The efficacy of stress reappraisal interventions on stress responsivity: A meta-analysis and systematic review of existing evidence

Abstract

Background The beliefs we hold about stress play an important role in coping with stressors. Various theoretical frameworks of stress point to the efficacy of reframing stress-related information through brief reappraisal interventions in order to promote adaptive coping. Purpose The goal of the current meta-analysis and systematic review is to substantiate the efficacy of reappraisal interventions on stress responsivity compared to control conditions. Differences in experimental methodologies (e.g., type of stressor used, timing of reappraisal intervention, and content of intervention instructions) will be examined to further delineate their effects on intervention outcomes. Methods The literature searches were conducted on May 16, 2018 using PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and PILOTS databases with no date restriction. The search terms included stress, reframing, reappraisal, mindset and reconceptualising. A total of 14 articles with 36 independent samples were included in the meta-analysis, while 22 articles with 46 independent samples were included in the systematic review. Random-effects model was used to test the null hypothesis using two-tailed significance testing. Fisher’s Z value was reported for each corresponding test. Heterogeneity tests are reported via Cochran’s Q-statistics. Results Findings from both the meta-analysis and systematic review revealed that overall, reappraisal interventions are effective in attenuating subjective responsivity to stress. Standard differences in means across groups are 0.429 ( SE = 0.185, 95% CI = 0.067 to 0.791; z = 2.320, p = .020). However, reappraisal intervention groups did not outperform control groups on measures of physiological stress, with standard differences of -0.084 ( SE = 0.135, 95% CI = -0.349 to 0.180; z = -0.627, p = .531). Moderator analysis revealed heterogeneous effects suggesting large variability in findings. Conclusions On one hand, findings may suggest a promising avenue for the effective management of self-reported stress and optimization of stress responses. However, more research is needed to better elucidate the effects, if any, of reappraisal interventions on stress physiology. Implications for the use of reappraisal interventions on stress optimization are discussed in the context of theoretical frameworks and considerations for future studies.

More habitual physical activity is linked to the use of specific, more adaptive cognitive reappraisal strategies in dealing with stressful events

“…Cognitive reappraisal refers to deliberately viewing an emotionally evocative event from a different perspective and reinterpreting its meaning, thereby changing its emotional impact (e.g., Gross & John, 2003;Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). A recent meta-analysis corroborated the power of cognitive reappraisal for dealing with stressful events, finding positive effects of reappraisal interventions on subjective stress perception (Liu, Ein, Gervasio, & Vickers, 2019, also see Webb, Miles, & Sheeran, 2012). For physical activity and stress regulation, it is proposed that a persons' physical activity may facilitate more adaptive emotion regulation in critical contexts (Bernstein, Curtiss, Wu, Barreira, & McNally, 2018;Bernstein & McNally, 2017;Shields, Matt, & Coifman, 2016).…”

Managing stress during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and beyond: Reappraisal and mindset approaches

“…These perspectives each propose two adaptive strategies that alter individuals' perspectives on stress and are likely to be highly effective in stress management: stress reappraisals and stress mindsets. Together, these strategies aim to alter the received perspective that stress is negative and leads to maladaptive outcomes including poorer health, reduced functioning, and impaired performance on tasks (A. W. Brooks, 2014; Crum, Akinola, Martin, & Fath, 2017; Crum et al, 2013; Jamieson et al, 2016; Jamieson, Mendes, Blackstock, & Schmader, 2010; Jamieson, Nock, & Mendes, 2013; Liu, Ein, Gervasio, & Vickers, 2019). Such approaches contrast with the majority of stress‐management strategies that typically aim to minimize the frequency or magnitude of felt stress and anxiety (Clough et al, 2017; Hagger & Stevenson, 2010; WHO, 2020).…”

“…Such interventions are proposed to be particularly effective in contexts where the source of stress cannot be avoided and, therefore, represents a viable and adaptive alternative to strategies focused on reducing stress intensity. Stress reappraisal interventions usually involve the presentation of scenarios highlighting that stress can be effective in promoting better coping and performance, and have been shown to be effective in reducing acute stress responses and improved performance in contexts such as work and academic performance (A. W. Brooks, 2014; Jamieson et al, 2010, 2013, 2016; Jones, Hanton, & Swain, 1994; Liu et al, 2017, 2019).…”

Emotion Regulation Contagion: Stress Reappraisal Promotes Challenge Responses in Teammates

“…Indeed, a growing body of evidence from the emotion regulation and intervention literatures provides support for the idea that acute stress responses and performance outcomes can, indeed, be improved by modifying appraisal processes (Beltzer, Nock, Peters, & Jamieson, 2014;Brady, Hard, & Gross, 2018;Hangen et al, 2019;Jamieson, Mendes, Blackstock, & Schmader, 2010;Jamieson, Nock, & Mendes, 2012Jamieson, Peters, Greenwood, & Altose, 2016;John-Henderson, Rheinschmidt, & Mendoza-Denton, 2015;Liu, Ein, Gervasio, & Vickers, 2019;Moore, Vine, Wilson, & Freeman, 2015;Rozek, Ramirez, Fine, & Beilock, 2019;Sammy et al, 2017;Yeager, Lee, & Jamieson, 2016).…”