Of the following options, which one represents the best way to measure your target behavior?

Alexandra D Crosswell, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 465, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA. Email: [email protected]

Copyright © The Author(s) 2020

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Abstract

Despite the strong evidence linking psychological stress to disease risk, health researchers often fail to include psychological stress in models of health. One reason for this is the incorrect perception that the construct of psychological stress is too vague and broad to accurately measure. This article describes best practices in stress measurement, detailing which dimensions of stressor exposures and stress responses to capture, and how. We describe when to use psychological versus physiological indicators of stress. It is crucial that researchers across disciplines utilize the latest methods for measuring and describing psychological stress in order to build a cumulative science.

Keywords: health psychology, measurement, psychological distress, quantitative methods, stress

Introduction

Epidemiological studies confirm that both experiencing a greater number of stressful events and reporting high perceived stress over long periods of time are associated with worse mental and physical health, and mortality (). The association between greater stressor exposure and increased disease risk has been replicated with many different types of stressor exposures (e.g. discrimination, caregiving, work stress) and a range of aging-related health outcomes (e.g. cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, mortality). The mechanistic pathways underlying these associations have also been detailed (; ; ). Despite this compelling evidence, however, health researchers often measure stress using unvalidated measures or select a single type of stress to measure, thus either missing entirely or underestimating the role stress plays in predicting disease onset or progression.

One of the main reasons for the lack of sophisticated measurement and inclusion of psychological stress in health models may be the incorrect assumption that stress is too broad and nebulous of a construct to accurately measure. It is true that psychological scientists too often fail to specify what they mean when using the term “stress” or other variants such as “stressor,” “acute stress,” “stress response,” and “stress biomarker.” Social and behavioral scientists tend to use the term loosely, often failing to define it clearly in a manuscript and using it to refer to a range of experiences, from living in poverty to giving a public speech to current negative mood. pointed out this lack of specificity, providing a fair critique of the state of the literature. The lack of specificity in language, however, does not represent a true lack of specificity in theoretical or methodological approaches. Although psychological stress researchers have made great strides in differentiating different forms of stress in recent decades, the problem is rather that the language used in journal articles has not always accurately reflected these advancements—and these advancements have been kept within a small, specialized subset of researchers. Thus, the purpose of this article is to provide health researchers across disciplines with a useful update on best practices for measuring stress and offer suggested language for how to describe stress-related constructs with more granular language.

Fundamentals of stress measurement

The term “stress” is an umbrella term representing experiences in which the environmental demands of a situation outweigh the individual’s perceived psychological and physiological ability to cope with it effectively (). One important distinction in studying stress is to differentiate between exposures to stressful events and the responses to these events. Stressful events or “stressors” are discrete events that can be objectively rated as having the potential to alter or disrupt typical psychological functioning, such as losing your job or getting divorced. Stress responses are the cognitive, emotional, and biological reactions that these stressful events evoke.

Measuring stressor exposures versus stress responses

Stressor exposures can be measured with self-report questionnaires such as a life events checklist, assessed by an interviewer, or objectively determined based on proximity to an event (e.g. living in NYC during the September 11 terrorist attacks). The Life Events and Difficulties Schedule (LEDS; ) is a structured interview protocol that is considered the gold standard for assessing stressor exposure across someone’s lifetime. This interview protocol is time intensive in both the data collection and data processing stages. To streamline the process of capturing stressor exposures across the life span, a computer-assisted methodology was developed (e.g. The Stress and Adversity Inventory [STRAIN]; ). In both the LEDS and the STRAIN, participants are asked whether they have experienced a range of stressful life events at any point in their life. For each endorsed stressor, they are asked follow-up questions to provide greater context about the experience (e.g. how old were you when it happened, how long did it go on for, how stressful or threatening was it). The LEDS requires a trained interviewer to administer the measure, while the STRAIN can be completed either by an interviewer or by participants themselves. The LEDS also relies on blind raters to score the severity of a stressor using this contextual information, while the STRAIN relies on the participants reporting of event severity. The STRAIN’s automated structure of follow-up questions allows the respondent to complete the interview much more quickly than the LEDS and reduces data processing time. Both measures provide a comprehensive assessment of stressor exposures across the lifespan, and use different methods to determine the severity of these experiences.

An individual’s response to the stressor sometimes matters more than mere exposure to it, particularly when it comes to the impact of the stressor on physical health. For example, caregiving for a family member with a debilitating illness is often considered a chronic stressor because of the constant physical and emotional demands. There is a significant amount of research examining the impact of being a dementia caregiver, in particular, given the large increase in the number of family dementia caregivers as the population ages in the United States. In fact, the Alzheimer’s Association estimated in 2018 that there were over 16 million family caregivers providing an estimated 18.5 billion hours of care to people with Alzheimer’s or other dementias (). Empirical evidence has shown that family caregivers of Alzheimer’s patients have worse physical and mental health compared to age-matched non-caregivers (; ). However, not every caregiver’s health is damaged by their caregiving role (). This may be because the negative impact of caregiving is caused by individuals’ subjective response to the caregiving situation, not from the mere exposure of being a caregiver. Thus, a better predictor of health decline would be the degree to which caregivers report high levels of psychological burden from their caregiving role. Empirical evidence supports this perspective; for example, Alzheimer’s caregivers who reported emotional distress or physical strain from caregiving had 63 percent greater mortality than caregivers who reported no distress ().

