Cited by 28Stress Responses and CortisolPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionOptimism, Hope, and Well-being

A Critical Review of the “Undoing Hypothesis”: Do Positive Emotions Undo the Effects of Stress?

Cavanagh, Casey E., Larkin, Kevin T.·2018·Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback

Abstract

Research in affective science has shown that trait positive affect reduces the risk of developing disease and is protective against the progression of certain diseases. Research also suggests that trait positive affect predisposes individuals to more frequent experiences of positive emotional states. The undoing effect has been proposed as a potential mechanism explaining how positive emotions influence health outcomes. According to this hypothesis, the experience of state positive emotions or positive affect contributes to faster recovery from the body's physiological response to stress. This paper critically reviews literature concerning the undoing hypothesis. Several common methodological weaknesses were identified, including conceptual and design issues. Based on the reviewed studies two separate conclusions were drawn. First, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the occurrence of positive emotional states speeds physiological recovery. Second, there was insufficient evidence to evaluate the undoing hypothesis as a potential mechanism through which state positive emotions affect health. Future research should focus on identifying the key parameters responsible for demonstrating the undoing effect when it is observed in order to understand how the experience of positive emotions may exert positive effects on health outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10484-018-9412-6

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Positive psychological factors can promote healthier cardiovascular function via either health-promoting effects on biological processes such as inflammation or buffering effects whereby reactivity to stressful experiences is mitigated or less potent, although study findings are not fully consistent.

    “Positive psychological factors can promote healthier cardiovascular function via either health-promoting effects on biological processes such as inflammation or buffering effects whereby reactivity to stressful experiences is mitigated or less potent, although study findings are not fully consistent. 53,125”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cavanagh, C. E., & Larkin, K. T.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • West Virginia University (US)
Corresponding author
Cavanagh, Casey E.
Venue
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
Published
2018-09-04
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
259-273
ISSN
  • 0363-3586 (ISSN-L)
  • 1090-0586
  • 1573-3270
OpenAlex
W2889754102
Cited by
28
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5
FWCI
0.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
Keywords
positive emotions, stress recovery, physiological stress response, trait positive affect, health outcomes, methodological weaknesses
MeSH terms
Emotions, Humans, Psychological Theory, Stress, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review