Setting the stage for learning and student success: an integrated framework linking stress, mental health, and self-regulated learning

Abstract

Students in academic environments face a complex interplay of challenges, with stress and mental health emerging as key factors that significantly influence student thriving and success. Mounting academic pressures, coupled with increasingly common mental health concerns, shape the broader context in which learning and student success occur. This paper adopts a holistic perspective on student success conceptualized as both: (a) feeling well, through mental health and stress regulation, and (b) functioning well, through the regulation of learning, academic demands, and performance. Despite the critical influence of mental health and stress on academic engagement and outcomes, these elements are often treated in isolation from research on student success. By integrating theory and empirical findings from diverse domains including self-regulated learning, mental health, and stress optimization, this paper underscores the importance of viewing academic performance and wellbeing as interconnected dimensions of student success. Specifically, this paper extends the COPES framework within self-regulated learning theory by conceptualizing stress and mental health as dynamic conditions that shape and are shaped by learners' regulatory processes. Stress and mental health are not merely background variables but active components that shape students' cognitive, emotional, and behavioral functioning in educational settings. Drawing on a range of interdisciplinary sources, the paper argues for integrated frameworks that consider how mental health and stress are key conditions within which learning management occurs. The authors propose comprehensive approaches to student support that integrates wellbeing alongside achievement. Supporting students' capacity to manage stress and cultivate positive mental health is not ancillary to academic success but fundamental to it and essential for fostering academic environments where students can thrive.

1 Introduction

Students face a range of interrelated social, emotional, and academic challenges that can impede their success, including elevated stress and languishing mental health stemming from academic demands and mental health concerns [American College Health Association (ACHA), 2022; Barbayannis et al., 2022; Jaworska et al., 2016; Keyes, 2005]. A holistic approach to student success recognizes the interconnected nature of stress, mental health, and academic processes and outcomes (Keyes and Haidt, 2003; Kuh et al., 2005; Louis and Schreiner, 2012; Suldo et al., 2006).

Theoretical and empirical research consistently show that student success is multidimensional, encompassing both academic achievement and psychological wellbeing (Chou et al., 2011; de la Fuente et al., 2020; Denovan and Macaskill, 2017; Pascoe et al., 2020; Vogel and Schwabe, 2016). Stress and mental health are increasingly acknowledged as dynamic factors that meaningfully influence student learning and academic performance (Brooks, 2014; Howell, 2009; Jamieson et al., 2018; Jenkins et al., 2021; Kapil et al., 2024; Rostampour et al., 2020). Elevated stress can impair learning, while mental health difficulties can diminish engagement, motivation, and academic outcomes (Kapil and Hadwin, 2021; Kapil et al., 2025a; Davis and Hadwin, 2021).

Student success can thus be conceptualized as a balance between “feeling well” (e.g., stress regulation and mental health) and “functioning well” (e.g., academic engagement, learning management, and performance). Despite their central role in shaping academic experiences, stress and mental health are often treated separately from models of learning (e.g., self-regulated learning) and student success, which overlooks how these conditions influence and are influenced by learning regulation.

This theoretical paper offers a conceptual commentary positioning stress and mental health as dynamic conditions shaping student success. It first delineates current conceptualizations of student success, then examines how stress and mental health function as contextual factors, or conditions, shaping that success, and finally discusses implications for educational practice and research aimed at promoting student thriving. Supporting flourishing in academic settings therefore requires acknowledging how both stress and mental health together contribute to the conditions that set the stage for learning and student success.

2 Conceptual foundations: setting the stage for student success

To begin this discussion of stress and mental health as conditions for learning and student success, first consider this example of a student struggling at school. Although this sample student is fictional, the description of challenges and responses are informed by actual student experiences:

“Sam recently started high school and was excited about the new school, new courses, and extra-curricular options. Sam had some previous challenges with getting assignments done on time in middle school but mostly had good grades. Sam has recently been experiencing high levels of stress, noticing their heart pounding and rapid breathing when they think about assignments, reporting that they are not used to increased responsibility and expectations to complete work on their own. They have been wondering if they are able to complete the unfamiliar assignments in their classes and if they can deal with how stressed they are feeling. Struggling to manage their stress, they are starting to think they are not capable of coping with high school and that the stress they are feeling is making it hard to get their work done. They have started thinking that dealing with the new academic demands is “too much”. Sam started to avoid going to class, is not studying, has stopped asking for help from teachers, and didn't fare as well as expected on recent assignments. Sam notices their motivation has dropped and their overall mental health is negatively impacted by their current struggles with school.”

