade later
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1007/BF00844845 · PMID 7288876
Kanner et al. (1981), Journal of Behavioral Medicine · Original publication
Getting stressed · Repeated hassles

Daily diary Association

More distress came more from reacting harder than from meeting more stressors

Among 339 people keeping daily reports for 6 weeks, exposure and reactivity to minor daily stressors explained over 40% of the distress gap between people high and low in neuroticism, and reactivity accounted for twice as much of that gap as exposure, as found using a 6-week daily diary.
Details
Who was studied
339 people

Observation window
6 weeks of daily reports

What was measured
Daily stressors, daily distress, neuroticism

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Reported effect: over 40% of the distress difference explained; reactivity twice as much as exposure

Limits: Most of the distress difference was not explained by daily stressors at all.

What it does not show: This establishes that exposure and reactivity are separable contributors, but not that a single stress score can tell them apart.

Relationship to Calmistry

The reason Calmistry separates how much load arrives from how a person responds to it. Whether its questions capture reactivity is untested.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with How strongly you react to small hassles predicted distress a decade later
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00253.x · PMID 1960637
Bolger & Schilling (1991), Journal of Personality · Original publication
Getting stressed · Financial pressure

Experiment + field study Cause and effect

Money worries took up mental room, separately from stress

Among poorer participants, when thoughts about finances were prompted, cognitive performance dropped while better-off participants were unaffected, and the same farmers performed worse before harvest, when poor, than after it, as found using a laboratory experiment and a before-and-after field study.

Details

Who was studied
Poorer and better-off adults; farmers

Observation window
One session; before and after harvest

What was measured
Cognitive test performance

What this establishes
Cause and effect, in this setting

Limits: The farmers reported more stress before harvest, but the authors found stress did not account for the drop in performance.

What it does not show: This establishes that financial scarcity can reduce cognitive performance, but not that this happens through stress, or that it describes a stress personality.

Relationship to Calmistry

A reminder that some load is about circumstances, not response style. Financial pressure should be read as load, not as a trait of the person.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1126/science.1238041 · PMID 23990553

Mani et al. (2013), Science · Original publication
Recovering · Uncertainty

Cross-sectional Association

Reframing helped with stress you can't change and went with more depression when you could

Among 170 people with recent life stress, a greater ability to reframe emotions was associated with less depression when the stress was uncontrollable, but with more depression when it was controllable, as found using a cross-sectional person-by-situation analysis.
Details
Who was studied
170 people with recent stress

Observation window
One time point

What was measured
Reappraisal ability, controllability of the stressor, depression

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Cross-sectional; an erratum was later published.

What it does not show: This establishes that the same skill can go with better or worse outcomes depending on the situation, but not that reframing causes depression when a problem is solvable.

Relationship to Calmistry

A practice is not good or bad in itself. Calmistry hypothesis: recommendations should ask whether a situation can be changed before suggesting reframing.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Pulls against How you handle a feeling changes the outcome
- Depends on The coping method that fits matters more than having many
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1177/0956797613496434 · PMID 24145331
Troy, Shallcross & Mauss (2013), Psychological Science · Original publication
Getting stressed · Being judged

Experiment + lab study Association

Beliefs about stress could be shifted, and went with how people responded

Among participants in three studies, short films presenting stress as enhancing or as debilitating shifted people's stress mindset, and a stress-is-enhancing mindset was associated with moderate cortisol reactivity and a higher desire for feedback under stress, as found using a film manipulation and a laboratory stress test.
Details
Who was studied
Adult study participants

Observation window
Single sessions

What was measured
Stress mindset, cortisol, desire for feedback

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: The film changed mindset; the cortisol link was observed, not manipulated in the same step.

What it does not show: This establishes that stress beliefs can move and relate to responses, but not that more stress is good for people.

Relationship to Calmistry

Belief about pressure is part of the response. Piezo asks whether pressure turns into action, a different question this study does not test.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Reading a racing heart as useful changed the body's response
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/a0031201 · PMID 23437923
Crum, Salovey & Achor (2013), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · Original publication
Getting stressed · Being judged

Randomised experiment Cause and effect

Reading a racing heart as useful changed the body's response

Among 50 young adults in a laboratory speech and arithmetic task (49 analysed), those randomly told to read their arousal as helpful showed more efficient heart responses, lower vascular resistance and less attentional bias than controls, as found using a randomised experiment.
Details
Who was studied
50 young adults

Observation window
One session

What was measured
Cardiovascular responses, attention to threat

What this establishes
Cause and effect, in this setting

Limits: Small sample; immediate responses only.

What it does not show: This establishes that a brief instruction can change the immediate stress response, but not long-term resilience.

Relationship to Calmistry

Supports offering reappraisal of arousal as a short practice before judged performances. Whether it suits a particular response pattern is untested.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Beliefs about stress could be shifted, and went with how people responded
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/a0025719 · PMID 21942377
Jamieson, Nock & Mendes (2012), Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · Original publication
Staying stressed · Repeated hassles

Momentary reports Association

Stressors earlier in the day made the next one hit harder

Among 170 older adults (123 aged 66-69 and 47 aged 84-90), when stressors piled up within a day, negative emotion rose more under a new stressor, and the influence of earlier stressors faded along an exponential decay curve, as found using six reports a day for 7 days.
Details
Who was studied
170 older adults

Observation window
Six reports a day for 7 days

What was measured
Stressors and feelings in the moment

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Older adults only; the oldest group's earlier stressors faded faster, not slower.

What it does not show: This establishes that recent stressors change the response to the next one, but not that the effect adds up over weeks.

Relationship to Calmistry

The closest research to what Fatigue describes: earlier stressors changing the next response. Calmistry's Fatigue questions ask about this as a tendency, which has not been tested against momentary data.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with How strongly you react to small hassles predicted distress a decade later
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/pag0000667 · PMID 34968103
Schilling et al. (2022), Psychology and Aging · Original publication
People & context

Experience sampling Association

A trait is a range of behaviour, not one fixed response

Across three experience-sampling studies lasting 2 to 3 weeks, the typical person showed nearly all levels of every trait in everyday behaviour, while people's averages were almost perfectly stable, as found using repeated momentary reports.
Details
Who was studied
Three everyday-life samples

Observation window
2 to 3 weeks

What was measured
Momentary trait-related behaviour

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Personality states, not stress responses specifically.

What it does not show: This establishes that people vary a lot around a stable average, but not how much any one stress response varies.

Relationship to Calmistry

Why a Calmistry material is a nearest reference, not a mould: a profile describes a tendency, and people move around it.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Group averages poorly described how individuals vary
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011 · PMID 11414368
Fleeson (2001), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · Original publication
People & context · Relationship conflict

Correlational studies Association

People who habitually hide feelings still felt more negative emotion

Across five studies, people who habitually suppressed emotional expression showed less positive emotion yet experienced more negative emotion and had worse interpersonal functioning, while habitual reframers showed the reverse, as found using questionnaires and peer reports.
Details
Who was studied
Five samples

Observation window
Mostly one time point

What was measured
Habitual reappraisal and suppression, emotion, relationships, well-being

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Correlational, so habits and outcomes may influence each other.

What it does not show: This establishes that habitual suppression goes with feeling worse, but not that holding stress quietly, as Absorb describes, is the same as suppression.

Relationship to Calmistry

Absorb (stress goes in and is held) overlaps with suppression only partly. Separating thinking-it-through from hiding-it is a Calmistry hypothesis to test.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Hiding a feeling is not the same as not having it
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 · PMID 12916575
Gross & John (2003), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · Original publication
Staying stressed

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Rumination had the strongest link with symptoms of all strategies studied

Across 114 studies and 241 effect sizes, habitual rumination showed a large association with symptoms of anxiety, depression, eating and substance-use problems, avoidance and suppression medium to large, and reappraisal and acceptance small to medium, as found using a meta-analysis.
Details
Who was studied
114 studies

Observation window
Pooled studies

What was measured
Regulation habits and psychopathology symptoms

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Limits: Effect sizes are given as size labels in the abstract; problem solving's direction is not stated there.

What it does not show: This establishes broad associations between habits and symptoms, but not which technique helps one person in a given moment.

Relationship to Calmistry

Residual stress (replays and open loops) sits closest to rumination. Whether Calmistry's questions measure something different from rumination is untested.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Rumination and low mood fed each other, in both directions
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004 · PMID 20015584
Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema & Schweizer (2010), Clinical Psychology Review · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Multi-study Prediction

Accepting your own feelings went with less negative emotion under stress

Among adults in three studies (1,003 surveyed, 156 in the lab, 222 in a diary study), habitually accepting negative emotions and thoughts predicted less negative emotion during daily stressors, which in turn accounted for better psychological health 6 months later, as found using survey, laboratory and longitudinal diary designs.
Details
Who was studied
1,003 + 156 + 222 adults

Observation window
Diary + 6-month follow-up

What was measured
Acceptance, emotion during stressors, later psychological health

What this establishes
Prediction, not causation

Limits: Acceptance was measured, not assigned.

What it does not show: This establishes that accepting feelings predicts better health, but not that accepting a bad situation helps.