Stress responses can be measured with self-report measures, behavioral coding, or via physiological measurements. These responses include emotions, cognitions, behaviors, and physiological responses instigated by the stressful stimuli. One of the simplest ways to measure stress responses is through self-reports of perceived stress related to a specific stressor or to one’s life circumstances (). For example, the Perceived Stress Scale is a 10-item self-report measure that captures an individual’s perception of how overwhelmed they are by their current life circumstances. Responses to acute stressors have traditionally been studied in controlled laboratory settings in order to capture responses that unfold within minutes of stressor exposure (e.g. emotional and physiological reactivity to an acute stress task). A commonly used acute stress paradigm is the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST), a standardized laboratory stress task in which participants give a speech and perform mental arithmetic in front of judges (). The TSST reliably evokes an acute stress response for the majority of participants. Outside of the laboratory, new technology has enhanced our ability to capture real-time stress responses in daily life using mobile phones and wearables, which many researchers are now doing. Considering the impact of both stressor exposure and stress responses on health may improve the prediction of health outcomes, as many models of stress propose that the stress response mediates the effect of stress exposures on health outcomes (; ).

Selecting stress measures

Due to constraints on participant burden and other considerations, difficult choices about which type of stress to measure need to be made by researchers. Common types of psychological stress measured using self-report questionnaires in adult samples are major life events, traumatic events, early life stress exposure, and current chronic or perceived stress in various domains (i.e. loneliness, marital discord, experiences of discrimination, work stress, financial strain, neighborhood safety and cohesion, and current perceived stress). The choice of which type of stressor exposure to measure depends on what is most relevant to the study population, the specific research question, and the hypothesized mechanisms linking that stress type to the outcome of interest. To begin the selection, consider first what is the most relevant stress type(s), given the sample’s demographic makeup. For example, measures that capture religious persecution or combat exposure would be particularly important for a sample living in a conflict zone, while the amount of overwhelm related to being a parent (parenting stress) may be most relevant for a sample of mothers caring for their child who has an autism spectrum disorder. In both cases, it would also be important to measure types of stressors that may not be directly related to the circumstances—such as levels of loneliness and financial strain. Capturing a range of stressor types reduces the likelihood that the individual’s psychological and social distress is underestimated.

Stressor and stress response characteristics

In addition to identifying stressor type(s) of interest, there are several key measurement considerations when choosing specific measures of stress to include in studies or analyzing existing stress measure data. These considerations include characteristics of the stressor or response (e.g. timescale, types of stressor response) as well as measurement characteristics (e.g. life stage of exposure and measurement assessment window). We briefly describe these aspects below (see for further discussion).

Timescale of the stressor

Stressors generally take place along the following timescales: chronic stressors, life events, daily events/hassles, and acute stress. Table 1 provides definitions for each of these timescales. It is important to note that naturalistic experiences of stress rarely fall neatly into one category. For example, death of a loved one is often considered a major life event but, depending on the cause of death, may also be considered a chronic stressor, such as if the family member was sick for years or months before the death. Similarly, arguments with a spouse may be considered an acute stressor, but if they happen every day they may be considered chronic. There is a significant amount of gray area between categories. Researchers should first make a thoughtful attempt to pick the category that best aligns with the stressor and with the way that stressor type has been described in past research, and then describe the exposure with as much specificity as possible.

Table 1.

Types of stress by timescale.

Type of stressDefinitionRelevance for healthChronic stressChronic stressors are prolonged threatening or challenging circumstances that disrupt daily life and continue for an extended period of time (minimum of one month).People under the chronic stress are at greater risk of chronic illness, mortality, and accelerated biological aging (; ; ).Life eventsLife events are time-limited and episodic events that involve significant adjustment to one’s current life pattern, such as getting fired, being in a car crash, or the death of a loved one. Some life events can be positive (e.g. getting married, moving to a new place), and some become chronic (e.g. disability caused by car crash).Exposure to more stressful life events is linked with poorer mental health in addition to development and progression of cardiovascular disease, as well as mortality due to cardiovascular disease and cancer (; ; ).Traumatic life eventsTraumatic life events are a subclass of life events in which one’s physical and/or psychological safety is threatened.Experiencing a greater number of traumatic events across the life course is consistently associated with worse health and mortality (; ; ; ).Daily hassles (i.e. daily stressors)Interruptions or difficulties that happen frequently in daily life such as minor arguments, traffic, or work overload, and that can build up overtime to create persistent frustration or overwhelm.Greater emotional responses to these daily hassles are associated with worse mental and physical health (; ; ; ).Acute stressShort-term, event-based exposures to threatening or challenging stimuli that evoke a psychological and/or physiological stress response, such as giving a public speech.Greater cardiovascular reactivity to acute stressors has been prospectively associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (; ; ).

Open in a separate window

Types of stress response

Responses to stressor exposures provide additional useful information beyond measuring stressor exposure alone. Stress responses include psychological, behavioral, cognitive, and physiological reactions related to the stressor exposure that can occur before, during, or after the exposure. Psychological stress responses include specific emotions triggered by the stressor, as well as efforts to regulate that emotion (). Behavioral responses include coping behaviors such as smoking or seeking social support. Cognitive responses include appraisals of the exposure (e.g. as a threat versus challenge; ) and perseverative cognitions (e.g. rumination ). Physiological responses include immune, autonomic, neuroendocrine, and neural changes related to stressor exposure. Further details about the various stress responses deserve more attention than can be described here (). As a part of selecting stress measures, researchers should identify the type of stress response that is most relevant for their research question and sample. Often, studies will assess multiple types of stress responses simultaneously.

Additional characteristics of the stressor

There are additional stressor exposure attributes that can be described and captured to thoroughly assess the exposure. These include, but are not limited to, duration, severity, controllability, life domain, the target of the stressor (e.g. self, close other), and the potential of the stressor to elicit specific harmful emotional responses (e.g. social status threat). Lack of control, social status threat, and stressor severity have been identified as potent attributes that predict worse outcomes across a range of stressor types and scenarios.