Sam is experiencing challenges managing their stress response, their mental health, and the academic demands related to their current academic context. Throughout this paper, we use Sam's experiences to illustrate the conceptual foundations of an integrated framework linking stress, mental health, and self-regulated learning, examine how stress and mental health shape learning and student success, and outline implications for promoting coping in academic settings through coordinated management of stress, mental health, and learning.

2.1 Student success

Historically, research on student success focused primarily on attrition rates and was often measured by rate of graduation (Louis and Schreiner, 2012). However, the definition of student success has shifted over time. Instead of solely concentrating on outcome markers such as grades, degree completion, and retention, student success now increasingly emphasizes the processes that support these outcomes, such as persistence, effective learning, and personal or psychological development (Kuh et al., 2005). The current holistic approach to student development includes a focus on thriving and includes building healthy relationships, maximizing individual capabilities, and effectively managing challenges (Louis and Schreiner, 2012; Tinto, 2017).

Research on thriving, which is a key element of student success, explores the psychological processes that influence beliefs and behaviors essential for success. A focus on thriving helps distinguish between students who merely survive and those who flourish (Keyes and Haidt, 2003). Thriving broadens the concept of student success beyond academic achievements like grades and graduation, to also include the regulation of learning and psychosocial factors such as stress and mental health (e.g., see Louis and Schreiner, 2012). For example, Schreiner (2010) found that students with strong relationships and a deep investment in their learning performed better academically compared to similar peers, regardless of their entry characteristics.

Both stress and mental health contribute to student success (Brooks, 2014; Davis and Hadwin, 2021; Howell, 2009; Jamieson et al., 2018; Jenkins et al., 2021; Kapil et al., 2024, 2025a,b; Rostampour et al., 2020). First, stress can influence student outcomes in both positive (Denovan and Macaskill, 2017; Rudland et al., 2020) and negative ways (Chou et al., 2011; Pascoe et al., 2020). Students face significant levels of stress, which has the potential to impact student success by adversely affecting both learning and overall wellbeing (Pascoe et al., 2020; Sood et al., 2024). However, focusing on completely eliminating stress is both impractical and counterproductive (Crum et al., 2017; Jenkins et al., 2021). When stress is managed effectively, it can be a key motivator for achieving important academic and personal goals (Brooks, 2014; Jamieson et al., 2018), supporting both academic and social-emotional growth along with overall wellbeing (Ng et al., 2009). Second, mental health contributes to student success through an increase of: (a) positive emotions which are associated with flexible cognition and problem solving (Fredrickson, 2001), (b) academic behaviors that facilitate academic performance (Kapil et al., 2025a), and (c) attaining personally relevant goals that align with an individual's perception of their best self (e.g., Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryff and Keyes, 1995). Thus, within educational contexts, both stress and mental health impact student success are conditions influencing how students regulate their learning and performance (Järvelä and Hadwin, 2024; Winne and Hadwin, 1998).

2.2 Self-regulated learning

Although learning regulation, academic performance, stress, and mental health are often studied independently, they are interrelated processes critical to student success (Barbayannis et al., 2022; Howell, 2009; Jamieson et al., 2018; Panadero, 2018; Park et al., 2017; Winne and Hadwin, 2008). Self-regulated learning (SRL) provides a comprehensive framework for examining these interconnected, context-sensitive processes by positioning stress and mental health as foundational conditions for effective learning. SRL encompasses cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, motivational, and emotional components of learning (Efklides et al., 2018; Panadero, 2018) and is defined as the metacognitive regulation of these elements through iterative cycles of reflection and adaptation, shaped by the learner's socio-historical context (Hadwin et al., 2011).

