Cited by 265Stress Responses and CortisolStudent Stress and CopingStress and Burnout Research

Optimizing stress responses with reappraisal and mindset interventions: an integrated model

Jamieson, Jeremy P., Crum, Alia J., Goyer, J. Parker, Marotta, Marisa E., Akinola, Modupe·2018·Anxiety, Stress, & Coping

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The dominant perspective in society is that stress has negative consequences, and not surprisingly, the vast majority of interventions for coping with stress focus on reducing the frequency or severity of stressors. However, the effectiveness of stress attenuation is limited because it is often not possible to avoid stressors, and avoiding or minimizing stress can lead individuals to miss opportunities for performance and growth. Thus, during stressful situations, a more efficacious approach is to optimize stress responses (i.e., promote adaptive, approach-motivated responses). Objectives and Conclusions: In this review, we demonstrate how stress appraisals (e.g., [Jamieson, J. P., Nock, M. K., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Mind over matter: reappraising arousal improves cardiovascular and cognitive responses to stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 417-422. doi: 10.1037/a0025719 ]) and stress mindsets (e.g., [Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716-733. doi: 10.1037/a0031201 ]) can be used as regulatory tools to optimize stress responses, facilitate performance, and promote active coping. Respectively, these interventions invite individuals to (a) perceive stress responses as functional and adaptive, and (b) see the opportunity inherent in stress. We then propose a novel integration of reappraisal and mindset models to maximize the utility and effectiveness of stress optimization. Additionally, we discuss future directions with regard to how stress responses unfold over time and between people to impact outcomes in the domains of education, organizations, and clinical science.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10615806.2018.1442615

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jamieson, J. P., Crum, A. J., Goyer, J. P., Marotta, M. E., & Akinola, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Jamieson, Jeremy P.
Venue
Anxiety, Stress, & Coping
Published
2018-02-22
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
245-261
ISSN
  • 1061-5806 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-2205
OpenAlex
W2790642428
Cited by
265
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 5
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Anxiety Stress & Coping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Grantee Submission
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Education
  • Institute of Education Sciences (R305A150036)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
stress optimization, growth mindset, stress mindset, stress appraisal, active coping, stress response regulation, individual differences in stress response, academic stress
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, 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