Characteristics of stress measurement

Life stage during stressor exposure

In addition to the timescale of the stressor, another important characteristic of stressor exposure is the developmental or life stage during which the stressor occurs. Knowing the person’s age during the exposure informs hypotheses about which psychological and biological processes the stressor may have impacted. This is because developing systems are more open to environmental cues and are thus more likely to be impacted by stress exposure. “Sensitive periods” are specific time points in the life course during which physiological systems are maximally influenced by external environmental factors, and thus stressor exposure can have a particularly strong influence on development (). Sensitive periods during which stress may have the greatest effect are likely: prenatal (; ), before age 5 (), during puberty (), entry into parenthood (), and during menopause (). Identifying and measuring stress during sensitive periods could greatly increase our understanding of who is at risk for the negative effects of stress, the mechanistic pathways linking stress exposure to health decline, and where and how to focus intervention efforts.

Measurement assessment window

The window of measurement is also essential to consider to avoid measurement error and improve specificity in hypotheses. Measures can ask about stressors and stress responses across a wide range of time frames, such as in the present moment, over the course of that day, the past week, the past month, the past year, in childhood, or across the entire lifespan. For example, there are fundamental differences in a measure that ask participants to report on stress exposure in the past month versus across their lifespan. The latency between stressor exposure and measurement is crucial, as retrospective autobiographical reports are prone to bias and error, especially when there have been years or decades since the exposure in question (; ). In addition to the latency between exposure and measurement, several other factors can impact the accuracy of retrospective reports, such as mental state at the time of recall and the emotional salience of a given memory (). This may lead to overestimating the frequency of emotionally salient stressors and underestimating the frequency of more mundane, daily stressors (; ). For these reasons, it can be beneficial to measure stressor exposure and responses in close proximity to their occurrence whenever possible.

The experimental studies examining acute stressor exposure and responses, there are additional considerations with the measurement assessment window. Because the timing of stressor exposure is controlled, researchers can begin measuring psychological, behavioral, and physiological states prior to the stressor exposure and continue measuring throughout and after exposure. By measuring responses before, during, and after exposure, researchers can access (and predict) anticipation of and recovery from the stressor exposure.

Summary of steps for selecting stress measures

There are of course numerous considerations for selecting the appropriate stress measure for your study. In sum, researchers should identify the type or types of stress that are most relevant to their research question and sample. Stress measure selection should then be refined based on characteristics of the stressor and/or stress response that the researcher intends to measure, such as the timescale, the type(s) of stress responses the researcher is interested in, and other attributes of the stressor (e.g. duration, severity, controllability). Selection of stress measures should also account for measurement characteristics, such as the life stage during stressor exposure and the measurement assessment window (e.g. framing of questions, timing of assessment relative to occurrence of the stressor).

Beyond these stress-specific considerations, researchers should also follow general best practices for measure selection. For example, validated scales should be used when available. The Stress Measurement Network Toolbox provides a resource for validated measures of different types of stress that has beeen curated by experts (https://stressmeasurement.org). Measures should also be selected based on the uniqueness of the sample, and hile validated scales are preferred, some samples or exposures may require researchers to develop a new scale or modify an existing scale to fit their needs. These practical steps for selecting a stress measure are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Summary of steps for choosing appropriate stress measures.

Steps for choosing an appropriate measure of psychological stress.1. Determine the type(s) of stress you intend to capture based on your research question and the uniqueness of your sample.2. Determine the timescale of the stressor exposure and how you will capture objective exposure. For the exposure variable, in particular, you may need to develop your own measure based on the uniqueness of your sample.3. Identify which types of stress responses you are able to assess in your study design (e.g. psychological, behavioral, cognitive, physiological).4. Determine the life stage in which the stressor occurs and choose a measure appropriate for that particular life stage.5. Identify additional characteristics of the stressor that are important to capture (e.g. severity, controllability, target of the stressor) and how these will be assessed (e.g. objective reviewer, participant report, a priori study design).6. Consider your measurement assessment window and select measures that are specific to the time frame of exposure and/or response you intend to capture.7. Look for well-validated scales that capture these aspects. It is common to use multiple scales to capture different aspects of the stress exposure and stress response, and the range of stress types that might be relevant for your sample. The Stress Measurement Network Toolbox provides validated and curated stress measures (https://stresscenter.ucsf.edu/).

Open in a separate window

Compelling evidence linking stress to physical health

The types of stress that have the most consistent and compelling relationships with disease risk and mortality are acute stress reactivity, early life stress, work or occupational stress, and social isolation/loneliness. A comprehensive review of these literatures is outside the scope of the present article; however, the following section highlights foundational studies linking these stress types physical health, with a particular emphasis on cardiovascular disease (because it is the leading cause of death in developed countries) and mortality. Effect sizes are included where possible, as are references to reviews and meta-analyses for further reading. Of note, we do not review the literature here on the impact of cumulative life stress (aggregate number of stressor exposures and/or intensity of stress responses over one’s life course). Despite initial compelling work on the impact of cumulative life stress on cardiovascular disease outcomes, this area of research is still in its infancy, with a need for measurement approaches to be unified across research studies to allow for building of a collective science (; ).