SRL theory describes recursive monitoring and control processes that unfold across four loosely sequenced phases: (a) task understanding, (b) goal setting and planning, (c) strategy implementation, and (d) evaluation and adaptation (Winne and Hadwin, 1998, 2008). Each phase is guided by the COPES framework, which includes Conditions, Operations, Products, Evaluations, and Standards (Greene and Azevedo, 2007; Winne and Hadwin, 1998, 2008). This paper focuses on Conditions, which refer to both external (e.g., academic stressors) and internal (e.g., mental health, motivation, self-efficacy, stress appraisals) factors that shape learning (Greene and Azevedo, 2007; Webster, 2019). Operations are cognitive actions used to generate Products, cognitive, affective, and motivational outcomes, including stress and mental health. Evaluations are judgments students make about their learning progress, while Standards are the benchmarks against which these evaluations are made (Winne and Hadwin, 1998).

SRL is inherently goal-directed and emotionally influenced, with different emotional pathways activated by challenge vs. threat appraisals (Barrett, 2017a,b; Boekaerts and Corno, 2005; Winne and Hadwin, 2008). Positive emotions can support adaptive regulation, while high levels of perceived stress may impair emotional and cognitive functioning, trigger negative appraisals, and disrupt learning processes (Kim and Cicchetti, 2010; Panlilio et al., 2019). With respect to stress, when demands are perceived to exceed available resources, tasks are appraised as threats, and adaptive regulation can break down (Boekaerts and Corno, 2005).

Although the focus here is on conditions, it is important to note that stress and mental health are also targets of regulation and potentially products within the COPES framework. When students perceive a mismatch between emotional experience and task goals, they may engage in regulation to restore alignment (Winne and Hadwin, 2008). For example, two students experiencing similar stress may respond differently depending on whether they appraise stress as motivating or debilitating (Webster, 2019). These appraisals initiate regulatory processes that continue through monitoring and strategy adjustment and are recursive in their influence. Internal and external conditions shape the context for engagement in each regulatory phase (Bakhtiar et al., 2018). Students cognitively process information through operations resulting in products in each phase, which may become conditions for the next phase. For example, the product of task understanding in terms of perceived resources and demands (e.g., Sam's uncertainty about being able to complete unfamiliar assignments) becomes the condition (e.g., Sam' threat stress response) that informs approach or avoidance goals in the next phase. Students next construct judgments or evaluations of the products by comparing them to perceived standards, like Sam's evaluation that they “are not capable of coping with high school” in comparison to how they see other students with respect to managing their academic demands and their school related stress.

2.3 Stress

While stress is a non-specific physiological response (Selye, 1936), it is commonly categorized as either (a) distress (negative responses) or (b) eustress (positive responses) (Branson et al., 2019). Stress is not inherently harmful; when effectively regulated, it can enhance performance, support personal growth, and contribute to psychological wellbeing (Ng et al., 2009; Brooks, 2014; Park and Helgeson, 2006). Distinct from stress itself, a stressor is anything that places a demand on the body (including mental demands), whether pleasant or unpleasant (Selye, 1936, 1976) encompassing almost all aspects of a person's life (Crum et al., 2013).

Emotions such as stress are constructed predictions based on prior experience and incoming contextual information, including sensory input, interoception, and allostasis (Barrett, 2017a,b, 2022). In goal-oriented academic environments, stress is inevitable (Park et al., 2017), making students' capacity for adaptive regulation essential for both learning and mental health (Barbayannis et al., 2022). Ultimately, students' perceptions of their ability to manage stress and associated demands shape whether stress functions as a supportive or disruptive condition (Bienertova-Vasku et al., 2020). Two important contributions to stress as a condition for student success are: (a) the type of stress response and (b) stress appraisals.

2.3.1 Types of stress response

Stress varies across individuals, situations, and time. Cognitive appraisals of demands and resources determine whether a stress response is experienced as a challenge or a threat (Jamieson et al., 2018; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Mendes and Park, 2014). A challenge response arises when perceived resources exceed situational demands; a threat response occurs when demands are appraised as exceeding resources.¹

Challenge and threat responses can be considered as occupying opposite ends of a continuum, thus promoting challenge responses will reduce threat. Demand appraisals may include perceptions of uncertainty, danger, or effort, while resource appraisals involve familiarity, knowledge, skills, dispositional traits, and social support. In academic settings, resources include adaptive learning strategies, task understanding, and effective goal setting. As the perceived resource-to-demand ratio increases, individuals shift from threat to challenge appraisals (Jamieson et al., 2018).

