Cited by 444Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlStress Responses and CortisolAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Mind over matter: reappraising arousal improves cardiovascular and cognitive responses to stress

Open access
Jamieson, Jeremy P., Nock, Matthew K., Mendes, Wendy Berry·2012·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Researchers have theorized that changing the way we think about our bodily responses can improve our physiological and cognitive reactions to stressful events. However, the underlying processes through which mental states improve downstream outcomes are not well understood. To this end, we examined whether reappraising stress-induced arousal could improve cardiovascular outcomes and decrease attentional bias for emotionally negative information. Participants were randomly assigned to either a reappraisal condition in which they were instructed to think about their physiological arousal during a stressful task as functional and adaptive, or to 1 of 2 control conditions: attention reorientation and no instructions. Relative to controls, participants instructed to reappraise their arousal exhibited more adaptive cardiovascular stress responses-increased cardiac efficiency and lower vascular resistance-and decreased attentional bias. Thus, reappraising arousal shows physiological and cognitive benefits. Implications for health and potential clinical applications are discussed.

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 · 10.1037/a0025719

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Men and women do not reliably show differences in patterning of physiologic responses during acute stress.

    “Further, men and women do not reliably show differences in patterning of physiologic responses during acute stress, so there is little evidence that there are sex differences in general approach versus avoidant (challenge versus threat) physiologic patterns (Mendes et al., 2008; Kassam et al., 2009; Jamieson et al., 2012).”

    From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Jamieson et al., 2012

    The Method > Participants section reports 25 male and 25 female participants, and Results > Physiological reactivity compares stress responses across reappraisal conditions. Neither section reports a male–female comparison or addresses whether challenge-versus-threat patterns reliably differ by sex. Searches for gender, sex differences, and male/female found no passage establishing the attributed claim; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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., Nock, M. K., & Mendes, W. B.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2012
Volume
141
Issue
3
Pages
417-422
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2071829071
Cited by
444
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 2
FWCI
9.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Child and Human Development (F32-HD061195)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
cognitive reappraisal, stress arousal, cardiovascular stress response, cardiac efficiency, vascular resistance, attentional bias, attentional control, stress physiology
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Arousal, Attention, Cognition, Emotions, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Stress, Psychological, Young Adult

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