Relationship to Calmistry

Calmistry hypothesis: for patterns where stress lingers, accepting the feeling may shorten what stays. Untested in Calmistry's own data.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with In the moment, gratitude and savouring helped; reappraisal did not
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/pspp0000157 · PMID 28703602
Ford et al. (2018), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Experience sampling Association

Switching away from a strategy that isn't working helped low mood, not anxiety

Among 158 US adults and 144 Chinese adults reporting four times a day for 21 days, keeping a strategy that worked was generally adaptive, while switching away from an ineffective one helped momentary depressed mood but not anxious mood, as found using experience sampling in two cultures.
Details
Who was studied
158 US and 144 Chinese adults

Observation window
Four surveys a day for 21 days

What was measured
Regulation strategies, their effectiveness, momentary mood

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Effectiveness was judged by participants themselves.

What it does not show: This establishes that the value of switching depends on the feeling involved, but not that switching is always better.

Relationship to Calmistry

Adds 'did it work?' and 'which feeling?' to coping fit. A recommendation should be checked against whether it helped.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Extends The coping method that fits matters more than having many
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1038/s44220-024-00215-3
Chen et al. (2024), Nature Mental Health · Original publication
Staying stressed · Uncertainty

Prospective study Prediction

A habit of ruminating, measured before an earthquake, predicted symptoms after it

Among 137 students assessed 14 days before a major earthquake, those who already had a ruminative way of responding to their symptoms, along with existing symptoms, had more depression and stress symptoms 10 days and 7 weeks afterwards, as found using a prospective study.
Details
Who was studied
137 students

Observation window
14 days before; 10 days and 7 weeks after

What was measured
Ruminative style, depression and stress symptoms

What this establishes
Prediction, not causation

Limits: Existing symptoms before the earthquake also predicted later symptoms.

What it does not show: This establishes that rumination predicts lasting symptoms after a shared stressor, but not that it causes them.

Relationship to Calmistry

Supports measuring what stays after an event as distinct from the first reaction. Residual stress is Calmistry's version of that idea, and untested.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Rumination and low mood fed each other, in both directions
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.115 · PMID 1890582
Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow (1991), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · Original publication
Staying stressed

Experience sampling Prediction

Rumination and low mood fed each other, in both directions

Among 93 adults reporting 8 times a day for 1 week, ruminating at one moment predicted more negative emotion at the next, and negative emotion also predicted more rumination at the next, as found using experience sampling.
Details
Who was studied
93 adults

Observation window
8 times a day for 1 week

What was measured
Momentary rumination and negative emotion

What this establishes
Prediction, not causation

Limits: Lagged associations, not experimental manipulation.

What it does not show: This establishes a two-way loop between rumination and mood, but not a one-way build-up of stress.

Relationship to Calmistry

Residual stress should not be pictured as stress simply accumulating. The research suggests a loop.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with A bad moment carried into the next one, partly through rumination
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/0021-843X.117.2.314 · PMID 18489207
Moberly & Watkins (2008), Journal of Abnormal Psychology · Original publication
Staying stressed · Repeated hassles

Experience sampling Prediction

A bad moment carried into the next one, partly through rumination

Among non-clinical adults reporting 8 times a day for 1 week, negative events were followed by more negative emotion at the next report, and momentary rumination partly accounted for that carry-over, as found using experience sampling.
Details
Who was studied
Non-clinical adults

Observation window
8 times a day for 1 week

What was measured
Negative events, rumination, negative emotion

What this establishes
Prediction, not causation

Limits: Partial mediation only; much of the carry-over is unexplained.

What it does not show: This establishes that emotion after an event persists into the next hours, but not how long it persists for a given person.

Relationship to Calmistry

Supports Half-life and Residual stress as separate ideas: how long feeling lasts versus what keeps it going.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with The problem ended yesterday. The emotion didn't.
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1016/j.brat.2008.06.004 · PMID 18684437
Moberly & Watkins (2008), Behaviour Research and Therapy · Original publication
Staying stressed

Repeated observation Association

In low self-esteem and depression, feelings were slower to change

Across two naturalistic studies, people with low self-esteem and people with depression showed more emotional inertia, meaning both their positive and negative feelings carried over more from one observation to the next, as found using repeated observations.
Details
Who was studied
Two samples

Observation window
Repeated observations

What was measured
Moment-to-moment carry-over of emotion

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Sample details are not in the abstract; correlational.

What it does not show: This establishes that persistence of feeling is its own measurable property, but not that it causes maladjustment.

Relationship to Calmistry

Inertia is the closest measured property to Half-life. Calmistry asks about it by questionnaire; momentary data measure it directly.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Swinging moods and stuck moods both went with lower well-being
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1177/0956797610372634 · PMID 20501521
Kuppens, Allen & Sheeber (2010), Psychological Science · Original publication
Staying stressed

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Swinging moods and stuck moods both went with lower well-being

Across 79 articles with 11,381 participants, lower psychological well-being was associated with emotions that were more variable, more unstable and also more inert, as found using a meta-analysis of 793 effect sizes.
Details
Who was studied
11,381 participants

Observation window
Pooled studies

What was measured
Variability, instability and inertia of emotion

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: variability ρ = -.178; instability ρ = -.205; inertia ρ = -.151

Limits: Associations are small and mostly correlational.

What it does not show: This establishes that changing too much and changing too little can both matter, but not that one number captures emotional recovery.

Relationship to Calmistry

A quick return to baseline is not automatically healthy if moods also swing. Half-life reads only one side of that.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Repeats In low self-esteem and depression, feelings were slower to change
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/a0038822 · PMID 25822133
Houben, Van Den Noortgate & Kuppens (2015), Psychological Bulletin · Original publication
Staying stressed

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Worry and rumination kept the body's stress systems switched on

Across 60 studies of healthy participants, worry and rumination were associated with higher blood pressure, heart rate and cortisol and lower heart-rate variability, as found using a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies.

Details

Who was studied
60 studies

Observation window
Pooled studies

What was measured
Blood pressure, heart rate, cortisol, heart-rate variability

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: systolic g = .45, diastolic g = .51 (experimental); heart rate g = .28 and .20; cortisol g = .36 and .32

Limits: The blood-pressure effects came from experimental studies only.

What it does not show: This establishes that thinking about stress goes with physical activation, but not that a questionnaire about lingering measures that activation.

Relationship to Calmistry

Residual stress is described as what stays after the moment. This is evidence that it can involve the body too, which Calmistry does not measure.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/bul0000036 · PMID 26689087

Ottaviani et al. (2016), Psychological Bulletin · Original publication
Staying stressed · Recovery

Longitudinal diary Prediction

The problem ended yesterday. The emotion didn't.

Among 1,155 adults in a nationwide study, negative emotion that lingered the day after an ordinary stressor was associated with more chronic conditions and worse functional limitations about 10 years later, as found using an 8-day diary and a follow-up almost 10 years later.
Details
Who was studied
1,155 adults

Observation window
8 days + ~10-year follow-up

What was measured
Daily emotion and later physical health

What this establishes
Prediction, not causation

Limits: Observational; later health was self-reported.

What it does not show: This establishes that next-day lingering predicts later health, but not that lingering causes illness.

Relationship to Calmistry

Supports studying next-day emotional carryover. It does not validate the Residual stress or Half-life questions.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Extends Reactions to everyday hassles also predicted physical health
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1177/0956797618763097 · PMID 29553880
Leger, Charles & Almeida (2018), Psychological Science · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Questionnaire validation Association

Recovery from work came in four distinct forms

Among 930 employees, recovery outside work separated into four measurable experiences (switching off from work, relaxation, mastery and control), with moderate links to job stressors and well-being in a 271-person subsample, as found using questionnaire development and validation.

Details

Who was studied
930 employees

Observation window
One time point

What was measured
Recovery experiences, job stressors, well-being

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Validates a questionnaire structure; it does not test which recovery method works best.

What it does not show: This establishes that recovery has several separable parts, but not which one helps most for a given person.

Relationship to Calmistry

A model of what Calmistry is attempting: separating parts of a process and validating the questions. Calmistry's own validation is still ahead.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204 · PMID 17638488

Sonnentag & Fritz (2007), Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · Original publication
Recovering · Repeated hassles

Daily diary Association

Savouring good moments softened the sting of stressful days in older age

Among 108 adults aged 65-92 keeping a 14-day diary, stressful days came with more negative emotion when that day's savouring was low, but not when savouring was high, as found using a daily diary.
Details
Who was studied
108 adults aged 65-92

Observation window
14 days

What was measured
Daily stressors, savouring, negative emotion

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Observational; savouring was not assigned.

What it does not show: This establishes a buffering pattern on high-savouring days, but not that savouring practice causes it.

Relationship to Calmistry

Calmistry hypothesis: savouring may suit patterns where stress stays long. Untested.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with In the moment, gratitude and savouring helped; reappraisal did not
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1002/smi.70030 · PMID 40156474
Peleg, Wallimann & Pauly (2025), Stress and Health · Original publication
People & context · Relationship conflict

Within-couple study Association

Small wounds healed more slowly after a marital argument

Among 42 married couples, small skin wounds healed more slowly after a conflict discussion than after a supportive one, and consistently hostile couples healed at 60% of the rate of low-hostile couples, as found using two 24-hour hospital visits with daily healing checks.
Details
Who was studied
42 married couples

Observation window
Two 24-hour visits + healing checks

What was measured
Wound healing, inflammatory signalling, hostile behaviour

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Reported effect: hostile couples healed at 60% of the rate of low-hostile couples

Limits: The order of visits was fixed, so time effects cannot be fully ruled out.

