CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67Student Stress and CopingStress Responses and CortisolStress and Burnout Research

Delineating the relationship between stress mindset and primary appraisals: Preliminary Findings.

Open access
Kilby, Christopher J., Sherman, Kerry A.·2016·SpringerPlus
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-1937-7PMC PMC4792825
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Stress mindset theory suggests that positive stress beliefs lead to positive, rather than negative, outcomes when engaging with stressors. Similarly, the Transactional Model of Stress predicts that perceiving a stressor as challenging leads to positive outcomes whereas negative perceptions of the stressor as threatening invoke negative outcomes. The aim of this study was to provide preliminary data examining the nature of the relationship between stress mindset and primary appraisals. It was predicted that positive beliefs about stress would be associated with perceiving a stressful situation as more challenging, and inversely related to perceptions of threat. Participants (N = 124) initially completed measures assessing stress mindset, lifetime and current perceived stress, trait anxiety, and self-efficacy. Then participants received a set of instructions regarding a stressful mathematics task, followed by completion of post-manipulation stress mindset and primary appraisals measures, prior to completing the mathematics task. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that participants who held a greater number of positive beliefs (as opposed to negative beliefs) about stress also perceived the stressor as being more challenging. However, there was no significant relationship between valence of beliefs and threat appraisals. These findings provide initial evidence for the nature of the relationship between valence of stress beliefs and challenge appraisals. Further research is needed to understand how stress beliefs impact on the way in which an individual copes with stressful situations.

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 · 10.1186/s40064-016-1937-7

Cites

31 of 32 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?

  • The findings are consistent with previous research indicating that SIE mindset predicted positive affect, decreased depressive symptoms, and lower negative feelings (perceived helplessness when confronting stress and negative emotions).

    “These findings are consistent with previous research indicating that SIE mindset predicted positive affect, decreased depressive symptoms, and lower negative feelings (perceived helplessness when confronting stress and negative emotions) (Crum et al., 2013; Kilby and Sherman, 2016; Karampas et al., 2020).”

    From ReStress mindset: An internet-delivered intervention that changes university students’ mindset about stress in the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic (2022) · cites this paper as Kilby and Sherman, 2016

    The Discussion reports that an enhancing stress mindset was associated with greater challenge appraisal, and the Conclusions report prior evidence of better post-stressor mental-health outcomes. Neither section reports that this study found positive affect, decreased depressive symptoms, or less helplessness or negative emotion; the Discussion also found no evidence of lower threat appraisal. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. May DK (2009) Mathematics Self-Efficacy and Anxiety Questionnaire. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kilby, C. J., & Sherman, K. A.
Affiliations
Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Kilby, Christopher J.
ORCID
Venue
SpringerPlus
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-03-15
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
336-336
ISSN
2193-1801 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s40064-016-1937-7
PMC
PMC4792825
OpenAlex
W2300823894
Cited by
67
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
9.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • SpringerPlus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
stress mindset, primary appraisal, challenge appraisal, threat appraisal, transactional model of stress and coping, perceived stress, trait anxiety, self-efficacy, stress coping

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