Research on acute stress reactivity and physical health

Decades of research have shown that heightened cardiovascular reactivity and delayed recovery to acute stressors are prospectively associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk (; ; ). One of the earliest studies in this area was a longitudinal study of healthy adult men (age 45–55; n = 279) in which those classified as “hyper-reactors” (defined as > 20 mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure to the cold pressor acute stress task) were 2.4 times more likely to have a myocardial infarction or die from cardiovascular disease in the following 20 years than men who showed a rise of < 20 mmHg (). Cortisol and inflammatory responses to acute stressors have also been shown to prospectively predict incident hypertension (; ). Heightened reactions and prolonged recovery time periods may be driven by perseverative cognitions before (worrying) and after (rumination) stressor exposure (, ). Despite the evidence linking reactivity to disease outcomes, the clinical meaningfulness of these associations is still debated (). Importantly, a blunted response to an acutely stressful situation (sometimes termed a “hyporeactive response”), is also linked to worse health (). For example, in a sample of 725 healthy adults from the Dutch Famine Birth Cohort Study, decreased cardiovascular and/or cortisol response to the acute stressor was associated with obesity, risk of becoming obese, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and poor self-rated and functional health (). In addition, there are several other reactivity patterns that have been hypothesized to represent maladaptive response profiles such as lack of habituation when exposed to repeated stressors of the same kind (see ). Thus, the clinical meaningfulness of different stress reactivity profiles is largely debated.

Research on early life stress and physical health

The evidence linking early life stress to increased adult disease risk and mortality is strong. A foundational study in this area, the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, included nearly 10,000 adults and demonstrated that a greater number of self-reported retrospective adverse childhood experiences (e.g. physical abuse, living with an alcohol-dependent adult, witnessing violence) was positively associated in a graded relationship with the presence of ischemic heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, skeletal fractures, and liver disease, after controlling for demographic factors (). Convincingly, reporting seven or more ACE was associated with three times the likelihood of heart disease compared to reporting no ACE (). These findings have been so compelling that significant changes in clinical and educational settings have been undertaken in recent years to recognize the role that early trauma has on current and future cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral outcomes for both children and adults.

Research on work stress and physical health

Epidemiological studies consistently demonstrate associations between high work stress and worse physical and mental health. One of the most widely studied models of work stress is job strain, which is a combination of high demands (workload and intensity) and low control (). Decades of research has linked high job strain to anxiety and depression, increased blood pressure (BP), cardiovascular events, and metabolic syndrome (; ; ; ). An analysis of the Whitehall II study cohort found that chronic work stress was associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, with the associations strongest in participants under 50 (RR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.17–2.42). Other components of work stress, such as effort-reward imbalance, also predict cardiovascular disease risk ().

Research on social isolation, loneliness, and physical health

A meta-analysis of decades of work on social isolation and loneliness found that being socially isolated, lonely, and/or living alone corresponded to an average of 29 percent, 26 percent, and 32 percent increased likelihood of mortality (). The mortality risk for the most socially isolated adults in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (hazard ratio (HZ) = 1.62 for men, HZ = 1.75) was found to be comparable to the risk of smoking (HR = 1.72 for men, HZ = 1.86) and having high BP (HR = 1.16 for men, HR = 1.32 for women) (). These strong relationships suggest that meaningful connection with others is an essential component of health and well-being. Several short measures have been created to capture this important social determinant of health, including a validated three-item measure of loneliness ().

Biological pathways from stress to disease

There are numerous plausible biological pathways linking stress to cardiovascular disease, with most of the current evidence pointing to stress-related alterations in the immune, autonomic, and neuroendocrine systems. The brain networks that orchestrate stress-induced changes in these peripheral systems have also been identified (; ), and can be described as the systems related to threat processing, safety processing, and social cognition (). One widely accepted stress-disease model is the “wear and tear” hypothesis (; ; ). This hypothesis is centered on the postulation that prolonged or repeated stress prematurely depletes the finite amount of “adaptational energy” of the organism, decreasing the body’s ability to successfully adapt to environmental challenges (). In this model, stressful events cause stress responses that involve activation of physiologic systems. In the short term, mobilizing physiological resources to respond to a discrete event or threat is adaptive. In the long term, however, frequent and repeated mobilization of these resources wears down these response systems and maladaptive patterns appear (). The “wear and tear” hypothesis is theoretically compelling, but currently lacks definitive empirical support. This is because we do not currently have data that demonstrates the slow degradation of multiple physiological systems over decades in humans, an effort that requires tremendous investment. Instead, most studies have chosen one or maybe two physiological systems to measure to try to capture degradation or maladaptive responses to stressors, thus providing support, but not direct evidence for the “wear and tear” hypothesis. Other potential pathways include stress-related changes in endothelial function, elevated chronic inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, changes in DNA repair, changes in gene expression, and telomere shortening. These are all exciting areas of research, some of which fit in to the “wear and tear” hypothesis (e.g. telomere shortening; ) and others that suggest alternate processes (e.g. biological embedding of early experiences; ). These pathways are relevant for numerous chronic diseases beyond cardiovascular disease.

Associations between stress and immune system functioning are especially relevant given that the major diseases of aging in the United States are mediated, in part, through the immune system. The top three leading causes of death in the United States—cardiovascular disease, cancer, and chronic lower respiratory disease—all share the common thread of being characterized by elevated chronic inflammation (; ; ). Because of this common thread, chronic systemic inflammation has become a recent focus of health research. Stress exposure has been examined extensively as a predictor of increased systemic inflammation. Indeed, elevated systemic inflammation has been found in those experiencing chronic stress like caregivers (), immediately after a stressful life event like death of a loved one (), historical stress like childhood adversity (, ), daily stress (), and in response to lab-based stress tasks (). A short-term inflammatory response to stress is thought to be adaptive because it involves recruiting immune cells to the site of a real or potential injury in order to heal wounds resulting from stressor exposure. However, when there is no wound to heal, as is the case with psychosocial stressor exposure, repeated or exaggerated inflammatory responses may cause long-term damage and contribute to disease processes (; ; ).

Is there an “objective” way to measure stress?