What it does not show: This establishes that relationship conflict goes with slower physical repair, but not that one argument causes lasting harm.

Relationship to Calmistry

Stress between people is not only a mood. Calmistry measures how much of the room gets in, not its effect on the body.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Couples' stress hormones and bad moods moved together, most at home
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1001/archpsyc.62.12.1377 · PMID 16330726
Kiecolt-Glaser et al. (2005), Archives of General Psychiatry · Original publication
Staying stressed · Sustained overload

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

A flatter daily cortisol rhythm went with poorer health

Across 80 studies and 179 associations, a flatter decline in cortisol across the day was associated with poorer mental and physical health, as found using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Details

Who was studied
80 studies

Observation window
Studies up to 2015

What was measured
Daily cortisol slope and health

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: r = 0.147 overall; r = 0.288 for immune and inflammation outcomes

Limits: Mostly observational; direction of effects unclear.

What it does not show: This establishes a physiological pattern worth studying, but not that a self-reported stress score reflects cortisol regulation.

Relationship to Calmistry

Creep describes long, slow pressure changing a person. This is body-level evidence Calmistry does not measure.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.05.018 · PMID 28578301

Adam et al. (2017), Psychoneuroendocrinology · Original publication
Staying stressed · Sustained overload

Cohort meta-analysis Prediction

High-demand, low-control jobs carried a modestly higher heart risk

Among 197,473 employees in 13 European cohorts, jobs combining high demands with low control were associated with a modestly higher risk of later coronary heart disease, as found using a pooled analysis of individual data over a mean 7.5-year follow-up.
Details
Who was studied
197,473 employees

Observation window
Mean 7.5-year follow-up

What was measured
Job strain, later coronary heart disease

What this establishes
Prediction, not causation

Reported effect: hazard ratio 1.23 (95% CI 1.10-1.37), adjusted for age and sex

Limits: Observational; adjusted for age and sex only in the headline estimate.

What it does not show: This establishes that sustained job strain predicts modestly higher heart risk, but not that stress alone causes heart disease.

Relationship to Calmistry

Long, heavy pressure matters over years. Creep asks how a person's response pattern changes under such pressure, which no study here tracked.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Being judged while lacking control produced the biggest stress-hormone responses
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60994-5 · PMID 22981903
Kivimäki et al. (2012), The Lancet · Original publication
People & context

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Four or more childhood adversities went with higher odds of many later problems

Across 37 studies with 253,719 participants, people reporting four or more adverse childhood experiences had higher odds of many later health problems than those reporting none, from weak associations for physical inactivity to the strongest for problematic drug use and violence, as found using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Details
Who was studied
253,719 participants

Observation window
Studies up to 2016

What was measured
Adverse childhood experiences and adult health

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Limits: Many outcomes varied widely across studies.

What it does not show: This establishes dose-related associations across populations, but not any individual's future.

Relationship to Calmistry

Context for Work hardening: heavy early adversity is not a toughening exercise.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Pulls against Some past adversity went with better adjustment than none or a lot
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30118-4 · PMID 29253477
Hughes et al. (2017), The Lancet Public Health · Original publication
Recovering

Longitudinal study Prediction

Some past adversity went with better adjustment than none or a lot

Among a US national sample followed for several years, people reporting some lifetime adversity had lower distress, less impairment, fewer post-traumatic symptoms and higher life satisfaction than those with none or a lot, and were least affected by recent adverse events, as found using a multiyear longitudinal study.
Details
Who was studied
US national sample

Observation window
Several years

What was measured
Lifetime adversity, distress, life satisfaction

What this establishes
Prediction, not causation

Limits: Correlational; adversity counts were self-reported.

What it does not show: This establishes a U-shaped association, but not that hardship should be prescribed as resilience training.

Relationship to Calmistry

The research nearest to Work hardening. Whether repeating the same manageable stressor toughens a particular person is untested.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Pulls against Four or more childhood adversities went with higher odds of many later problems
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/a0021344 · PMID 20939649
Seery, Holman & Silver (2010), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Pooled review Pooled evidence

After potential trauma, most people stayed on a stable path

Across 54 longitudinal studies with 67 samples of people facing potentially traumatic events, a stable low-symptom path was the most common pattern, followed by recovery, chronic symptoms and delayed onset, as found using a review with pooled trajectory estimates.
Details
Who was studied
54 studies, 67 samples

Observation window
Longitudinal studies

What was measured
Symptom trajectories after potential trauma

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: resilience 65.7%; recovery 20.8%; chronic 10.6%; delayed onset 8.9%

Limits: Estimates rest on growth-mixture models, which other researchers show are sensitive to assumptions.

What it does not show: This establishes that stable functioning is a common pattern in these analyses, but not a fixed share of people who bounce back.

Relationship to Calmistry

A warning against publishing a single Calmistry bounce-back percentage without a defined baseline, window and definition of recovery.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Pulls against How common resilience looks depended on the statistical model
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.05.008 · PMID 29902711
Galatzer-Levy, Huang & Bonanno (2018), Clinical Psychology Review · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Reanalysis Association

How common resilience looks depended on the statistical model

Among people experiencing spousal loss, divorce or unemployment in the same longitudinal data used earlier, resilient paths were most common under the original model settings but least common when two restrictive assumptions were relaxed, as found using a reanalysis with growth-mixture models.
Details
Who was studied
People facing loss, divorce or job loss

Observation window
Years around each event

What was measured
Life-satisfaction trajectories

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: A reply from other researchers was published alongside; the debate is about modelling choices.

What it does not show: This establishes that resilience rates depend on the model, but not the true rate.

Relationship to Calmistry

The proportion of people judged resilient can change because of the model, not the people. Calmistry should define recovery before reporting any rate.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Pulls against After potential trauma, most people stayed on a stable path
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1177/1745691615621271 · PMID 26993272
Infurna & Luthar (2016), Perspectives on Psychological Science · Original publication
People & context · Helping someone else

Group experiment Cause and effect

One person's mood rippled through a group

Among 94 business students in 29 groups, a trained group member's displayed mood spread to the others, and positive contagion went with more cooperation, less conflict and better perceived performance, as found using a randomised laboratory group experiment.
Details
Who was studied
94 students in 29 groups

Observation window
One session

What was measured
Group members' moods and group behaviour

What this establishes
Cause and effect, in this setting

Limits: Contagion did not differ by how pleasant or energetic the displayed mood was.

What it does not show: This establishes that moods can spread in a group, but not that some people are consistently more open to it.

Relationship to Calmistry

Porosity (how much of the room gets in) assumes people differ in how much they take in. This study shows contagion happens; it did not measure who takes in more.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Couples' stress hormones and bad moods moved together, most at home
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.2307/3094912
Barsade (2002), Administrative Science Quarterly · Original publication
People & context · Relationship conflict

Repeated sampling Association

Couples' stress hormones and bad moods moved together, most at home

Among 30 married couples sampled 4 times a day for 3 days, partners' cortisol levels and negative moods rose and fell together, more strongly at home than during the workday and more weakly in more satisfied marriages, as found using repeated saliva samples and mood reports.
Details
Who was studied
30 married couples

Observation window
4 times a day for 3 days

What was measured
Cortisol and mood in both partners

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Positive moods were not linked; for cortisol, satisfaction mattered for wives only.

What it does not show: This establishes that partners' stress moves together, but not who passes it to whom.

Relationship to Calmistry

Transmission is not the same as expression: a partner can be affected without much being said. Calmistry hypothesis to test in Pair Compare.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with A mother's stress showed up in her baby's body
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/a0016959 · PMID 20053034
Saxbe & Repetti (2010), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · Original publication
People & context · Helping someone else

Randomised experiment Cause and effect

A mother's stress showed up in her baby's body

Among mothers and their infants, when mothers were randomly assigned to a negatively evaluated stress task rather than a positive or no-evaluation task, the pair's physiological responses moved together more after reunion, increasingly over time, as found using a randomised laboratory experiment.

Details

Who was studied
Mothers and infants

Observation window
One session

What was measured
Physiological responses of mother and infant

What this establishes
Cause and effect, in this setting

Limits: Sample size and infant ages are not given in the abstract.

What it does not show: This establishes that stress can pass between people without words, but not how this works in adult relationships.

Relationship to Calmistry

Helping someone else can mean carrying their stress. Porosity is Calmistry's construct for that openness; it has not been tested against physiology.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1177/0956797613518352 · PMID 24482403

Waters, West & Mendes (2014), Psychological Science · Original publication
People & context

Multi-rater study Association

You know some of your traits best; friends know others better

Among 165 participants rated by themselves, friends and strangers and checked against behaviour, the self was the best judge of neuroticism-related traits, friends of intellect-related traits, and all perspectives were equal for extraversion-related traits, as found using a multi-rater study.

Details

Who was studied
165 participants

Observation window
One assessment period

What was measured
Self, friend and stranger ratings against behaviour

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Students in one setting.

