Calmistry
Sign in
Take the quiz · 12 min

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

2 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.

  1. 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

  2. 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

    Checked against the original on 2026-10-08 · DOI 10.2196/79642 · PMID 42150167

    Kunas et al. (2026), JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
GapWhat we are doingStatus
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

  1. 01Search across fieldsConstruct terms and their synonyms from neighbouring fields, plus searches for nulls, failed replications and reanalyses.
  2. 02ScreenPeer-reviewed, an empirical result about stress, and a population, design and outcome we can state from the text we read.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

  1. 01Do the questions hold together?Internal consistency for each of the 13 measures, with a floor set before the data comes in.
  2. 02Same answer twice?Retest stability: the same people, answering again later.
  3. 03Fair across groups?Whether a question works the same way for different groups of people.
  4. 04Anything beyond existing measures?Whether the profile predicts more than validated scales already do. If it doesn’t, we say so.
  5. 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.

Citation map of seven stress fields and birth timing Circles are fields, sized by how many papers cite their landmark studies. Lines join every pair, thicker where more papers cite both. The thickest line, between stress physiology and appraisal, still covers under 2 percent of their papers. 18,401 Stressphysiology 5,724 Appraisal andemotion 5,803 Personality 10,426 Resilienceand recovery 13,011 Coping andemotionregulation 20,250 Behaviourchange 5,247 Chronobiologyand time 228 Birth timing
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
PairPapers citing bothShare of either
Stress physiology · Appraisal and emotion3451.45%
Resilience and recovery · Coping and emotion regulation2801.21%
Stress physiology · Coping and emotion regulation3581.15%
Appraisal and emotion · Coping and emotion regulation1921.04%
Stress physiology · Resilience and recovery2570.90%
Stress physiology · Chronobiology and time2080.89%
Personality · Coping and emotion regulation1320.71%
Appraisal and emotion · Resilience and recovery900.56%
Coping and emotion regulation · Behaviour change1430.43%
Coping and emotion regulation · Chronobiology and time650.36%
Personality · Chronobiology and time350.32%
Appraisal and emotion · Personality310.27%
Stress physiology · Personality530.22%
Resilience and recovery · Chronobiology and time330.21%
Appraisal and emotion · Chronobiology and time230.21%
Personality · Resilience and recovery330.20%
Resilience and recovery · Behaviour change300.10%
Appraisal and emotion · Behaviour change230.09%
Stress physiology · Behaviour change300.08%
Behaviour change · Chronobiology and time190.07%
Personality · Behaviour change130.05%
Chronobiology and time · Birth timing20.04%
Personality · Birth timing20.03%
Stress physiology · Birth timing00.00%
Appraisal and emotion · Birth timing00.00%
Resilience and recovery · Birth timing00.00%
Coping and emotion regulation · Birth timing00.00%
Behaviour change · Birth timing00.00%

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)

Counts from OpenAlex, an open index of scholarly papers.

Back to Research

We record anonymised sessions to improve the site.