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.
0 findings · Show all 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.
No finding in the atlas matches both filters yet. The atlas grows in checked batches. Show all findings
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.