What it does not show: This establishes that self and others see different things, but not which view of a stress response is better.

Relationship to Calmistry

Why Pair Compare lets each person rate the other: some stress responses may be easier to see from outside. Untested for Calmistry's measures.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/a0017908 · PMID 20085401

Vazire (2010), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Writing or talking about feelings helped, but only a little on average

Across 146 randomised studies, structured disclosure of emotional experiences produced a positive but very small average benefit, as found using a meta-analysis.
Details
Who was studied
146 randomised studies

Observation window
Varied follow-ups

What was measured
Many health and well-being outcomes

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: average r = .075

Limits: Effects varied with the setting and the person.

What it does not show: This establishes a small average benefit, but not that expressing distress is a powerful fix for everyone.

Relationship to Calmistry

Transmit (stress goes out into words or action) is not proof of recovery. Calmistry hypothesis: expression helps some patterns more than others.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Support you can count on differs from simply knowing many people
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.823 · PMID 17073523
Frattaroli (2006), Psychological Bulletin · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

'If this happens, I will do that' plans helped people follow through

Across 94 independent tests, forming a specific if-then plan improved goal attainment compared with an ordinary intention, with a medium-to-large average effect, as found using a meta-analysis.
Details
Who was studied
94 independent tests

Observation window
Varied

What was measured
Goal attainment

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: d = .65

Limits: Not specific to stress; participant totals are not given in the abstract.

What it does not show: This establishes that concrete plans aid follow-through, but not that they reduce stress.

Relationship to Calmistry

Why Calmistry's practices are written as specific if-then steps rather than general advice.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with New habits took anywhere from weeks to most of a year
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
Gollwitzer & Sheeran (2006), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · Original publication
Recovering

Daily reports Association

New habits took anywhere from weeks to most of a year

Among 96 volunteers repeating one daily behaviour in the same context for 12 weeks, automaticity rose gradually towards a plateau, and the estimated time to reach 95% of it ranged from 18 to 254 days, as found using daily self-reports.

Details

Who was studied
96 volunteers

Observation window
12 weeks

What was measured
Automaticity of a chosen behaviour

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Reported effect: 18 to 254 days to 95% of plateau

Limits: The curve was fitted for 62 people and fitted well for 39.

What it does not show: This establishes that habit strength builds with repetition at very different speeds, but not a universal deadline.

Relationship to Calmistry

Why Calmistry does not promise a practice will stick in a set number of days.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1002/ejsp.674

Lally et al. (2010), European Journal of Social Psychology · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Mindfulness programmes helped anxiety and low mood a little; evidence for stress was weaker

Across 47 trials with 3,515 participants, mindfulness meditation programmes produced small-to-moderate improvements in anxiety, depression and pain, with only low-strength evidence for stress or distress and no evidence of being better than active treatments, as found using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Details
Who was studied
3,515 participants

Observation window
8 weeks and 3-6 months

What was measured
Anxiety, depression, pain, stress

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: anxiety 0.38 at 8 weeks; depression 0.30 at 8 weeks; pain 0.33

Limits: Evidence for stress and distress was rated low.

What it does not show: This establishes modest average benefits, but not that meditation suits every stress pattern.

Relationship to Calmistry

A well-known practice can have a small average effect. Matching it to the person is the open question.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Stress apps helped a little, and less in the most rigorous studies
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018 · PMID 24395196
Goyal et al. (2014), JAMA Internal Medicine · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Randomised trial Cause and effect

Five minutes of slow-exhale breathing lifted mood more than meditation in one trial

Among 108 mostly student participants randomised to one of four 5-minute daily practices for 1 month, exhale-focused cyclic sighing produced greater improvement in mood and a larger drop in breathing rate than mindfulness meditation, as found using a remote randomised trial.

Details

Who was studied
108 participants

Observation window
5 minutes a day for 1 month

What was measured
Mood, anxiety, breathing rate

What this establishes
Cause and effect, in this setting

Limits: Small, mostly student sample in one trial.

What it does not show: This establishes a short-term advantage in one sample, but not that it is the best technique for everyone.

Relationship to Calmistry

A short practice worth offering; Calmistry hypothesis: it may suit fast-rising responses more than lingering ones.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100895 · PMID 36630953

Balban et al. (2023), Cell Reports Medicine · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Stress apps helped a little, and less in the most rigorous studies

Across 80 studies of stress-management apps in non-clinical and subclinical groups, apps produced small improvements in self-reported stress and in physiological outcomes, with smaller effects in studies using active controls, everyday settings and low risk of bias, as found using a meta-analysis.
Details
Who was studied
80 studies

Observation window
Studies up to 2024

What was measured
Self-reported and physiological stress

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: self-reported stress g = 0.33; physiological g = 0.24

Limits: Effects shrank in the most rigorous studies.

What it does not show: This establishes small average benefits, but not that any particular app, Calmistry included, helps.

Relationship to Calmistry

Calmistry is an app. Its practices have to be tested against credible alternatives, not assumed to help.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Repeats Digital resilience programmes made small dents in distress
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102515 · PMID 39522422
Sîrbu & David (2024), Clinical Psychology Review · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Digital resilience programmes made small dents in distress

Across 101 randomised studies with 20,010 non-clinical adults, digital interventions produced small reductions in mental distress and small gains in positive mental health and resilience factors, as found using a meta-analysis.
Details
Who was studied
20,010 adults

Observation window
Post-intervention and follow-up

What was measured
Distress, positive mental health, resilience factors

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: distress SMD = -0.24; resilience factors SMD = 0.31

Limits: Effects were smaller against active controls.

What it does not show: This establishes small average effects, but not which programme suits whom.

Relationship to Calmistry

The benchmark a Calmistry practice would have to beat.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Repeats Stress apps helped a little, and less in the most rigorous studies
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1038/s41746-024-01017-8 · PMID 38332030
Schäfer et al. (2024), npj Digital Medicine · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Micro-randomised trial Cause and effect

In the moment, gratitude and savouring helped; reappraisal did not

Among 72 young adults at increased risk for mental disorders, brief smartphone exercises based on gratitude, savouring and acceptance raised positive feeling in the following half hour, acceptance lowered negative feeling mainly when it was high, and cognitive reappraisal had no immediate effect, as found using a 16-day micro-randomised trial.
Details
Who was studied
72 young adults

Observation window
16 days

What was measured
Positive and negative feeling after each exercise

What this establishes
Cause and effect, in this setting

Limits: Immediate effects only; the before-and-after symptom changes had no control group.

What it does not show: This establishes short-term effects of brief exercises, but not lasting change.

Relationship to Calmistry

A null result for reappraisal sits beside the lab evidence for it. Calmistry hypothesis: the right moment matters as much as the technique.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Pulls against How you handle a feeling changes the outcome
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1016/j.jad.2026.121661 · PMID 41881110
Fiß et al. (2026), Journal of Affective Disorders · Original publication
Recovering · Recovery

Trial secondary analysis Association

When stress was highest, people were least likely to use the app

Among 77 adults with common mental health disorders, exercises triggered when distress crossed a threshold showed no significant immediate effect, and high stress predicted not engaging with them, as found using a secondary analysis of a randomised trial with repeated daily assessments.
Details
Who was studied
77 adults

Observation window
Repeated daily assessments

What was measured
Distress, triggered exercises, engagement

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Reported effect: high stress predicting non-engagement OR = 1.21

Limits: Secondary analysis; one trial.

What it does not show: This establishes that engagement drops under high stress, but not that triggered help cannot work.

Relationship to Calmistry

A practice that needs a long read during a peak moment may never be used. Calmistry's practices should be short enough for the moment they target.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with More personalisation did not beat less in a workplace stress app
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1038/s41598-026-39518-z · PMID 41673098
Jaremba et al. (2026), Scientific Reports · Original publication
Recovering · Sustained overload

Pilot study Association

More personalisation did not beat less in a workplace stress app

Among 46 employees using a wearable-informed stress app for 6 weeks, some self-reported stress measures fell while one heart-rate-variability marker moved the wrong way, and the more personalised version did no better than the less personalised one, as found using a pilot study with no control group.
Details
Who was studied
46 employees

Observation window
6 weeks

What was measured
Self-reported stress, heart-rate variability, usability

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: No control group, so changes over time cannot be attributed to the app.

What it does not show: This establishes that extra personalisation showed no advantage here, but not that personalisation never helps.

Relationship to Calmistry

Adding personalisation does not automatically help. Calmistry's matched practices need testing against a simpler version.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Pulls against The coping method that fits matters more than having many
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.2196/79642 · PMID 42150167
Kunas et al. (2026), JMIR mHealth and uHealth · Original publication
People & context

Scale validation Association

The most used stress scale measures how stressful life feels, not how you respond

Among 510 people in three samples (332 and 114 students, 64 adults quitting smoking), a 14-item scale of how stressful life is perceived to be showed good reliability and predicted outcomes better than life-event counts, as found using scale validation.
Details
Who was studied
510 people in three samples

Observation window
Up to 6 weeks

What was measured
Perceived stress, symptoms, health-service use

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Reported effect: internal consistency alpha .84, .85, .86

Limits: Measures appraisal of life overall, not response mechanics.

