Resilience and Vulnerability to Daily Stressors Assessed via Diary Methods
Abstract
Stressors encountered in daily life, such as family arguments or work deadlines, may play an important role in individual health and well-being. This article presents a framework for understanding how characteristics of individuals and their environments limit or increase exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Research on daily stressors has benefited from diary methods that obtain repeated measurements from individuals during their daily lives. These methods improve ecological validity, reduce memory distortions, and permit the assessment of within-person processes. Findings from the National Study of Daily Experiences, which used a telephone-diary design, highlight how people's age, gender, and education and the presence or absence of chronic stressors in their lives predict their exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Finally, future directions for research designs that combine laboratory-based assessment of stress physiology with daily-diary methods are discussed.
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?
Daily stressors occur frequently, and responses to them accumulate to strongly affect well-being.
“daily stressors are very common, and how people respond to them exerts strong cumulative effects on well-being (Almeida, 2005).”
From The psychological health benefits of accepting negative emotions and thoughts: Laboratory, diary, and longitudinal evidence (2018) · cites this paper as Almeida, 2005
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 22 · Cited by 871
- Authors
- Almeida, D. M.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Almeida, David M.
- ORCID
- Almeida, David M.
- Venue
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 64-68
- ISSN
- 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8721
- OpenAlex
- W2000183519
- Cited by
- 871
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 40 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 29
- FWCI
- 12.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Directions in Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
- Keywords
- daily hassles, resilience, vulnerability to stress, stress exposure, stress reactivity, within-person processes, ecological validity, chronic stressors, age differences, gender differences, stress physiology
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
