Neuroticism and Stress: Perceived Stress, Reactivity, and Recovery
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism and stress are closely related, but they are not the same construct. Neuroticism is a relatively stable personality dimension describing individual differences in negative emotionality, sensitivity to threat and frustration, and proneness to distress. Stress refers to processes that arise when demands, events, or circumstances are experienced as taxing, threatening, uncontrollable, or difficult to manage. A person can be high in neuroticism without being under intense stress at a given moment, and a person low in neuroticism can experience severe stress when circumstances are sufficiently demanding. For the personality construct itself, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model.
The strongest evidence supports a multi-part relationship. People higher in neuroticism tend, on average, to report more stressor exposure, appraise events as more stressful, show greater negative-emotional reactivity to daily stressors, and in some studies recover more slowly after negative events. A meta-analysis of 1,575 effect sizes from 298 samples found that neuroticism was positively related to stress across the literature, especially to psychological stress perception; associations between Big Five traits and physiological stress responses were much weaker and often close to null (Luo et al., 2023).
This distinction matters. The neuroticism–stress link is clearest at the level of subjective experience, appraisal, daily affect, and patterns of exposure and recovery. It does not justify the claim that people higher in neuroticism necessarily have a stronger cortisol response, a uniformly more activated autonomic nervous system, or a biological “stress disorder.” High neuroticism is a personality score, not a psychiatric diagnosis and not a laboratory biomarker.
Neuroticism and stress: the short answer
Higher neuroticism is associated with a greater average tendency to experience stress and distress, but the association is probabilistic rather than deterministic. Personality can influence several points in the stress process: which stressful situations a person encounters, how an event is interpreted, how strongly negative affect changes after the event, which coping responses are selected, how long emotional effects persist, and how later behavior alters the environment.
Classic daily-process research separated two especially important pathways: exposure and reactivity. In a six-week daily study, higher neuroticism was associated with both greater exposure to minor stressors and stronger emotional reactions to them; reactivity accounted for more of the distress difference between higher- and lower-neuroticism participants than exposure did (Bolger & Schilling, 1991). A later framework formalized exposure, reactivity, coping choice, and coping effectiveness as distinct parts of the personality–stress process (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995).
More recent ambulatory research adds another piece: recovery. A 2026 meta-analytic path analysis integrating five intensive longitudinal datasets, with 1,118 participants and 96,699 observations, found that neuroticism was associated with more frequent or intense negative events, stronger negative-affect reactivity, and reduced recovery from negative events. A sixth dataset showed that subjective appraisal of negative events was much more strongly related to neuroticism and well-being than objective event occurrence, while the authors also emphasized limitations in how these processes are operationalized (Wenzel et al., 2026).
Neuroticism, perceived stress, negative affect, and anxiety are different constructs
Several constructs overlap statistically with neuroticism, which makes careless interpretation easy. Keeping them separate clarifies what the evidence actually shows.
Neuroticism
Neuroticism is a broad personality trait. In Big Five research it captures relatively enduring differences in the tendency to experience negative emotions and distress across time and situations. Different instruments operationalize the domain differently. The BFI-2 labels the broad domain Negative Emotionality and organizes it into Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility facets (Soto & John, 2017). NEO inventories and Eysenck measures use related but nonidentical content and scoring systems. The Hub’s overview of common manifestations is Neuroticism Traits: Worry, Sensitivity, Reactivity, and Vulnerability to Stress.
Perceived stress
Perceived stress is an appraisal-based construct: how unpredictable, uncontrollable, overloaded, or stressful a person experiences life to be over a specified period. The Perceived Stress Scale was designed to measure the degree to which situations in life are appraised as stressful rather than to measure a personality trait (Cohen et al., 1983). Because both perceived stress and neuroticism involve reports of distress, they can correlate substantially without being interchangeable.
