Ringwald, W. R., Edershile, E. A., Mostajabi, J., Nielsen, S. R., Woods, W. C., Simms, L. J., & Wright, A. G. C. (2025). Daily manifestations of psychopathology in response to stress. Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science, 134(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000954

Key Takeaways

Focus: The study investigated the relationship between daily stressors and manifestations of psychopathology, conceptualized as psychopathology states.
Aims: To examine how daily stressors relate to a broad range of psychopathology states and how individual traits are associated with these responses.
Findings: Individuals typically experience heightened psychopathology states in response to daily stress, and these states are more pronounced and consistent in those with elevated psychopathology traits.
Implications: The findings suggest that psychopathology reflects how individuals cope with stress, with variations in consistency and extremity of responses differentiating those with high-trait psychopathology from those with typical stress reactions.

Rationale

The study is grounded in the understanding that psychological functioning is shaped by how individuals interact with their environment, and psychopathology often stems from maladaptive responses to environmental demands, particularly stress.

Prior research has primarily focused on negative affect reactivity as a response to stress, neglecting the broader range of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional responses that contribute to psychological dysfunction.

This study addresses this gap by examining a wider array of psychopathology manifestations in relation to daily stressors.

The research draws on the concept of person-environment transactions, where mismatches between an individual’s responses and situational demands can lead to psychological problems.

It also builds upon the framework of psychopathology states, which are transient expressions of thoughts, behaviors, and emotions corresponding to specific psychopathology domains.

This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how different forms of psychopathology manifest in daily life and how individual differences in trait psychopathology contribute to variations in stress responses.

By examining these processes, the study aims to provide insights into the mechanisms underlying psychopathology and inform interventions that target maladaptive stress responses.

Method

Procedure

The study employed an ambulatory assessment design, where participants reported on their daily stressors and psychopathology states over a period of time.

Participants were asked to complete daily surveys, either at the end of the day or multiple times per day, depending on the sample.
In both samples, participants reported on the occurrence and severity of various stressful events, such as arguments, work-related issues, and home-related events.
They also rated the intensity of their negative emotions, such as fear, nervousness, and sadness.
Additionally, participants completed measures assessing psychopathology states across different domains, including negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and anankastia.

Sample

The study involved two independent samples:

Sample 1: 112 participants (mean age = 44 years, SD = 13.7), with 80% identifying as White, 16% as Black/African American, 3% as American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 65% as female.
Sample 2: 294 participants (mean age = 28 years, SD = 6.36), with 75% identifying as White, 15% as Black/African American, 8% as Asian, 5% as other race, and 53% as female.

Measures

Psychopathology States: Assessed using 30-item (Sample 1) and 81-item (Sample 2) scales measuring daily fluctuations in thoughts, behaviors, and emotions related to antagonism, detachment, disinhibition, negative affectivity, anankastia, and psychoticism (Sample 1 only).
Perceived Daily Stress: Measured using self-report inventories, with participants indicating the occurrence and severity of various stressful events.
Negative Emotion: Assessed using daily ratings of negative emotion adjectives, such as “afraid,” “nervous,” and “hostile.”

Statistical Measures

Multilevel structural equation models (MSEMs) were used to analyze the data, allowing for the examination of both within-person and between-person variations in stress responses and their associations with psychopathology traits and states.

Results

Hypothesis 1: Supported. People reported higher levels of psychopathology states on days with increased stress, indicating a general tendency for heightened psychopathology manifestations in response to daily stressors.
Hypothesis 2: Partially supported. Higher levels of trait psychopathology were generally associated with stronger psychopathology state responses, but this association was not always specific to the corresponding domain.

Insight

This study reveals that daily life stressors trigger a range of psychopathology states, not just negative emotions.

People with elevated psychopathology traits experience these states more intensely and consistently, highlighting individual differences in how we cope with stress.

This suggests that psychopathology may be understood as a maladaptive way of dealing with everyday challenges.

The findings build upon previous research by considering a broader spectrum of psychopathology manifestations beyond negative affect.