Stress and health researchers have searched for many years for a single biological indicator that someone is “under stress.” However, there is no single stress-specific biomarker. This is likely because acute stress is not the only state that evokes reliable biological changes (e.g. increased heart rate and BP). Other non-acute stress states, such as feeling excited, focusing attention on non-negative affect inducing stimuli, or exercising, also trigger biological responses that are similar to those evoked by negative affect inducing acute stressors like increased heart rate and blood pressure. This is even true for what is often termed the “stress hormone,” cortisol—not all cortisol increases are triggered by increases in psychological stress responses, nor does every experience that people perceive as “stressful” cause cortisol to rise ().

While measuring stress-related biomarkers may not provide a perfect indicator of whether someone is under stress or not, there are still compelling reasons to include these biomarkers in research studies of stress and health. Stress-related biomarkers are objectively measured biological indicators of physiological processes that are either implicated in the pathway from stress to disease or serve as a marker of that process. In typical models of the stress-health relationship, the stressful event (X) leads to a biological change (Y) that then leads to the disease state or related outcome (Z). Stress-related biomarkers can be the variable inserted in any component (X, Y, or Z) of this model; examples of the stress-related biomarker in each part of this basic model are shown in Figure 1. In example A, the biomarker serves as a mediator, or a part of the causal pathway between a stressor and a health outcome. In example B, the biomarker serves as a predictor of stress-related psychosocial and behavioral processes that ultimately impact health outcomes. In example C, the biomarker serves as an outcome of psychological and physiological responses to a traumatic stressor. The way a biomarker is conceptualized (e.g. as a mediator, predictor, or outcome) depends on the research question and study methods. As such, choosing a stress-related biomarker to include in a study depends on the design of the study and the outcomes of interest. Table 3 provides further tools for how to choose the appropriate biomarker. It is also important to keep in mind that a biomarker may not be needed to answer a research question, despite the desire for a seemingly “objective” indicator of stress or stress reduction.

Open in a separate window

Figure 1.

Examples of how stress-related biomarkers can be modeled as either the predictor, the mediator, or the outcome in research studies.

Table 3.

Essential questions for following best practices in choosing an appropriate stress-related biomarker.

Questions to answer to help identify the right stress-related biomarker for your study:1. What are the plausible biological pathways linking my stress predictors to my health outcome? The first step is to identify which physiological system is the likely candidate that is related to the health outcome of interest and that previous evidence has linked to stress or stress-related psychological processes.2. What is the window of time that the stressor can plausibly have its impact for? If the stress response is short, is there a plausible reason it would have long-lasting impacts?3. Is there a biomarker that captures functioning of the pathway identified in Question 1, and that reflects the appropriate timeline (Question 2)?4. Is this biomarker associated with any end disease states relevant for my population of interest?5. If you are proposing to use this biomarker for an intervention study, is the biomarker sensitive enough that it can change in the proposed intervention period window? Is it stable enough that the control condition would remain relatively stable during the intervention period? Would the expected change in the intervention group be clinically meaningful?6. Are you able to collect the biomarker specimen well enough that is worth the subject burden and research cost? For example, while drawing blood is often the best way to capture many biomarkers, it is more invasive and requires more wet lab capacity than collecting saliva samples.7. Is this biomarker needed to answer my research question or can this question be answered with a self-report or task-based measure? Biomarkers may not be needed despite initial excitement and desire to include a potentially “objective” indicator of stress or stress reduction.8. For studies examining an acute stress response, what is the expected pattern of response? Complicating biomarker selection is that there is limited empirical evidence that identifies what a “bad” or “good” physiological acute stress response pattern is. This is because stress exposures take many forms, and thus the most adaptive response depends on a myriad of immediate contextual factors, such as what the goal of the arousal is.

Open in a separate window

One area of research that requires particularly careful consideration of biomarker selection is when biomarkers are used as an outcome in psychosocial intervention trials. The scientific community is often eager to find an objective biological indicator that a psychosocial intervention can improve health; this is typically done by measuring improvement in a biomarker from pre- to post-intervention. There has been a trend in recent years toward using changes in biomarkers as an indicator of an intervention’s success, rather than relying on subjective psychological reports of well-being. This approach is problematic for several reasons, including variability in baseline biomarker profiles, unknown reliability of biomarker assessment over time, unknown stability of these changes, and lack of evidence for the long-term impact of small changes in stress-related biomarkers on disease risk. Therefore, biomarkers should not replace self-report, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes as primary outcomes in psychosocial intervention trials aimed at reducing stress or related goals.

Variability in exposures and responses

Despite stress exposure being an inevitable part of life, not everyone develops stress-related illnesses at the same speed. One primary reason for this is that stress exposures are not distributed evenly across social groups. Women, young adults, members of racial-ethnic minority groups, divorced and widowed persons, and poor and working-class individuals report greater chronic stress and cumulative stress exposure across their lives (). In addition, recent research has demonstrated that both psychological and physiological stress responses vary remarkably within and between people. While the physiological systems that are activated in response to a stressor are generally universal and non-specific as initially proposed by one of the founders of the field of stress, , the pattern of these responses vary considerably in terms of the degree of the system’s activation and how long the systems are activated for. Individual-level differences and environmental contexts interact to influence the psychological and physiological stress response trajectories. These include socioeconomic and cultural factors, genetic and developmental factors, historical and current stressors, stable protective factors, and health behaviors. A model integrating these different levels of experience is presented by our group in detail in and reprinted here with permission (Figure 2).

Open in a separate window

Figure 2.

Transdisciplinary model of psychological stress: Integrating contextual, historical, habitual, and acute stress processes.