What it does not show: This establishes a reliable measure of perceived stress, but not a measure of how a person's response unfolds.

Relationship to Calmistry

Calmistry aims to describe response patterns, not stress level. Whether its readings add anything beyond scales like this is the test ahead.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Everyday hassles predicted symptoms better than major life events
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.2307/2136404 · PMID 6668417
Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein (1983), Journal of Health and Social Behavior · Original publication
People & context

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Forced-choice tests were harder to game, when built carefully

Across studies comparing forced-choice personality tests in low- and high-stakes conditions, overall score inflation was small, and scales resisted faking best when statements were balanced for desirability and scored normatively, as found using a meta-analysis.
Details
Who was studied
Forced-choice test studies

Observation window
Pooled studies

What was measured
Score inflation under high stakes

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Reported effect: overall score inflation effect size 0.06

Limits: Resistance depended on how the items were built and scored.

What it does not show: This establishes that forced choice can resist faking, but not that any new forced-choice test is valid.

Relationship to Calmistry

Why Calmistry uses rounds of four statements and balances them for desirability. It is evidence about the format, not about Calmistry's validity.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Does not show Group averages poorly described how individuals vary
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/apl0000414 · PMID 31070382
Cao & Drasgow (2019), Journal of Applied Psychology · Original publication
People & context

Meta-analysis Pooled evidence

Average personality keeps changing through adulthood

Across 92 longitudinal samples, people on average increased in social dominance, conscientiousness and emotional stability, especially between ages 20 and 40, as found using a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Details
Who was studied
92 longitudinal samples

Observation window
Adolescence to old age

What was measured
Mean-level personality change

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Limits: Averages hide individual differences in change.

What it does not show: This establishes that traits change on average across adulthood, but not how any one person will change.

Relationship to Calmistry

Why a Calmistry result is dated and can be retaken: a current profile is not permanent.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with A trait is a range of behaviour, not one fixed response
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 · PMID 16435954
Roberts, Walton & Viechtbauer (2006), Psychological Bulletin · Original publication
People & context

Data comparison Association

Group averages poorly described how individuals vary

Across six repeated-measures data sets, variation within individuals was two to four times larger than variation within groups, as found using a comparison of group-level and person-level estimates.
Details
Who was studied
Six data sets

Observation window
Repeated assessments

What was measured
Within-person and between-person variation

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: A methodological comparison, not a substantive stress finding.

What it does not show: This establishes that group findings may not describe individuals, but not that individual prediction is impossible.

Relationship to Calmistry

Every finding on this page is about groups. Applying it to one person's profile is a further step Calmistry has to test.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with A trait is a range of behaviour, not one fixed response
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1073/pnas.1711978115 · PMID 29915059
Fisher, Medaglia & Jeronimus (2018), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · Original publication
Getting stressed · Uncertainty

Scale development Association

Difficulty tolerating uncertainty went with worry and anxiety

Among two undergraduate samples, a short scale of intolerance of uncertainty correlated strongly with measures of anxiety and worry and split into anxious and avoidant parts, as found using scale development.

Details

Who was studied
Two student samples

Observation window
One time point

What was measured
Intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety, worry

What this establishes
An association, not cause and effect

Limits: Correlations between questionnaires; numbers not given in the abstract.

What it does not show: This establishes that intolerance of uncertainty tracks worry, but not that holding firmly to plans means resisting stress.

Relationship to Calmistry

Stiffness (how much it takes to move you) borders on intolerance of uncertainty. Whether they are the same thing is a Calmistry hypothesis.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014 · PMID 16647833

Carleton, Norton & Asmundson (2007), Journal of Anxiety Disorders · Original publication
People & context

Review Pooled evidence

Most psychology comes from a narrow slice of humanity

Across the comparative evidence reviewed, broad claims about human psychology were routinely based on samples drawn entirely from Western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic societies, which often differ from other populations, as found using a review.
Details
Who was studied
Comparative studies

Observation window
Not applicable

What was measured
Where research samples come from, and cross-population differences

What this establishes
A pattern pooled across studies

Limits: A review argument, not a stress study.

What it does not show: This establishes that sampling is narrow, but not how stress findings differ in India.

Relationship to Calmistry

Most people taking part in Calmistry are in India. Which findings on this page hold there is an open question.

Calmistry hypothesis · not yet tested in Calmistry's own instrument

Related findings
- Fits with Coping flexibility mattered more in less individualistic countries and older samples
Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X · PMID 20550733
Henrich, Heine & Norenzayan (2010), Behavioral and Brain Sciences · Original publication

Explore by measure

Calmistry reads 13 measures. Some rest on research that measured the same thing; most rest on research about something next to it. Each one below says which, and names the bridge nobody has tested yet.

Bounces off Reflect (2)

What research has established: In experiments, taking another perspective or changing how a situation is read improved emotional outcomes more on average than redirecting attention, and the benefit of reframing depended on whether the situation could be changed.

The missing bridge: Whether someone reliably puts up a boundary before stress is taken in has not been measured as a trait of its own.

No direct evidence yet: every link here is adjacent research or a Calmistry hypothesis.

Adjacent evidence How you handle a feeling changes the outcome
Adjacent evidence Reframing helped with stress you can't change and went with more depression when you could

About this measure

Sinks in Absorb (3)

What research has established: Hiding outward emotion is a different process from changing the feeling: people who habitually suppress expression still feel more negative emotion, and accepting one's feelings predicts less negative emotion under stress.

The missing bridge: Holding stress inside and thinking it through is not the same thing as suppression. That difference has not been tested.

No direct evidence yet: every link here is adjacent research or a Calmistry hypothesis.

Adjacent evidence Hiding a feeling is not the same as not having it
Adjacent evidence People who habitually hide feelings still felt more negative emotion
Adjacent evidence Accepting your own feelings went with less negative emotion under stress

About this measure

Goes straight out Transmit (5)

What research has established: Disclosing emotional experiences has a small average benefit, and support that answers the need created by a stressful event can soften its effects.

The missing bridge: Whether putting stress straight into words or action resolves it, passes it on or amplifies it is not settled.

No direct evidence yet: every link here is adjacent research or a Calmistry hypothesis.

Adjacent evidence Support you can count on differs from simply knowing many people
Adjacent evidence Writing or talking about feelings helped, but only a little on average
Calmistry hypothesis People who habitually hide feelings still felt more negative emotion
Calmistry hypothesis Couples' stress hormones and bad moods moved together, most at home
Calmistry hypothesis You know some of your traits best; friends know others better

About this measure

How much of the room gets in Porosity (7)

What research has established: Moods spread within groups, couples' stress hormones move together, and a mother's stress can show up in her infant's physiology.

The missing bridge: Whether some people take in other people's moods more than others, across relationships and settings, is open.

No direct evidence yet: every link here is adjacent research or a Calmistry hypothesis.

Adjacent evidence A trusted hand changed the brain's response to threat
Adjacent evidence Small wounds healed more slowly after a marital argument
Adjacent evidence One person's mood rippled through a group
Adjacent evidence Couples' stress hormones and bad moods moved together, most at home
Adjacent evidence A mother's stress showed up in her baby's body
Calmistry hypothesis More distress came more from reacting harder than from meeting more stressors
Calmistry hypothesis You know some of your traits best; friends know others better

About this measure

How much it takes to move you Stiffness (4)

What research has established: Difficulty tolerating uncertainty is linked with worry and anxiety, and the value of switching strategies depends on the feeling involved.

The missing bridge: Whether holding firmly to a plan means more resistance to stress, or just a different kind, has not been tested.

No direct evidence yet: every link here is adjacent research or a Calmistry hypothesis.

Adjacent evidence Difficulty tolerating uncertainty went with worry and anxiety
Calmistry hypothesis The coping method that fits matters more than having many
Calmistry hypothesis Reframing helped with stress you can't change and went with more depression when you could
Calmistry hypothesis Switching away from a strategy that isn't working helped low mood, not anxiety

About this measure

When it starts to get serious Yield point (5)

What research has established: People differ in how strongly they react to the same daily stressors, reactivity matters more than exposure in explaining distress, and reactivity predicts later health.

The missing bridge: These studies measure how strong a reaction is, not the threshold at which it starts.

No direct evidence yet: every link here is adjacent research or a Calmistry hypothesis.

Adjacent evidence Being judged while lacking control produced the biggest stress-hormone responses
Adjacent evidence How strongly you react to small hassles predicted distress a decade later
Adjacent evidence Reactions to everyday hassles also predicted physical health
Adjacent evidence More distress came more from reacting harder than from meeting more stressors
Calmistry hypothesis Reading a racing heart as useful changed the body's response

About this measure

How far you bend without breaking Ductility (3)

What research has established: Fitting the coping method to the situation goes with better adjustment than having many methods, and switching away from what isn't working helps some feelings.

The missing bridge: Whether strain that stays hidden until it comes out all at once predicts a sudden breakdown is untested.

No direct evidence yet: every link here is adjacent research or a Calmistry hypothesis.

Adjacent evidence The coping method that fits matters more than having many
Adjacent evidence Coping flexibility mattered more in less individualistic countries and older samples
Adjacent evidence Switching away from a strategy that isn't working helped low mood, not anxiety

About this measure

Whether pressure turns into action Piezo (4)

What research has established: Challenge-type demands go with better performance than obstacles while both are tiring, and reading arousal as useful can change the immediate response.