This provides a more nuanced understanding of how different forms of psychopathology manifest in daily life and how individual differences contribute to variations in stress responses.

Future Research Directions

Investigate the impact of specific stressors: Examine how different types of stressors, such as interpersonal conflicts, work-related pressures, and financial difficulties, differentially affect psychopathology states.
Explore the role of protective factors: Identify factors that may buffer the impact of daily stressors on psychopathology states, such as social support, coping skills, and resilience.
Develop targeted interventions: Design and test interventions that specifically address the maladaptive stress responses associated with different forms of psychopathology.
Examine cultural and contextual factors: Investigate how cultural and contextual factors, such as socioeconomic status, neighborhood environment, and discrimination, may influence the relationship between daily stressors and psychopathology states.

Clinical Implications

The findings of this study have significant implications for clinical practice and policy development in mental health.

By understanding how daily stressors contribute to fluctuations in psychopathology states, practitioners can develop more targeted interventions to help individuals manage their symptoms and improve their overall well-being.

For Practitioners

Assessment: Incorporate assessments of daily stressors and psychopathology states into clinical practice to gain a more comprehensive understanding of clients’ experiences and tailor interventions accordingly. This could involve using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methods, such as daily diaries or smartphone apps, to track clients’ symptoms and stressors in real-time.
Intervention: Develop interventions that focus on building resilience to daily stressors and managing psychopathology states. This could include:
- Stress management techniques: Teach clients coping skills, such as relaxation techniques, mindfulness practices, and problem-solving strategies, to help them manage daily stressors more effectively.
- Emotion regulation skills: Help clients develop skills to regulate their emotions and reduce the intensity and frequency of negative emotional responses to stressors.
- Cognitive restructuring: Assist clients in identifying and challenging maladaptive thought patterns that contribute to their psychopathology states.
- Behavioral activation: Encourage clients to engage in activities that promote positive emotions and reduce the likelihood of experiencing negative psychopathology states.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Regularly monitor clients’ progress in managing daily stressors and psychopathology states and adjust interventions as needed. This could involve using EMA methods to track clients’ symptoms and stressors over time and assess the effectiveness of interventions.

For Policymakers

Promote mental health awareness: Implement public health campaigns to raise awareness of the impact of daily stressors on mental health and encourage individuals to seek help when needed.
Support research: Invest in research to further understand the relationship between daily stressors and psychopathology states and develop effective interventions to address this issue.
Improve access to mental health services: Increase funding for mental health services and reduce barriers to accessing care, such as cost and stigma.
Promote workplace wellness: Encourage employers to implement policies and programs that support employee mental health and well-being, such as flexible work arrangements, stress management programs, and access to mental health resources.

Potential Benefits and Challenges

Implementing these recommendations could lead to several benefits, including:

Improved mental health outcomes: Individuals may experience reduced symptom severity, improved coping skills, and enhanced overall well-being.
Reduced healthcare costs: Early intervention and effective management of psychopathology states could lead to reduced healthcare utilization and costs.
Increased productivity: Improved mental health could lead to increased productivity in the workplace and other settings.

However, there are also challenges to consider, such as:

Cost of implementation: Implementing new assessment and intervention methods may require additional resources and training for practitioners.
Client engagement: Clients may need to be motivated and committed to participate in EMA and other interventions.
Data privacy and security: Collecting and storing sensitive data through EMA methods requires careful consideration of privacy and security issues.

Strengths

Ecological validity: The use of ambulatory assessment methods allowed for the examination of daily stressors and psychopathology states in real-world settings, increasing the ecological validity of the findings.
Comprehensive assessment: The study assessed a broad range of psychopathology states, providing a more nuanced understanding of how different forms of psychopathology manifest in daily life.
Multi-sample design: The inclusion of two independent samples enhances the generalizability of the findings.

Limitations

Self-report measures: The study relied on self-report measures, which may be subject to bias and recall errors.
Limited diversity: The samples were predominantly White, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations.
Correlational design: The study employed a correlational design, which cannot establish causality between daily stressors and psychopathology states.

References#