Too Little, Too Much, and “Just Right”: Exploring the “Goldilocks Zone” of Daily Stress Reactivity

Hormetic models of stress resilience describe nonlinear relations for exposure to adversity and health outcomes, where exposure induces salutary changes up to a threshold, with changes becoming deleterious afterward. Here we apply a hormetic model of stress to reactivity to daily stressors, examining whether mental and physical health benefits arise from low-to-moderate reactivity but then decrease at higher levels. Data are from the second wave of the National Study of Daily Experiences (NSDE). Adults (N = 2,022; Mage = 58.61, SD = 12.12, age range: 35–86; 57% female) completed telephone interviews detailing their stressors and affect on eight consecutive evenings. A series of multilevel structural equation models estimated within-person associations between daily stressors and negative affect (i.e., stress reactivity), and between-person linear and quadratic effects of stress reactivity on mental and physical health outcomes (i.e., life satisfaction, psychological distress, and number of chronic conditions). Findings reveal a significant quadratic effect for each outcome, indicating a U-shaped pattern (inverse U for positively valenced life satisfaction), such that low and high levels of stress reactivity were associated with poorer health and wellbeing, whereas moderate levels of daily stress reactivity predicted better health outcomes. These findings suggest that individuals who display either very low- or very high-stress reactivity may benefit from interventions that target their emotion regulation skills and coping resources.