Negative affect
Negative affect describes unpleasant emotional experience such as distress, fear, irritability, sadness, or tension. It can be measured as a momentary state, a daily level, or a more trait-like tendency depending on the instrument. Daily stress-reactivity studies often use a change in momentary negative affect on stressor versus nonstressor occasions as an outcome. That outcome is not itself a neuroticism score.
Anxiety and trait anxiety
Anxiety is an emotional state or symptom domain involving apprehension, tension, fear, and related responses. Trait anxiety is a relatively enduring propensity toward anxiety. Neuroticism is broader: anxiety-related tendencies form part of its content, but the construct also includes other negative-emotional tendencies. Clinical anxiety disorders add diagnostic requirements that a personality measure cannot establish. For the evidence on their relationship, see Neuroticism and Anxiety: What Research Shows.
What the meta-analytic evidence says
The 2023 meta-analysis by Luo and colleagues is especially useful because it did not treat “stress” as one undifferentiated variable. It separated stressor exposure, psychological stress responses, and physiological stress responses. Across 298 samples, neuroticism showed a positive overall relation to stress. Neuroticism was among the traits associated with greater stressor exposure, all five Big Five traits showed associations with psychological stress perception, and physiological stress-response associations were weak to null overall (Luo et al., 2023).
That pattern immediately rules out a simplistic model in which neuroticism merely means “the body reacts more.” A more defensible model is psychological and transactional: people differ in what they encounter, what they notice, how they interpret demands, how strongly emotion changes, how they cope, and how long the emotional residue persists. Biological responses can be part of stress, but they do not map one-to-one onto subjective stress.
Stressor exposure: do people higher in neuroticism experience more stressful events?
On average, often yes, although the size and meaning of the association depend on the stressor and study design. Daily research has repeatedly found higher reported exposure to hassles or interpersonal problems among people higher in neuroticism. Bolger and Schilling’s early daily study found that exposure contributed to the higher distress of participants high in neuroticism, although reactivity explained more of the difference (Bolger & Schilling, 1991). Gunthert and colleagues later found that higher-neuroticism students reported more interpersonal stressors during a 14-day diary period (Gunthert et al., 1999).
Exposure can arise through several pathways. Some stressful events are externally imposed and largely independent of personality. Others are partly shaped by recurring person–environment transactions: conflict behavior, avoidance, choices, expectations, relationship patterns, or cumulative responses can change the probability that certain hassles occur. Contemporary stress-generation research treats these processes as unfolding across timescales rather than as a single personality effect.
A 2026 systematic review of 45 daily-life studies involving 9,818 participants concluded that both dispositional traits and momentary states can predict the occurrence of daily hassles, supporting the relevance of stress generation in everyday life. The review also emphasized that the evidence linking short-term daily processes to established long-term stress-generation effects remains incomplete (Haehner et al., 2026).
Stress generation therefore does not mean that people “cause their own stress.” It describes statistical person–environment transactions, some of which are partly behavior-dependent and many of which are constrained by relationships, work, health, socioeconomic conditions, discrimination, caregiving, accidents, loss, and other circumstances outside an individual’s control.
Perceived stress and appraisal
The same event can be appraised differently by different people, and neuroticism is strongly related to those appraisal differences. In a 14-day diary study, participants higher in neuroticism made more negative primary and secondary appraisals of their most stressful daily event and showed more distress as appraisals became more negative (Gunthert et al., 1999).
Large daily-life research likewise suggests that appraisal partly explains why personality relates to stressor-related affect. In two studies using 2,022 adults from the National Study of Daily Experiences, lower neuroticism was associated with less stressor-related negative affect, and stressor appraisals partially accounted for the personality–affect associations (Leger et al., 2016).
Appraisal is not fabrication. A person can experience a genuinely demanding event and also differ from another person in perceived threat, controllability, severity, or available coping resources. Subjective appraisal is itself a psychologically consequential part of stress. The key scientific question is how objective circumstances, appraisal, personality, current state, and context jointly contribute—not which single element is “the real stress.”
