Cited by 549Stress Responses and CortisolHealth, psychology, and well-beingResilience and Mental Health

A stage model of stress and disease

Open access
Cohen, Sheldon, Gianaros, Peter J., Manuck, Stephen B.·2016·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

In this article, we argued that the term stress has served as a valuable heuristic, helping researchers to integrate traditions that illuminate different stages of the process linking stressful life events to disease. We provided a short history of three traditions in the study of stress: the epidemiological, psychological, and biological. The epidemiological tradition focuses on defining which circumstances and experiences are deemed stressful on the basis of consensual agreement that they constitute threats to social or physical well-being. The psychological tradition focuses on individuals’ perceptions of the stress presented by life events on the basis of their appraisals of the threats posed and the availability of effective coping resources. The biological tradition focuses on brain-based perturbations of physiological systems that are otherwise essential for normal homeostatic regulation and metabolic control. The foci of these three traditions have informed elements of a stage model of disease, wherein events appraised as stressful are viewed as triggering affective states that in turn engender behavioral and biological responses having possible downstream implications for disease.

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 · 10.1177/1745691616646305

Cites

78 of 78 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?

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
Cohen, S., Gianaros, P. J., & Manuck, S. B.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Cohen, Sheldon
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2016-07
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
456-463
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2500340790
Cited by
549
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 82 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2
FWCI
12.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL089850)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT006694)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, psychology, and well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
Keywords
stress, stress and disease, life events, stress appraisal, coping, physiological stress response, homeostatic regulation, affective states, history of stress research, psychological stress, biological stress
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Psychological, 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