The missing bridge: Whether pressure reliably turns into useful output for particular people has not been measured as a stable trait.

No direct evidence yet: every link here is adjacent research or a Calmistry hypothesis.

Adjacent evidence Challenges and obstacles are different kinds of pressure
Adjacent evidence Even productive pressure was tiring
Adjacent evidence Beliefs about stress could be shifted, and went with how people responded
Adjacent evidence Reading a racing heart as useful changed the body's response

About this measure

Whether repeats make you tougher Work hardening (3)

What research has established: Some lifetime adversity has been linked with better later adjustment than none or a lot, while many childhood adversities go with higher later risks.

The missing bridge: Whether repeating the same manageable stressor produces measurable adaptation in a given person is open.

No direct evidence yet: every link here is adjacent research or a Calmistry hypothesis.

Adjacent evidence Four or more childhood adversities went with higher odds of many later problems
Adjacent evidence Some past adversity went with better adjustment than none or a lot
Adjacent evidence How common resilience looks depended on the statistical model

About this measure

How repeats wear on you Fatigue (5)

What research has established: Reactions to small daily hassles predict later health, and stressors earlier in the day make the next one hit harder.

The missing bridge: Whether many individually manageable stressors add up to more than their sum has not been measured as a personal tendency.

Direct evidence Stressors earlier in the day made the next one hit harder
Adjacent evidence How strongly you react to small hassles predicted distress a decade later
Adjacent evidence Reactions to everyday hassles also predicted physical health
Adjacent evidence Everyday hassles predicted symptoms better than major life events
Calmistry hypothesis Even productive pressure was tiring

About this measure

How slow, long pressure wears on you Creep (4)

What research has established: High-strain jobs predict modestly higher heart risk over years, and a flatter daily cortisol rhythm goes with poorer health.

The missing bridge: How months of sustained pressure change a person's response pattern over time has not been tracked.

No direct evidence yet: every link here is adjacent research or a Calmistry hypothesis.

Adjacent evidence Money worries took up mental room, separately from stress
Adjacent evidence Recovery from work came in four distinct forms
Adjacent evidence A flatter daily cortisol rhythm went with poorer health
Adjacent evidence High-demand, low-control jobs carried a modestly higher heart risk

About this measure

How long it stays Half-life (12)

What research has established: Emotions differ in how long they persist from moment to moment, and both stuck and swinging moods go with lower well-being.

The missing bridge: How quickly one person returns to baseline after a specific event has not been measured with a questionnaire.

Direct evidence In low self-esteem and depression, feelings were slower to change
Adjacent evidence Being judged while lacking control produced the biggest stress-hormone responses
Adjacent evidence Stressors earlier in the day made the next one hit harder
Adjacent evidence A habit of ruminating, measured before an earthquake, predicted symptoms after it
Adjacent evidence A bad moment carried into the next one, partly through rumination
Adjacent evidence Swinging moods and stuck moods both went with lower well-being
Adjacent evidence The problem ended yesterday. The emotion didn't.
Adjacent evidence Recovery from work came in four distinct forms
Adjacent evidence After potential trauma, most people stayed on a stable path
Adjacent evidence How common resilience looks depended on the statistical model
Calmistry hypothesis Savouring good moments softened the sting of stressful days in older age
Calmistry hypothesis In the moment, gratitude and savouring helped; reappraisal did not

About this measure

What’s left afterwards Residual stress (7)

What research has established: Negative emotion that lingers the day after a stressor predicts later health, and rumination both feeds and follows low mood.

The missing bridge: How much of the original response remains once the stressor has ended is rarely measured directly.

Direct evidence The problem ended yesterday. The emotion didn't.
Adjacent evidence Rumination had the strongest link with symptoms of all strategies studied
Adjacent evidence A habit of ruminating, measured before an earthquake, predicted symptoms after it
Adjacent evidence Rumination and low mood fed each other, in both directions
Adjacent evidence A bad moment carried into the next one, partly through rumination
Adjacent evidence Worry and rumination kept the body's stress systems switched on
Calmistry hypothesis Accepting your own feelings went with less negative emotion under stress

About this measure

Where findings pull apart

Studies that look at the same question and come out differently, or point to a cost the other leaves out. Read them side by side before trusting either alone.

Different answers

How many people bounce back?

After potential trauma, most people stayed on a stable path

Galatzer-Levy, Huang & Bonanno (2018) · Pooled review

How common resilience looks depended on the statistical model

Infurna & Luthar (2016) · Reanalysis

Two reputable analyses give sharply different answers because they define and model recovery differently. Neither number is the share of people who bounce back; each depends on the baseline, window and model.
Different answers

Reframing helps on average, but not everywhere

How you handle a feeling changes the outcome

Webb, Miles & Sheeran (2012) · Meta-analysis

Reframing helped with stress you can't change and went with more depression when you could

Troy, Shallcross & Mauss (2013) · Cross-sectional

Across lab experiments, changing how a situation is read improved emotions most. In daily life, the same skill went with more depression when the problem could have been changed.
Different answers

A strong lab strategy showed no effect in the moment

How you handle a feeling changes the outcome

Webb, Miles & Sheeran (2012) · Meta-analysis

In the moment, gratitude and savouring helped; reappraisal did not

Fiß et al. (2026) · Micro-randomised trial

Reappraisal led the laboratory averages, yet in a smartphone trial a brief reappraisal exercise did not shift feelings in the next half hour. Setting, dose and timing differ.
Different answers

Adversity: toughening or harm?

Some past adversity went with better adjustment than none or a lot

Seery, Holman & Silver (2010) · Longitudinal study

Four or more childhood adversities went with higher odds of many later problems

Hughes et al. (2017) · Meta-analysis

Some lifetime adversity went with better adjustment than none, while many adverse childhood experiences went with higher odds of later problems. Amount, timing and kind of adversity separate the two.
Same direction, different cost

Fit matters, yet extra personalisation didn't help

The coping method that fits matters more than having many

Cheng, Lau & Chan (2014) · Meta-analysis

More personalisation did not beat less in a workplace stress app

Kunas et al. (2026) · Pilot study

Fitting coping to the situation goes with better adjustment, but a more personalised app did no better than a less personalised one. Personalising by app is not the same as fitting a strategy well.
Same direction, different cost

Pressure that helps performance can still wear people out

Challenges and obstacles are different kinds of pressure

LePine, Podsakoff & LePine (2005) · Meta-analysis

Even productive pressure was tiring

LePine, LePine & Jackson (2004) · Field survey

Both point the same way on performance, yet the second shows the cost: challenge-type stress went with better results and more exhaustion at once. Performance and recovery need to be read separately.
Same direction, different cost

Suppression helps one outcome and not another

Hiding a feeling is not the same as not having it

Webb, Miles & Sheeran (2012) · Meta-analysis

How you handle a feeling changes the outcome

Webb, Miles & Sheeran (2012) · Meta-analysis

Suppressing expression had a small average benefit while suppressing the feeling itself had none. The label 'suppression' hides two different processes.

Open questions, and what Calmistry is tackling

Existing research examines many pieces of stress response and adaptation. What remains to be shown is whether a compact, self-report profile adds reliable predictive value beyond existing validated measures, and whether practices matched to it beat sensible alternatives. Each row is a planned paper.

8 planned papers · 6 collecting data now

All 8 open questions, and what we are doing about each

Gap	What we are doing	Status
Findings are filed under different namesThe same moment is studied as cortisol, threat, neuroticism or inertia. Whether one profile that reads them together predicts more than existing measures has not been tested.Restricted landmark-citation count, below	Thirteen measures from one set of questions, each in plain words first.	Working on it now
Levels more often than patternsWidely used scales such as the Perceived Stress Scale score how stressful life feels. Diary studies do measure reactivity and lingering, but over days of repeated reports, not in one short questionnaire.Charles et al. 2013; Piazza et al. 2013	Check the questions hold together, give the same answer twice and work the same across groups.	Working on it now
The load metaphor is untestedStress is often compared to load on a material. In our search we found no peer-reviewed test of that comparison as a measurement model.Our literature search; no source for the engineering model	Test whether the 12 materials are real types or useful labels on a smooth range, and report either.	Working on it now
Mostly one side of the storyMost stress measures ask only the person. Studies comparing self and other raters exist, but are rarely paired with stress-response measures.Self-report dominates the studies in this atlas	In a pair compare, each person can rate the other in ten short lines. Never shown as a score.	Working on it now
Long diaries exist; long profiles don'tDiary studies with 10-year follow-ups exist. What is missing is a compact profile like this one repeated over months, next to what was going on.Charles et al. 2013; Piazza et al. 2013	Two free self-checks, repeated over months, read next to what was going on.	Next, once the data is in
Matching practices to patterns is untestedCoping flexibility is well studied: one meta-analysis pooled 329 effect sizes. Whether practices matched to a measured response pattern beat good generic advice has not been tested.Cheng, Lau & Chan 2014	A fair test of matched against unmatched practices, once the self-checks can measure change.	Later
Who gets studiedMost samples come from a few Western, rich countries.Henrich et al. 2010	Most people taking part are in India, a group the stress literature mostly leaves out.	Working on it now
Birth timing, tested carefullyEarlier large tests of birth dates and personality found no link. Birth timing as used in Vedic astrology has not been tested against measured stress patterns, with blank comparisons.Carlson 1985; Hartmann et al. 2006; Lu et al. 2020	Only with people who opt in after their result, checked against blank comparisons.	Working on it now

Not ours

We don't measure the body (hormones, heart rhythm) or the body clock. Those fields stay on the map because a result uses their ideas, not their data.