Stress reactivity: why the same stressor can have different emotional effects
Stress reactivity usually refers to the within-person change that follows a stressor. In daily-diary and experience-sampling studies, researchers often compare negative affect on occasions or days with a stressor to negative affect on stressor-free occasions. A person may have a high average level of negative affect, high reactivity to stressors, both, or neither. Those are analytically different quantities.
In a national daily-diary sample of 1,012 adults, daily stress was more strongly associated with daily negative affect among people higher in neuroticism (Mroczek & Almeida, 2004). A later ambulatory study of 391 community adults found that neuroticism was related both to daily stressor exposure and to the within-person association between stressor exposure and perceived stress (Kaurin et al., 2021).
A review of daily-process research described a broader pattern: people higher in neuroticism reported more daily problems, stronger emotional reactions, more spillover from earlier moods, and stronger reactions when problems recurred—a pattern the authors called a “neurotic cascade” (Suls & Martin, 2005). The phrase describes a statistical pattern in repeated-measures studies; it is not a diagnosis or a claim that every highly neurotic person follows the same sequence.
Recovery: how quickly does negative affect return toward baseline?
Reactivity concerns the size of the emotional change after a stressor; recovery concerns what happens afterward. Someone can react strongly and recover quickly, or react moderately and remain affected for a long period. Treating these as separate processes is important because mean negative affect can be elevated through either pathway.
Recent intensive longitudinal work has strengthened the evidence that recovery contributes to the neuroticism–well-being relationship. Wenzel and colleagues found reduced recovery from negative events among people higher in neuroticism across their integrated ambulatory datasets (Wenzel et al., 2026). A 2024 experience-sampling study of two age-heterogeneous samples also examined neuroticism, emotional stressor reactivity, and recovery; associations varied across samples, illustrating that recovery effects are not identical in every age group or design (Lücke et al., 2024).
This is one reason a single retrospective question such as “How stressed are you?” cannot tell whether a person is encountering more stressors, appraising them more negatively, reacting more strongly, or recovering more slowly. Intensive longitudinal designs are valuable precisely because they separate processes that a global questionnaire collapses together.
Coping is part of the relationship, but it is not a fixed neuroticism script
Personality is related to coping preferences, yet coping is context-sensitive. A meta-analysis of 2,653 effect sizes from 165 samples and 33,094 participants found that neuroticism was associated with less problem solving and cognitive restructuring and with more wishful thinking, withdrawal, and emotion-focused coping, while also being associated with support seeking. Relations changed with age, stress level, measurement method, culture, and whether stressors were self-selected or researcher-selected (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007).
The implication is not that one trait dictates one coping style. Coping strategies vary in usefulness by context, controllability, timing, and goal. Seeking emotional support may be useful in one situation; temporary distraction may be useful in another; direct action is possible only when something actionable can be changed. Personality contributes to probabilities, not an invariant behavioral program.
Worry, rumination, and emotion regulation are also related to stress processing, but each is a distinct construct with its own evidence base. They should not be used as synonyms for neuroticism. Each process can contribute to stress in a different way, so evidence about one should not be treated as evidence about the others.
Psychological stress and physiological stress are not interchangeable
A major source of confusion is the assumption that feeling more stressed must mean showing a larger cortisol, heart-rate, blood-pressure, or autonomic response. The evidence does not support a universal translation from subjective stress to physiology. Luo and colleagues found clear neuroticism associations with psychological stress perception but weak-to-null Big Five associations with physiological stress responses overall (Luo et al., 2023).
An earlier quantitative review of 30 years of laboratory-stress research likewise found a complicated pattern: anxiety, neuroticism, or negative affect were associated with decreased cardiovascular reactivity but poorer cardiovascular recovery, while no consistent associations appeared for sympathetic or parasympathetic responses (Chida & Hamer, 2008). Individual laboratory studies have also reported lower, rather than higher, heart-rate or cortisol reactivity among participants higher in neuroticism.