Figure 2 presents a transdisciplinary model that describes psychological stress as encompassing as a set of interrelated processes. The figure illustrates that stressors are experienced within the context of a person’s life, represented by the contextual factors in the blue triangle. These contextual factors include individual-level characteristics such as personality and demographics, the environment in which one lives, current and past stressor exposures, and protective factors—all of which combine to determine the baseline allostatic state of physiological regulation, and the lens through which stressors are perceived and assigned meaning. Contextual factors and habitual processes together influence psychological and physiological responses to acute and daily stressors. These responses, if dysregulated, are thought to lead to allostatic load and ultimately biological aging and early disease. Reprinted from Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology ().

Advanced statistical models can be used to examine variability in stress responses (both psychological and physiological) within and between people (; ). Within-person variability in stress responses means that a person’s response to a stressor within one life domain (e.g. work) does not necessarily predict how they will respond to a stressor within another life domain (e.g. family). Between-person variability means that different people respond to the same stressor in a variety of ways. As an example of variability in psychological stress responses, in a sample of 1,532 healthy adults from the Changing Lives of Older Couples prospective study, psychological responses to the death of one’s spouse took on four discrete trajectories (e.g. chronic grief, chronic depression, temporary depression, resilient), suggesting that there is not one universal pattern for spousal grief (). Cortisol can be used as an example of variability in physiological stress responses Cortisol generally increases in response to laboratory-based acute stress tasks if they are uncontrollable and characterized by social-evaluative threat (), such as the TSST described earlier (). However, around 30 percent of people do not mount a cortisol response, and there is tremendous variability in the size of the response. Individual-level predictors of this variability include age, gender, sex steroid levels, smoking, coffee, and alcohol consumption (). Interestingly, these differences are not driven by differences in the emotional responses to the task as acute stressors are not strongly correlated to the physiological responses. In a review of 49 acute stress studies, only 25 percent reported a significant correlation between the two emotional and physiological responses ().

Conclusion

Empirical evidence supports a strong relationship between psychological stress and disease development. These studies may be underestimating the impact of stressor exposure and the stress response on health, given that measuring these constructs has been challenging and limited. Recent work in the stress field has identified important aspects of psychological stress to capture in order to fully test the role that psychological stress plays in predicting disease; these include capturing the specific type(s) of stressor exposure, a wide range of psychological, cognitive, behavioral, and physiological responses to the exposure, and contextual and individual-level factors that moderate the impact of the exposure and response. In this article, we identified ways for researchers to improve the language specificity when describing stress measures and offered guidance on how to choose the appropriate stress measure. We encourage the adoption of more precise language when writing about stress in academic papers, more careful selection of stress measures, with a focus on validated measures when possible, and theoretically driven integration of mechanistic pathways linking stress to health outcomes. The ultimate goal of having sophisticated research on the relationship between stress, health, and well-being is to develop evidence-based ways to help people thrive in our stress-filled world.

Acknowledgments

Members of the Stress Measurement Network provided essential input on the thoughts presented here, and we thank them for their contribution.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health [R24AG048024; K01AG057859].