Validation protocol

How we check ourselves

Two separate checks: one for every published finding that goes on this page, one for Calmistry’s own questions. Neither is finished, and both are written down so anyone can repeat them.

How a finding gets onto this page

01Search across fieldsConstruct terms and their synonyms from neighbouring fields, plus searches for nulls, failed replications and reanalyses.
02ScreenPeer-reviewed, an empirical result about stress, and a population, design and outcome we can state from the text we read.
03Verify against the originalAuthors, year, sample, design, window, effect sizes and the direction of every claim, checked on the DOI or PubMed record. A number seen only second-hand is not published.
04Label the strengthEach card says what kind of claim it is: cause and effect, prediction, association, a pooled pattern or a framework.

How Calmistry’s own questions get tested

01Do the questions hold together?Internal consistency for each of the 13 measures, with a floor set before the data comes in.
02Same answer twice?Retest stability: the same people, answering again later.
03Fair across groups?Whether a question works the same way for different groups of people.
04Anything beyond existing measures?Whether the profile predicts more than validated scales already do. If it doesn’t, we say so.
05Types or a smooth range?Whether the 12 materials are real groups or useful labels on a continuum. We report either.

How different disciplines connect

A deliberately restricted landmark-citation analysis. We took four landmark papers from each of seven fields that study stress, then counted later papers that cite at least one landmark from both sides of a pair.

The thinnest bridge in this count: personality and habit change. 13 papers cite both sets of landmarks, out of 26,040 that cite either.

The map, the caveats and how we counted

What this count can and can't say

It is a reproducible count about these particular references, not a measure of how integrated the fields are.

A study can test how personality shapes the effect of a practice without citing any of these eight landmarks, or connect the fields in different words. And citing a landmark from each side doesn't mean the findings were put together.

Measuring integration properly needs construct-based searches and studies that test how the constructs relate. That is on our list, not done.

Why the count still looks like islands

Each field measures a different slice of the same moment, in its own words: cortisol in physiology, threat in appraisal research, neuroticism in personality, inertia in emotion research, habit in behaviour change.

Papers cite papers that use their words, so each field builds on itself and the slices rarely get put back together.

Personality · Behaviour change Best-connected pair: Stress physiology · Appraisal and emotion (1.45%) Thicker line = more papers cite both fields. Bigger circle = more papers cite the field’s landmarks. Dashed: birth timing, a small island with a few large tests.

Every pair, counted

Pair	Papers citing both	Share of either
Stress physiology · Appraisal and emotion	345	1.45%
Resilience and recovery · Coping and emotion regulation	280	1.21%
Stress physiology · Coping and emotion regulation	358	1.15%
Appraisal and emotion · Coping and emotion regulation	192	1.04%
Stress physiology · Resilience and recovery	257	0.90%
Stress physiology · Chronobiology and time	208	0.89%
Personality · Coping and emotion regulation	132	0.71%
Appraisal and emotion · Resilience and recovery	90	0.56%
Coping and emotion regulation · Behaviour change	143	0.43%
Coping and emotion regulation · Chronobiology and time	65	0.36%
Personality · Chronobiology and time	35	0.32%
Appraisal and emotion · Personality	31	0.27%
Stress physiology · Personality	53	0.22%
Resilience and recovery · Chronobiology and time	33	0.21%
Appraisal and emotion · Chronobiology and time	23	0.21%
Personality · Resilience and recovery	33	0.20%
Resilience and recovery · Behaviour change	30	0.10%
Appraisal and emotion · Behaviour change	23	0.09%
Stress physiology · Behaviour change	30	0.08%
Behaviour change · Chronobiology and time	19	0.07%
Personality · Behaviour change	13	0.05%
Chronobiology and time · Birth timing	2	0.04%
Personality · Birth timing	2	0.03%
Stress physiology · Birth timing	0	0.00%
Appraisal and emotion · Birth timing	0	0.00%
Resilience and recovery · Birth timing	0	0.00%
Coping and emotion regulation · Birth timing	0	0.00%
Behaviour change · Birth timing	0	0.00%

How we counted: four landmark papers per field (three for birth timing), checked against OpenAlex on 7 October 2026. A paper counts for a pair if it cites at least one landmark from each side. Different landmarks would shift the numbers; the islands stay.

How the research works for you

We're running a fair test: does birth timing, as used in Vedic astrology, add anything to explaining how people handle stress, beyond what psychology already tells us? It would help us immensely if you shared your birth details and answered the full set of questions. Do them all at once, finish the rest in mini quizzes, or take them with friends and family in a Box. It's a research question, not a reading. We won't show you a chart or a prediction.

Your result stands on its own

It comes from your answers, scored by the same fixed calculation for everyone. Nothing else goes in.
Joining is optional

Share birth details only if you want to, once your full profile is finished. Saying no changes nothing.
What it is for

To validate, or invalidate, our hypotheses, and to make what works accessible to far more people.
Delete anytime

Your answers, and anything you chose to share, from the Me page.

Which open question taking part helps answer: whether these 13 readings hold together, give the same answer twice and predict anything beyond existing measures. Results appear in this atlas as findings, with Calmistry's own method on the card.

Ways to take part

Two free self-checks

Two free self-checks open up here after your first result.

References

Every paper a finding cites, linked to its DOI or PubMed record, then the landmark papers used in the citation count.

Papers behind the findings (58)

Adam et al. 2017. Diurnal cortisol slopes and mental and physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology.
Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema & Schweizer 2010. Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: a meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review.
Balban et al. 2023. Brief structured respiration practices enhance mood and reduce physiological arousal. Cell Reports Medicine.
Barsade 2002. The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly.
Bolger & Schilling 1991. Personality and the problems of everyday life: the role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality.
Cao & Drasgow 2019. Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Carleton, Norton & Asmundson 2007. Fearing the unknown: a short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders.
Charles et al. 2013. The wear and tear of daily stressors on mental health. Psychological Science.
Chen et al. 2024. Emotion regulation flexibility and momentary affect in two cultures. Nature Mental Health.
Cheng, Lau & Chan 2014. Coping flexibility and psychological adjustment to stressful life changes: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin.
Coan, Schaefer & Davidson 2006. Lending a hand: social regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science.
Cohen & Wills 1985. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin.
Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein 1983. A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior.
Crum, Salovey & Achor 2013. Rethinking stress: the role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Dickerson & Kemeny 2004. Acute stressors and cortisol responses: a theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin.
Fisher, Medaglia & Jeronimus 2018. Lack of group-to-individual generalizability is a threat to human subjects research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Fiß et al. 2026. Addressing mental health with daily-life ecological momentary interventions (ALERT) in people at increased risk for mental disorders: a micro-randomized trial. Journal of Affective Disorders.
Fleeson 2001. Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Ford et al. 2018. The psychological health benefits of accepting negative emotions and thoughts: laboratory, diary, and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Frattaroli 2006. Experimental disclosure and its moderators: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin.
Galatzer-Levy, Huang & Bonanno 2018. Trajectories of resilience and dysfunction following potential trauma: a review and statistical evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review.
Gollwitzer & Sheeran 2006. Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
Goyal et al. 2014. Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine.
Gross & John 2003. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Henrich, Heine & Norenzayan 2010. The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Houben, Van Den Noortgate & Kuppens 2015. The relation between short-term emotion dynamics and psychological well-being: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin.
Hughes et al. 2017. The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health.
Infurna & Luthar 2016. Resilience to major life stressors is not as common as thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Jamieson, Nock & Mendes 2012. Mind over matter: reappraising arousal improves cardiovascular and cognitive responses to stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
Jaremba et al. 2026. Optimizing just-in-time adaptive interventions for interpersonal distress: mechanisms, prediction, and the challenge of engagement. Scientific Reports.
Kanner et al. 1981. Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
Kiecolt-Glaser et al. 2005. Hostile marital interactions, proinflammatory cytokine production, and wound healing. Archives of General Psychiatry.
Kivimäki et al. 2012. Job strain as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data. The Lancet.
Kunas et al. 2026. Multimodal personalized mobile health just-in-time adaptive intervention for occupational stress management: pilot study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth.
Kuppens, Allen & Sheeber 2010. Emotional inertia and psychological maladjustment. Psychological Science.
Lally et al. 2010. How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology.
Leger, Charles & Almeida 2018. Let it go: lingering negative affect in response to daily stressors is associated with physical health years later. Psychological Science.
LePine, LePine & Jackson 2004. Challenge and hindrance stress: relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology.
LePine, Podsakoff & LePine 2005. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal.
Mani et al. 2013. Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science.
Moberly & Watkins 2008. Ruminative self-focus and negative affect: an experience sampling study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
Moberly & Watkins 2008. Ruminative self-focus, negative life events, and negative affect. Behaviour Research and Therapy.
Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow 1991. A prospective study of depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster: the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Ottaviani et al. 2016. Physiological concomitants of perseverative cognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin.
Peleg, Wallimann & Pauly 2025. Savouring moderates affect reactivity to daily events in old age. Stress and Health.
Piazza et al. 2013. Affective reactivity to daily stressors and long-term risk of reporting a chronic physical health condition. Annals of Behavioral Medicine.
Roberts, Walton & Viechtbauer 2006. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin.
Saxbe & Repetti 2010. For better or worse? Coregulation of couples' cortisol levels and mood states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Schilling et al. 2022. Emotional reactivity to daily stressors: does stressor pile-up within a day matter for young-old and very old adults?. Psychology and Aging.
Schäfer et al. 2024. Digital interventions to promote psychological resilience: a systematic review and meta-analysis. npj Digital Medicine.
Seery, Holman & Silver 2010. Whatever does not kill us: cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Sonnentag & Fritz 2007. The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.
Sîrbu & David 2024. Efficacy of app-based mobile health interventions for stress management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported, physiological, and neuroendocrine stress-related outcomes. Clinical Psychology Review.
Troy, Shallcross & Mauss 2013. A person-by-situation approach to emotion regulation: cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt, depending on the context. Psychological Science.
Vazire 2010. Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Waters, West & Mendes 2014. Stress contagion: physiological covariation between mothers and infants. Psychological Science.
Webb, Miles & Sheeran 2012. Dealing with feeling: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological Bulletin.
Weber, Angerer & Apolinário-Hagen 2022. Physiological reactions to acute stressors and subjective stress during daily life: a systematic review on ecological momentary assessment (EMA) studies. PLoS ONE.