Accordingly, “high neuroticism means high cortisol” is not a sound general rule. Cortisol depends on the stress paradigm, timing, baseline, diurnal rhythm, medication, health, sleep, sex hormones, age, sampling protocol, and many other factors. For the separate evidence base on this question, see Neuroticism and Cortisol: Stress Biology, Mixed Findings, and Interpretation. The broader neuroscience literature is reviewed in Neuroticism and the Brain: What Neuroscience Studies Show—and Do Not Show.
Acute stress, daily hassles, chronic stress, and major life events
“Stress” can refer to very different exposures. Acute laboratory tasks last minutes. Daily hassles recur across ordinary life. Chronic stress may persist for months or years. Major life events can be acute, chronic in their aftermath, controllable, uncontrollable, interpersonal, health-related, financial, occupational, or traumatic. A neuroticism association observed for one stress type cannot automatically be transferred to every other type.
This heterogeneity helps explain why effect sizes vary. Luo and colleagues found that relations between personality and stress depended on characteristics of the stress construct, sample, design, and measures (Luo et al., 2023). The scientific question is therefore more precise than “Are neurotic people stressed?” It is: under what conditions does neuroticism predict exposure, appraisal, affective response, coping, recovery, or physiological response, and how large is each association?
Does neuroticism cause stress?
The evidence supports association and prospective prediction, but a simple one-way causal statement is too strong. Neuroticism can precede later stress experiences, influence appraisals and behavior, and contribute to stress generation. At the same time, stressful environments and repeated emotional experiences can affect states and may contribute to longer-term personality change. Shared causes can influence both neuroticism and stress. Measurement overlap can also inflate associations when both constructs are assessed by self-report.
A six-year measurement-burst study of 581 people aged 14 to 86 found that increases in average momentary stress reactivity were coupled with increases in trait neuroticism, especially in young adulthood. Changes in hassle frequency did not show the same pattern. The design provides longitudinal evidence for coupling between reactivity and trait change, but it does not turn the association into proof that one variable alone causes the other (Wrzus et al., 2021).
The safest causal summary is transactional. Personality can shape stress-related processes; stress-related experiences can coincide with or contribute to personality change; environments shape both; and the direction and magnitude of effects depend on the specific process under study. For the broader origins of the trait, see What Causes Neuroticism? Genetics, Temperament, Environment, and Life Experience.
Why the neuroticism–stress relationship matters for mental health
Repeated stressor exposure, stronger negative-affect reactivity, and slower recovery can create more opportunities for sustained distress. These processes are plausible pathways connecting neuroticism with mental-health vulnerability. They are not diagnoses. A person can be high in neuroticism and psychologically healthy, while anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, PTSD, OCD, and other conditions each require their own symptom, duration, impairment, and diagnostic criteria.
Longitudinal evidence also suggests that stress reactivity can matter beyond immediate mood. In a nationwide sample followed across three waves spanning 20 years, earlier neuroticism predicted greater negative-affect reactivity to daily stressors at the next wave, and this reactivity statistically mediated part of the association between personality and later chronic conditions and functional limitations (Leger et al., 2021). Mediation in an observational longitudinal design is evidence about a plausible pathway; it is not proof that changing one variable will necessarily cause the later health outcome to change.
For the broader psychiatric evidence, see Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor. That article owns the transdiagnostic risk-factor intent; the present article is specifically about the stress process.
Measurement matters: there is no universal “high neuroticism” or “high stress” score
Research findings depend on what was measured. A NEO PI-R Neuroticism score, a NEO-FFI score, the BFI-2 Negative Emotionality domain, an IPIP neuroticism scale, and an Eysenck Neuroticism scale are related measures, but their item content, facet structure, score ranges, normative samples, and scoring procedures differ. A raw score or percentile cannot be transferred directly from one instrument to another.