ORCID iDs: Alexandra D Crosswell

Kimberly G Lockwood

References

• Aghasafari P, George U, Pidaparti R. (2019) A review of inflammatory mechanism in airway diseases. Inflammation Research 68: 59–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Albert MA, Slopen N, Williams DR. (2013) Cumulative psychological stress and cardiovascular disease risk: A focused review with consideration of black-white disparities. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports 7: 318–325. [Google Scholar]
• Almeida DM. (2005) Resilience and vunerability to daily stressors assessed via diary methods. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14(2): 64–68. [Google Scholar]
• Alzheimer’s Association (2019) 2019 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s & Dementia 15(3): 321–387. [Google Scholar]
• Black PH, Garbutt LD. (2002) Stress, inflammation and cardiovascular disease. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 52: 1–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Blascovich JJ, Mendes WB. (2010) Social psychophysiology and embodiment. In: Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G. (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 194–227. [Google Scholar]
• Boyce WT. (2015) Epigenomics and the unheralded convergence of the biological and social sciences. In: Kaplan R, Spittel M, David DH. (eds) Population Health: Behavioral and Social Science Insights. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health, pp. 219–232. [Google Scholar]
• Bradburn N, Rips L, Shevell S. (1987) Answering autobiographical questions: The impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science 236(4798): 157–161. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Brosschot JF, Gerin W, Thayer JF. (2006) The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A review of worry, prolonged stress-related physiological activation, and health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 60: 113–124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Brosschot JF, Pieper S, Thayer JF. (2005) Expanding stress theory: Prolonged activation and perseverative cognition. Psychoneuroendocrinology 30(10): 1043–1049. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Brown G, Harris T. (1978) Social Origins of Depression: A Study of Psychiatric Disorders in Women. New York: The Free Press. [Google Scholar]
• Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW. (1987) Application of Hierarchical Linear Models to Assessing Change. Psychological Bulletin 101: 147–158. [Google Scholar]
• Campbell J, Ehlert U. (2012) Acute psychosocial stress: Does the emotional stress response correspond with physiological responses? Psychoneuroendocrinology 37(8): 1111–1134. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Carroll D, Ginty AT, Whittaker AC, et al. (2017) The behavioural, cognitive, and neural corollaries of blunted cardiovascular and cortisol reactions to acute psychological stress. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 77: 74–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chandola T, Brunner E, Marmot M. (2006) Chronic stress at work and the metabolic syndrome: Prospective study. BMJ: British Medical Journal 332: 521–525. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Charles ST, Piazza JR, Mogle J, et al. (2013) The wear and tear of daily stressors on mental health. Psychological Science 24(5): 733–741. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chiang JJ, Eisenberger NI, Seeman TE, et al. (2012) Negative and competitive social interactions are related to heightened proinflammatory cytokine activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(6): 1878–1882. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chiang JJ, Turiano NA, Mroczek DK, et al. (2018) Affective reactivity to daily stress and 20-year mortality risk in adults with chronic illness: Findings from the National Study of daily experiences. Health Psychology 37(2): 170–178. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chida Y, Steptoe A. (2010) Greater cardiovascular responses to laboratory mental stress are associated with poor subsequent cardiovascular risk status: A meta-analysis of prospective evidence. Hypertension 55(4): 1026–1032. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chida Y, Hamer M, Wardle J, et al. (2008) Do stress-related psychosocial factors contribute to cancer incidence and survival? Nature Clinical Practice Oncology 5(8): 466–475. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cohen M, Granger S, Fuller-Thomson E. (2015) The association between bereavement and biomarkers of inflammation. Behavioral Medicine 41(2): 49–59. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cohen S, Gianaros P, Manuck S. (2016) A stage model of stress and disease. Perspectives on Psychological Science 11(4): 456–463. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D, Miller GE. (2007) Psychological stress and disease. Journal of the American Medical Association 298: 1685–1687. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. (1983) A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 24(4): 385–396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• De Rooij SR. (2013) Blunted cardiovascular and cortisol reactivity to acute psychological stress: A summary of results from the Dutch Famine Birth Cohort Study. International Journal of Psychophysiology 90(1): 21–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dickerson SS, Kemeny ME. (2004) Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin 130(3): 355–391. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dong M, Giles WH, Felitti VJ, et al. (2004) Insights into causal pathways for ischemic heart disease: Adverse childhood experiences study. Circulation 110: 1761–1766. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dragano N, Siegrist J, Nyberg ST, et al. (2017) Effort-reward imbalance at work and incident coronary heart disease: A multicohort study of 90,164 individuals. Epidemiology 28(4): 619–626. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Epel E, Blackburn EH, Lin J, et al. (2004) Accelerated telomere shortening in response to life stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101(49): 17312–17315. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Epel E, Crosswell A, Mayer S, et al. (2018) More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 49: 146–169. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, et al. (1998) Household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 14(4): 245–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fuhrmann D, Knoll LJ, Blakemore SJ. (2015) Adolescence as a Sensitive Period of Brain Development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19: 558–566. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Galatzer-Levy IR, Bonanno GA. (2012) Beyond normality in the study of bereavement: Heterogeneity in depression outcomes following loss in older adults. Social Science & Medicine 74(12): 1987–1994. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gawronski KAB, Kim ES, Miller LE. (2014) Potentially traumatic events and serious life stressors are prospectively associated with frequency of doctor visits and overnight hospital visits. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 77(2): 90–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gianaros P, Wager T. (2015) Brain-body pathways linking psychological stress and physical health. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24(4): 313–321. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gianaros PJ, Jennings JR. (2018) Host in the machine: A neurobiological perspective on psychological stress and cardiovascular disease. American Psychologist 73(8): 1031–1044. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Golia E, Limongelli G, Natale F, et al. (2014) Inflammation and cardiovascular disease: From pathogenesis to therapeutic target. Current Atherosclerosis Reports 16(9): 435. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gordon JL, Girdler SS, Meltzer-Brody SE, et al. (2015) Ovarian hormone fluctuation, neurosteroids, and HPA axis dysregulation in perimenopausal depression: A novel heuristic model. American Journal of Psychiatry 172(3): 227–236. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gouin J-P, Hantsoo L, Kiecolt-Glaser J. (2008) Immune dysregulation and chronic stress among older adults: A review. Neuroimmunomodulation 15(4–6): 251–259. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M. (2010) Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell 140(6): 883–899. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gross J. (2002) Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology 39: 281–291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hamer M, Steptoe A. (2012) Cortisol responses to mental stress and incident hypertension in healthy men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 97(1): E29–E34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hardt J, Rutter M. (2004) Validity of adult retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences: Review of the evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines 45(2): 260–273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, et al. (2015) Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(2): 227–237. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, et al. (2004) A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Research on Aging 26(6): 655–672. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kagan J. (2006) An overly permissive extension. Perspetives on Psychological Science 11(4): 442–450. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Karasek R. (1979) Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(2): 285–308. [Google Scholar]
