Feeling in control helps beat daily stress, researchers find

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — A looming deadline at work, a clogged toilet, an argument with a loved one — these daily hassles can make any day feel more stressful. When these demands pile up, it can feel overwhelming, like there’s no end in sight. Yet, the perception of control could make resolving these everyday inconveniences easier, according to a new study from a team including researchers from Penn State.

The research team found that on days when people felt they had more control over stressors than usual, they were 62% more likely to take actions, such as calling the plumber or tackling a difficult conversation, to resolve the stressors, and this relationship strengthens with age. The findings suggest that one’s sense of control over everyday stressors could be a resource — one that can be strengthened or increased — for managing daily life and impact health outcomes.

The study was published in the journal Communications Psychology.

“This research shows that even small boosts in how much control people feel they have over everyday hassles make it more likely that those hassles actually get resolved,” said David Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State and senior author on the paper. “Learning to find and act on these pockets of control in daily life may not only reduce stress but also support long-term health and well-being.”

How people respond to stress is a dynamic process, according to previous research led by Almeida, and the accumulation of stress over time, including from minor daily inconveniences, can impact health. Resolving stressors, such as settling an argument, is a key part in how stress is processed, especially in helping emotions settle.

The research team set out to examine whether perceived control over stressors — the sense that people feel individual agency over daily challenges — was associated with a greater likelihood that the stressor would be resolved. For example, does feeling control over a billing error motivate a person to call the company to fix it? Several factors can influence one’s sense of perceived control, including the type of stressor, the frequency with which they occur and socioeconomic factors.

“If perceived stressor control promotes stress resolution, can we leverage that as a modifiable resource to influence stressor resolution and therefore our emotional health and well-being?” asked lead author Dakota Witzel, who was a postdoctoral scholar at the Center for Healthy Aging at Penn State during the time of the research and is now an assistant professor at South Dakota State University.

The team analyzed data from over 1,700 adults who participated in the National Study of Daily Experiences, a component of Midlife in the United States Survey (MIDUS), the national longitudinal study on health and well-being. For eight consecutive days, participants reported on daily stressors that occurred in the past 24 hours and whether the stressor was resolved by the end of the day. The survey included common types of stress, such as interpersonal tension including arguments and avoided arguments, job or home-related stress or work overload and network stress — stressors that happen to other people, like family or friends, but are stressful to the participant.

Participants also reported how much control they felt they had over reported stressors on a scale from none, a little, some to a lot of control. The team repeated the survey with the same participants 10 years later to see if the relationship between perceived control and stressor resolution changed over time.

The researchers found that a person’s perceived sense of control over everyday hassles and challenges varies greatly from one day to the next. In other words, the level of perceived daily control isn’t a constant or static trait of the individual — the relative perception of control is what matters.

Overall, across all age groups, days when participants felt they had a greater sense of control over daily stressors than they normally do — reporting that they had some control when they usually report only a little control — increases the odds of resolving the problem. The results didn't vary by the type or severity of the stressor.

The relationship also strengthened as participants got older. At the start of the study, on days of higher perceived control, participants were 61% more likely to resolve the stressor that day. Ten years later, the same boost in perceived control in the same people had a 65% chance that a stressor would be resolved.

“This work also begins to show that as we get older, not only do we have more control but that control helps us get better at handling stress,” Witzel said.

The findings suggest that perceived control could be a lever to mitigate and manage daily stress.

“It’s encouraging news that daily control isn’t fixed. It can be strengthened through practical strategies such as setting priorities or reframing what’s within reach,” Almeida said. “We need to figure out how we can create the context and setting to allow people to feel more control.”

For example, Almeida suggested focusing on what’s within one’s influence such as breaking big challenges into manageable parts and using time blocking or lists to track progress. This can help build momentum with quick wins. Asking for help or delegating tasks can help create an environment where one feels supported and therefore more in control of their situation. Ending the day with a brief reflection can also better prepare for the next day.

The research team plans to continue to explore the nature of the relationship between perceived control and stress resolution, including how it may influence chronic stress.

“In this study, we’re talking about daily stressors, the minor inconveniences that occur throughout the day, but there’s also chronic stress where people are continually impacted by stressors again and again,” Witzel said. “Exploring the idea of whether resolution can be a mechanism that decreases the effect of chronic stress is an interesting area to explore.”

Eric Cerino, associate professor at Northern Arizona University, is co-lead author of the paper. Other authors on the paper include Robert Stawski, professor, Utah State University; Gillian Porter, assistant clinical professor, Raechel Livingston, research coordinator, and Amanda Black from Northern Arizona University; Jonathan Rush, assistant professor, University of Victoria; Jacqueline Mogle, RTI Health Solutions; Susan Charles, professor, University of California, Irvine; and Jennifer Piazza, professor, California State University, Fullerton.

Funding from the National Institute of Aging and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities supported this work.

At Penn State, researchers are solving real problems that impact the health, safety and quality of life of people across the commonwealth, the nation and around the world.

For decades, federal support for research has fueled innovation that makes our country safer, our industries more competitive and our economy stronger. Recent federal funding cuts threaten this progress.

Learn more about the implications of federal funding cuts to our future at Research or Regress.