The same caution applies to stress. The Perceived Stress Scale measures perceived stress over a specified recall period; daily-diary studies record stressors or appraisals repeatedly; ecological momentary assessment samples current events and affect in real time or near real time; life-event interviews assess discrete experiences; laboratory paradigms experimentally induce acute stress; physiological studies quantify variables such as cortisol or cardiovascular responses. These methods answer related but different questions.
If a study reports that “high neuroticism” predicts stress, interpretation therefore requires the personality instrument, scoring method, sample, cut point if one was used, stress measure, timescale, and population. For personal score interpretation, see Neuroticism Test: What It Measures and How to Interpret Results.
What high neuroticism can look like under stress
At the group level, higher neuroticism may be expressed as noticing more potential threats, feeling less control, anticipating more negative outcomes, experiencing stronger negative affect after hassles, carrying the emotional effect of one problem into the next part of the day, or taking longer to return toward an individual baseline. None of these manifestations is required in every person.
The broad domain also contains narrower tendencies. Some people’s neuroticism profile is dominated by anxious anticipation, some by emotional volatility, sadness, self-consciousness, or vulnerability under strain, depending on the personality model and instrument. Domain scores therefore compress heterogeneous processes. For one established facet model, see Neuroticism Facets: Anxiety, Anger, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability.
Can stress responses change even if personality is relatively stable?
Yes. Trait stability does not imply fixed reactions. Stress exposure changes from day to day; appraisals depend on context and resources; coping can be learned; social support and controllability vary; sleep and health alter current capacity; and emotional recovery can differ across situations. A relatively stable personality trait can coexist with substantial within-person fluctuation.
This distinction is essential when evaluating interventions. Reduced perceived stress or fewer anxiety symptoms after treatment does not automatically establish durable change in trait neuroticism. Conversely, a measurable change in a personality inventory may reflect enduring trait change, current symptom improvement, state effects, or some combination. Questions about lasting personality change therefore require longitudinal trait measurement rather than symptom change alone.
Practical implications
The research supports a process-focused interpretation rather than a label-focused one. If someone scores high in neuroticism and also experiences high stress, the useful questions concern which part of the stress process is most burdensome: repeated exposure to modifiable stressors, threat appraisal, low perceived control, strong affective reactivity, ineffective coping in a particular context, slow recovery, poor sleep, or an untreated mental-health condition.
Because these pathways are separable, they also create different intervention targets. Stressor reduction may help when demands can be changed. Problem solving may help when a situation is controllable. Social support can alter both exposure and appraisal in some contexts. Skills that change appraisal, coping, or recovery may reduce distress without implying that neuroticism is an illness requiring a “cure.” When stress is persistent, severe, linked to marked impairment, or accompanied by clinically significant anxiety, depression, trauma symptoms, or other psychiatric symptoms, condition-specific assessment is more informative than a personality score.
Frequently asked questions
Are people high in neuroticism always more stressed?
No. Higher neuroticism is associated with greater stress on average, especially perceived or psychological stress, but current stress depends strongly on circumstances. Trait scores shift probabilities; they do not determine every episode.
Is neuroticism the same as stress sensitivity?
No. Neuroticism is a broad personality dimension. Stress sensitivity or stress reactivity refers to how responses change when stressors occur. The two are related, but reactivity is a process that can be measured within persons over time.
Does high neuroticism mean a person has an anxiety disorder?
No. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait. Anxiety disorders are clinical diagnoses with condition-specific criteria. Neuroticism is associated with anxiety vulnerability but cannot diagnose an anxiety disorder.
Does neuroticism make people perceive events as more stressful?
On average, higher neuroticism is associated with more negative stress appraisals and greater perceived stress. Appraisal is one pathway linking personality to distress, but objective demands, context, resources, and current state also matter.
Do people high in neuroticism experience more stressful events?
Many studies find somewhat greater stressor exposure, particularly for daily hassles or interpersonal stressors. Some exposure can reflect person–environment transactions, while many stressors are externally imposed and outside personal control.