• Keyes KM, McLaughlin KA, Demmer RT, et al. (2013) Potentially traumatic events and the risk of six physical health conditions in a population-based sample. Depression and Anxiety 30(5): 451–460. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Keys A, Longstreet Taylor H, Blackburn H, et al. (1971) Mortality and coronary heart disease among men studied for 23 years. Archives of Internal Medicine 128(2): 201–214. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kiecolt-Glaser J, Glaser R, Shuttleworth EC, et al. (1987) Chronic stress and immunity in family caregivers of Alzheimer’s disease victims. Psychosomatic Medicine 49(5): 523–535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kirschbaum C, Pirke KM, Hellhammer DH. (1993) The ‘Trier social stress test’: A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology 28: 76–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Knudsen EI. (2004) Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16(8): 1412–1425. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Krause N, Shaw BA, Cairney J. (2004) A descriptive epidemiology of lifetime trauma and the physical health status of older adults. Psychology and Aging 19(4): 637–648. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kudielka BM, Hellhammer DH, Wüst S. (2009) Why do we respond so differently? Reviewing determinants of human salivary cortisol responses to challenge. Psychoneuroendo-crinology 34(1): 2–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Landsbergis PA, Dobson M, Koutsouras G, et al. (2013) Job strain and ambulatory blood pressure: A meta-analysis and systematic review. American Journal of Public Health 103(3): e61–e71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McArdle JJ, Epstein D. (1987) Latent growth curves within developmental structural equation models. Child Development 58(1): 110–133. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McEwen BS. (1998) Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 840: 33–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McEwen BS. (2015) The brain on stress: How behavior and the social environment “get under the skin.” In: Kaplan R, Spittel M, David DH. (eds) Population Health: Behavioral and Social Science Insights. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health, pp. 233–250. [Google Scholar]
• Madsen IEH, Nyberg ST, Magnusson Hanson LL, et al. (2017) Job strain as a risk factor for clinical depression: Systematic review and meta-analysis with additional individual participant data. Psychological Medicine 47(8): 1342–1356. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Marsland AL, Walsh C, Lockwood K, et al. (2017) The effects of acute psychological stress on circulating and stimulated inflammatory markers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 64: 208–219. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Miller GE, Chen E, Cole SW. (2009) Health psychology: Developing biologically plausible models linking the social world and physical health. Annual Review of Psychology 60(1): 501–524. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Miller GE, Chen E, Parker KJ. (2011) Psychological stress in childhood and susceptibility to the chronic diseases of aging: Moving toward a model of behavioral and biological mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin 137(6): 959–997. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Miller GE, Cohen S, Ritchey AK. (2002) Chronic psychological stress and the regulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines: A glucocorticoid-resistance model. Health Psychology 21(6): 531–541. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Muscatell KA, Eisenberger NI. (2012) A social neuroscience perspective on stress and health. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6: 890–904. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Nyberg ST, Fransson EI, Heikkilä K, et al. (2013) Job strain and cardiovascular disease risk factors: Meta-analysis of individual-participant data from 47,000 men and women. PLoS ONE 8(6): e67323. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Pantell M, Rehkopf D, Jutte D, et al. (2013) Social isolation: A predictor of mortality comparable to traditional clinical risk factors. American Journal of Public Health 103(11): 2056–2062. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rohleder N. (2014) Stimulation of systemic low-grade inflammation by psychosocial stress. Psychosomatic Medicine 76(3): 181–189. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rosengren A, Wilhelmsen L, Orth-Gomér K. (2004) Coronary disease in relation to social support and social class in Swedish men: A 15 year follow-up in the study of men born in 1933. European Heart Journal 25(1): 56–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Roth DL, Fredman L, Haley WE. (2015) Informal caregiving and its impact on health: A reappraisal from population-based studies. Gerontologist 55(2): 309–319. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Saxbe D, Rossin-Slater M, Goldenberg D. (2018) The transition to parenthood as a critical window for adult health. American Psychologist 73(9): 1190–1200. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Schulz R, Beach SR. (1999) Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: The caregiver health effects study. JAMA 282(23): 2215–2219. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Selye H. (1956) The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
• Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. (2008) Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 4(1): 1–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Sin NL, Graham-Engeland JE, Ong AD, et al. (2015) Affective reactivity to daily stressors is associated with elevated inflammation. Health Psychology 34(12): 1154–1165. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Slavich GM, Shields GS. (2018) Assessing lifetime stress exposure using the Stress and Adversity Inventory for Adults (Adult STRAIN): An overview and initial validation. Psychosomatic Medicine 80: 17–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Slopen N, Koenen KC, Kubzansky LD. (2012) Childhood adversity and immune and inflammatory biomarkers associated with cardiovascular risk in youth: A systematic review. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 26(2): 239–250. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Slopen N, Lewis TT, Gruenewald TL, et al. (2010) Early life adversity and inflammation in African Americans and whites in the midlife in the United States survey. Psychosomatic Medicine 72(7): 694–701. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Slopen N, Meyer C, Williams D. (2018) Cumulative stress and health. In: Ryff CD, Krueger R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Integrative Health Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 75–93. [Google Scholar]
• Steptoe A, Kivimäki M. (2013) Stress and cardiovascular disease: An update on current knowledge. Annual Review of Public Health 34(1): 337–354. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Steptoe A, Marmot M. (2005) Impaired cardiovascular recovery following stress predicts 3-year increases in blood pressure. Journal of Hypertension 23(3): 529–536. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Steptoe A, Kivimäki M, Lowe G, et al. (2016) Blood pressure and fibrinogen responses to mental stress as predictors of incident hypertension over an 8-year period. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 50(6): 898–906. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Thoits P. (2010) Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 51(S): 41–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Treiber FA, Kamarck T, Schneiderman N, et al. (2003) Cardiovascular reactivity and development of preclinical and clinical disease states. Psychosomatic Medicine 65: 46–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Van Den Bergh BRH, Mulder EJH, Mennes M, et al. (2005) Antenatal maternal anxiety and stress and the neurobehavioural development of the fetus and child: Links and possible mechanisms. A review

  Why was it not a good idea to measure the hot hand by counting?

  Why was it not a good idea to measure the hot hand by counting the number of baskets each participant made? You would not be recording participants' performance on consecutive shots.

  Which is the best design for studying whether people are left brained or right brained?

  With a Correlational design, we might examine the association between personality type and enjoyment of various activities, such as mathematical equations and artistic expression, to determine if someone can be left- or right-brained.

  What did the researchers learn from this slide exposure experiment?

  What did the researchers learn from this slide-exposure experiment? Positive or negative subliminal images (flashed too briefly to be perceived) can prime participants' responses, affecting their ratings of a later perceived stimulus.

  What conclusion can we draw regarding the respondents Murray & Wheeler 1937 who correctly predicted the death of the Lindbergh baby quizlet?

  What was the conclusion that Murray and Wheeler reached regarding the percentage of respondents who correctly predicted the death of the Lindbergh baby? It was roughly the same percentage that would be expected by chance.