When you see it coming: Stressor anticipation modulates stress effects on negative affect.
Open accessAbstract
Research on the effect of exposure to minor stressors in people's daily lives consistently reports negative effects on indicators of well-being, often coined stress reactivity. Recent advances in the intensity of data collection have brought about an increasing interest in within-day associations of stress exposure and indicators of well-being, including dynamic aspects of the stress response such as stress recovery. In the present work, we investigated the other end of the stress response: the anticipation of a stressor. We hypothesized that anticipation of an upcoming stressor would be accompanied by higher negative affect. Based on the anticipatory coping account, lower negative affect after occurrence of anticipated (vs. not anticipated) stressors was predicted. We approached this question with a measurement burst study that allowed us to disentangle variation in stress processes across different time scales. One-hundred and seventy-five participants (mean age = 50, range 20-79) completed up to 3 measurement bursts. Each burst consisted of an ecological momentary assessment with 5 assessments per day over 7 days. In line with our expectations, negative affect was significantly higher after stressor anticipation, especially on days with high levels of intrusive thoughts. However, negative affect was not lower after anticipated (vs. not anticipated) stressors. Findings point to the role of perseverative cognition in the effect of stressor anticipation. Directions for future…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Anticipation of stressors leads to more negative affect and greater cortisol reactivity both on the morning of anticipation and during the stressor.
“EMA studies have shown that anticipation of stressors leads to more negative affect (Neubauer et al., 2017) as well as greater cortisol reactivity both on the morning of anticipation and during the stressor (Wetherell et al., 2015).”
From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Neubauer et al., 2017
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 56 · Cited by 71
- Authors
- Neubauer, A. B., Smyth, J. M., & Sliwinski, M. J.
- Affiliations
- Heidelberg University (DE)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Venue
- Emotion
- Published
- 2018-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 342-354
- ISSN
- 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-1516
- OpenAlex
- W2770991339
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7
- FWCI
- 2.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Emotion (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (R01-AG026728)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- negative affect, stress reactivity, anticipatory coping, intrusive thoughts, perseverative cognition, stress recovery, ecological momentary assessment, well-being
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, 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