Do people high in neuroticism react more strongly to stress?
They often show greater negative-emotional reactivity in daily-life studies. This does not mean every biological stress marker is higher; physiological findings are much more mixed.
Do people high in neuroticism recover more slowly after stress?
Recent intensive longitudinal evidence suggests reduced average recovery from negative events, but effects vary by sample, age, design, and operationalization. Recovery should be measured separately from initial reactivity.
Is high neuroticism linked to high cortisol?
There is no universal rule. Meta-analytic evidence finds much clearer links with psychological stress perception than with physiological stress responses. Cortisol findings depend heavily on design and measurement.
Can chronic stress increase neuroticism?
Longitudinal studies show that changes in stress reactivity can track changes in neuroticism, and personality itself can change over time. That is compatible with reciprocal influence, but it does not establish a simple causal rule that chronic stress inevitably raises neuroticism.
Can coping eliminate the effect of neuroticism on stress?
No single coping strategy eliminates a personality–stress association across all situations. Personality is related to coping tendencies, but the usefulness of a strategy depends on the stressor, controllability, timing, goals, and available resources.
Is a high neuroticism score a sign that someone needs treatment?
Not by itself. Personality scores are not diagnoses. Clinical decisions depend on symptoms, persistence, distress, functional impairment, safety, and the person’s goals and context.
What is the most important distinction to remember?
Neuroticism is a trait; stress is a process and experience. Higher neuroticism is associated with greater exposure, appraisal, emotional reactivity, and sometimes slower recovery, but these are related components rather than one single phenomenon.
Related Articles
References
Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59(3), 355–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00253.x
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.890
Chida, Y., & Hamer, M. (2008). Chronic psychosocial factors and acute physiological responses to laboratory-induced stress in healthy populations: A quantitative review of 30 years of investigations. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 829–885. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013342
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6668417/
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1080–1107. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18072856/
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1087
Haehner, P., Andrae, R., & Bleidorn, W. (2026). A systematic review and theoretical framework of stress generation in daily life. Clinical Psychology Review, 126, 102729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102729
Kaurin, A., Wright, A. G. C., & Kamarck, T. W. (2021). Daily stress reactivity: The unique roles of personality and social support. Journal of Personality, 89(5), 1012–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12633
Leger, K. A., Charles, S. T., Turiano, N. A., & Almeida, D. M. (2016). Personality and stressor-related affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(6), 917–928. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000083
Leger, K. A., Turiano, N. A., Bowling, W., Burris, J. L., & Almeida, D. M. (2021). Personality traits predict long-term physical health via affect reactivity to daily stressors. Psychological Science, 32(5), 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620980738
Lücke, A. J., Schilling, O. K., Kunzmann, U., Gerstorf, D., Katzorreck-Gierden, M., Hoppmann, C. A., Luong, G., Wagner, G. G., Riediger, M., & Wrzus, C. (2024). Neuroticism, emotional stress reactivity and recovery in daily life: Examining extraversion and openness as moderators. Journal of Research in Personality, 109, 104474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104474
Luo, J., Zhang, B., Cao, M., & Roberts, B. W. (2023). The stressful personality: A meta-analytical review of the relation between personality and stress. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(2), 128–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221104002
Mroczek, D. K., & Almeida, D. M. (2004). The effect of daily stress, personality, and age on daily negative affect. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 355–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00265.x
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2005). The daily life of the garden-variety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal of Personality, 73(6), 1485–1509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00356.x
Wenzel, M., Kaurin, A., Ringwald, W. R., Tüscher, O., Kubiak, T., & Wright, A. G. C. (2026). Unraveling the link between neuroticism and well-being in daily life: The role of event occurrence, event appraisals, affective reactivity, and affective recovery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000584
Wrzus, C., Luong, G., Wagner, G. G., & Riediger, M. (2021). Longitudinal coupling of momentary stress reactivity and trait neuroticism: Specificity of states, traits, and age period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(3), 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000308