Landmarks in the citation count: Stress physiology (4)

Selye 1936. A Syndrome produced by Diverse Nocuous Agents. Nature.
McEwen 1998. Protective and Damaging Effects of Stress Mediators. New England Journal of Medicine.
Dickerson & Kemeny 2004. Acute Stressors and Cortisol Responses: A Theoretical Integration and Synthesis of Laboratory Research.. Psychological Bulletin.
Chrousos 2009. Stress and disorders of the stress system. Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

Landmarks in the citation count: Appraisal and emotion (4)

Tomaka et al. 1993. Subjective, physiological, and behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Crum et al. 2013. Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Jamieson et al. 2011. Mind over matter: Reappraising arousal improves cardiovascular and cognitive responses to stress.. Journal of Experimental Psychology General.
Folkman et al. 1986. Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Landmarks in the citation count: Personality (4)

Bolger & Schilling 1991. Personality and the Problems of Everyday Life: The Role of Neuroticism In Exposure and Reactivity to Daily Stressors. Journal of Personality.
Donnellan et al. 2006. The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five Factors of Personality.. Psychological Assessment.
Ashton & Lee 2007. Empirical, Theoretical, and Practical Advantages of the HEXACO Model of Personality Structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
Jeronimus et al. 2014. Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: A five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Landmarks in the citation count: Resilience and recovery (4)

Bonanno 2004. Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events?. American Psychologist.
Galatzer‐Levy et al. 2018. Trajectories of resilience and dysfunction following potential trauma: A review and statistical evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review.
Sonnentag & Fritz 2007. The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work.. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.
Seery et al. 2010. Whatever does not kill us: Cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Landmarks in the citation count: Coping and emotion regulation (4)

Gross 1998. The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review. Review of General Psychology.
Webb et al. 2012. Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation.. Psychological Bulletin.
Kuppens et al. 2010. Emotional Inertia and Psychological Maladjustment. Psychological Science.
Brosschot et al. 2006. The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A review of worry, prolonged stress-related physiological activation, and health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Landmarks in the citation count: Behaviour change (4)

Michie et al. 2011. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science.
Gollwitzer & Sheeran 2006. Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta‐analysis of Effects and Processes. Advances in experimental social psychology.
Lally et al. 2009. How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology.
Abraham & Michie 2008. A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions.. Health Psychology.

Landmarks in the citation count: Chronobiology and time (4)

Roenneberg et al. 2003. Life between Clocks: Daily Temporal Patterns of Human Chronotypes. Journal of Biological Rhythms.
Adam et al. 2017. Diurnal cortisol slopes and mental and physical health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology.
Golder & Macy 2011. Diurnal and Seasonal Mood Vary with Work, Sleep, and Daylength Across Diverse Cultures. Science.
Charles et al. 2013. The Wear and Tear of Daily Stressors on Mental Health. Psychological Science.

Landmarks in the citation count: Birth timing (3)

Carlson 1985. A double-blind test of astrology. Nature.
Hartmann et al. 2006. The relationship between date of birth and individual differences in personality and general intelligence: A large-scale study. Personality and Individual Differences.
Lu et al. 2020. Disentangling stereotypes from social reality: Astrological stereotypes and discrimination in China.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The history behind the word (7)

Hooke 1678. Lectures de Potentia Restitutiva, or of Spring: explaining the power of springing bodies. London (book).
Cannon 1929. Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiological Reviews.
Selye 1936. A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature.
Viner 1999. Putting stress in life: Hans Selye and the making of stress theory. Social Studies of Science.
Szabo, Tache & Somogyi 2012. The legacy of Hans Selye and the origins of stress research: a retrospective 75 years after his landmark brief letter to the editor of Nature. Stress.
McEwen 1998. Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England Journal of Medicine.
Epel et al. 2018. More than a feeling: a unified view of stress measurement for population science. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology.

Also cited (1)

Henrich et al. 2010. The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

Counts from OpenAlex, an open index of scholarly papers.

Back to Research

What research has actually found about people under pressure.

What’s established

What’s ours

What isn’t validated yet

The findings

Being judged while lacking control produced the biggest stress-hormone responses

How strongly you react to small hassles predicted distress a decade later

Reactions to everyday hassles also predicted physical health

The coping method that fits matters more than having many

Coping flexibility mattered more in less individualistic countries and older samples

Challenges and obstacles are different kinds of pressure

Even productive pressure was tiring

A trusted hand changed the brain's response to threat

Support you can count on differs from simply knowing many people

How you handle a feeling changes the outcome

Hiding a feeling is not the same as not having it

Feeling stressed and the body's stress response don't always line up

Everyday hassles predicted symptoms better than major life events

More distress came more from reacting harder than from meeting more stressors

Money worries took up mental room, separately from stress

Reframing helped with stress you can't change and went with more depression when you could

Beliefs about stress could be shifted, and went with how people responded

Reading a racing heart as useful changed the body's response

Stressors earlier in the day made the next one hit harder

A trait is a range of behaviour, not one fixed response

People who habitually hide feelings still felt more negative emotion

Rumination had the strongest link with symptoms of all strategies studied

Accepting your own feelings went with less negative emotion under stress

Switching away from a strategy that isn't working helped low mood, not anxiety

A habit of ruminating, measured before an earthquake, predicted symptoms after it

Rumination and low mood fed each other, in both directions

A bad moment carried into the next one, partly through rumination

In low self-esteem and depression, feelings were slower to change

Swinging moods and stuck moods both went with lower well-being

Worry and rumination kept the body's stress systems switched on

The problem ended yesterday. The emotion didn't.

Recovery from work came in four distinct forms

Savouring good moments softened the sting of stressful days in older age

Small wounds healed more slowly after a marital argument

A flatter daily cortisol rhythm went with poorer health

High-demand, low-control jobs carried a modestly higher heart risk

Four or more childhood adversities went with higher odds of many later problems

Some past adversity went with better adjustment than none or a lot

After potential trauma, most people stayed on a stable path

How common resilience looks depended on the statistical model

One person's mood rippled through a group

Couples' stress hormones and bad moods moved together, most at home

A mother's stress showed up in her baby's body

You know some of your traits best; friends know others better

Writing or talking about feelings helped, but only a little on average

'If this happens, I will do that' plans helped people follow through

New habits took anywhere from weeks to most of a year

Mindfulness programmes helped anxiety and low mood a little; evidence for stress was weaker

Five minutes of slow-exhale breathing lifted mood more than meditation in one trial

Stress apps helped a little, and less in the most rigorous studies

Digital resilience programmes made small dents in distress

In the moment, gratitude and savouring helped; reappraisal did not

When stress was highest, people were least likely to use the app

More personalisation did not beat less in a workplace stress app

The most used stress scale measures how stressful life feels, not how you respond

Forced-choice tests were harder to game, when built carefully

Average personality keeps changing through adulthood

Group averages poorly described how individuals vary

Difficulty tolerating uncertainty went with worry and anxiety

Most psychology comes from a narrow slice of humanity

Explore by measure

Where findings pull apart

How many people bounce back?

Reframing helps on average, but not everywhere

A strong lab strategy showed no effect in the moment

Adversity: toughening or harm?

Fit matters, yet extra personalisation didn't help

Pressure that helps performance can still wear people out

Suppression helps one outcome and not another

Open questions, and what Calmistry is tackling

Not ours

How we check ourselves

How a finding gets onto this page

How Calmistry’s own questions get tested

How different disciplines connect