Cited by 376Stress Responses and CortisolEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessSport Psychology and Performance

Turning the knots in your stomach into bows: reappraising arousal improves performance on the GRE

Open access
Jamieson, Jeremy P., Mendes, Wendy Berry, Blackstock, Erin, Schmader, Toni·2010·Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Abstract

This research examined the benefits of interpreting physiological arousal as a challenge response on practice and actual Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores. Participants who were preparing to take the GRE reported to the laboratory for a practice GRE study. Participants assigned to a reappraisal condition were told arousal improves performance, whereas control participants were not given this information. We collected saliva samples at baseline and after the appraisal manipulation, which were then assayed for salivary alpha amylase (sAA), a measure of sympathetic nervous system activation. Reappraisal participants exhibited a significant increase in sAA and outperformed controls on the GRE-math section. One to three months later, participants returned to the lab and provided their score reports from their actual GRE. Again, reappraisal participants scored higher than controls on the GRE-math section. These findings illuminate the powerful influence appraisal has on physiology and performance both in and out of the laboratory.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.015

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Reappraisal participants, compared to control, earned higher GRE exam scores when they took the actual test in the following months.

    “Furthermore, the reappraisal participants, compared to control, earned higher GRE exam scores when they took the actual test in the following months (Jamieson et al., 2010).”

    From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Jamieson et al., 2010

    The Results (Post GRE lab visit; page not provided) report that reappraisal participants scored significantly higher than controls on the math section of the actual GRE, taken one to three months after the lab session. The claim does not specify math scores; the paper reports no effect on verbal performance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The greater the SNS increase, the better the math performance.

    “Indeed, consistent with the challenge and threat framework, the greater the SNS increase the better the math performance (see also Dienstbier, 1989, for additional examples).”

    From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Jamieson et al., 2010

    The Practice Test Results report that greater SNS-related sAA increases were associated with better math performance among participants assigned to reappraisal. The claim omits that condition: the same section reports no association between sAA and performance in controls. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In some contexts, SNS activation is greater in challenge than threat states, consistent with Dienstbier's idea of physiological toughness.

    “Furthermore, in some contexts, SNS activation is greater in challenge than threat states, consistent with Dienstbier’s idea of physiological toughness, which suggests that larger increases in SNS activation to novel situations is related to effective coping and better performance (see also Jamieson et al., 2010).”

    From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Jamieson et al., 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jamieson, J. P., Mendes, W. B., Blackstock, E., & Schmader, T.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Mendes, Wendy Berry
Venue
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
208-212
ISSN
0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120001707
Cited by
376
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL079383)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH071749)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
Keywords
cognitive reappraisal, physiological arousal, challenge-response, gradient echo, test performance, salivary amylase, sympathetic activation, test anxiety, mathematics scores

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