In performance contexts like educational settings, instances of pure challenge or pure threat are rare, challenge and threat may also be activated independently or coactivated, approach and avoidance goals can also be coactivated (Uphill et al., 2019). This is consistent with perspectives that consider (a) the human mind as attuned to both rewarding and punishing aspects of the environment (Cacioppo and Berntson, 1994) and (b)emotional experiences as mixed, such as a student who is both excited and nervous about a presentation (see Larsen et al., 2001). Crum et al. (2017) also suggest that it may be difficult to reduce the perceived demands of a situation and enhance resources, and there may be performance gains from experiencing and managing threat. Uphill et al. (2019) suggest that three antecedents (self-efficacy, perceived control, and type of motivational goal) contribute to an individual's perception of having sufficient resources to cope with a stressful situation. Higher levels of perceived control and self-efficacy combined with approach goals are believed to elicit a challenge state whereby lower levels perceived control and self-efficacy combined with avoidance goals lead to a threat state.

Challenge and threat responses are relevant for student success as they are effectively distinct conditions for students, impacting motivation, cognition, performance, and behavior differently. Threat responses are linked to avoidance motivation and impaired performance, while challenge responses support approach motivation and enhance performance (Freire et al., 2016). Thus, the type of stress response constitutes a meaningful condition for student success, shaped by students' perceptions of their available resources and demands.

2.3.2 Stress appraisals

Students' understanding and beliefs about stress significantly influence whether it is experienced as adaptive or detrimental (Jenkins et al., 2021). Stress encountered in the pursuit of meaningful goals can promote growth and competence, particularly in academic settings where learners apply adaptive coping strategies and monitor their learning processes (Brooks, 2014; Ng et al., 2009; Park et al., 2017). This is especially true in academic settings when learners can employ adaptive coping strategies and monitor the effectiveness of learning practices (Hadwin et al., 2022; Jenkins et al., 2021). For example, academic demands such as exams or presentations are inherently stressful but also integral to learning and achievement. In inherently and acutely stressful situations and motivated performance contexts such as academic settings, stress has the capacity to be: (a) functional, or (b) debilitating, and (c) an important component of academic pressures and challenges (Brooks, 2014).

When negatively appraised or poorly managed, stress can impair cognitive functioning, reduce motivation, and promote rigid, ineffective learning strategies (Pekrun et al., 2017). Conversely, adaptive appraisals and responses to stress can enhance learning. Students' perceptions of stress directly influence whether it facilitates or hinders academic engagement (Jenkins et al., 2021; Hadwin et al., 2022). Excessive or poorly managed stress impairs cognitive flexibility, learning strategies, and memory retrieval (Arnsten, 2009; Maran et al., 2017).

According to control-value theory, an appraisal perspective of emotion, appraisals of control and value impact emotion whereby stress and other emotions shape students' cognitive resources, learning motivation, strategy use, and academic achievement (Pekrun and Linnenbink-Garcia, 2012). Emotions are typically classified by valence (positive or negative) and activation (activating or deactivating), though neuroimaging evidence suggests a more refined taxonomy may be warranted (Venkatraman et al., 2017). Stress, a negative activating emotion, tends to deplete cognitive resources by encouraging task-irrelevant thoughts, thereby reducing intrinsic motivation (Pekrun et al., 2017). Yet, it may heighten extrinsic motivation through increased effort, often coupled with rigid, surface-level strategies like rote memorization. Overall, negative activating emotions generally impair achievement (Pekrun et al., 2017). Excessive stress further disrupts memory processes and cognitive flexibility, hindering problem solving and knowledge transfer (Vogel and Schwabe, 2016). Elevated stress levels are also linked to poorer wellbeing (Ribeiro et al., 2018) and lower academic performance (Reschly et al., 2008), underscoring the importance of effective stress management.

Therefore, perceptions or appraisals regarding stress have the potential to shape learning and student success. Prior findings indicate that appraisals regarding stress determine whether stress: (a) is experienced as a resource or detriment (Crum et al., 2017; Jamieson et al., 2022), (b) facilitates approach over avoidance motivation and behavior (Jamieson and Hangen, 2021; Freire et al., 2016), or (c) facilitates higher levels of mental health (Crum et al., 2013, 2017; Yeager et al., 2022). Two stress appraisals that contribute to the impact of stress in educational contexts are: (a) stress mindset and (b) coping self-efficacy.

2.3.3 Stress mindset

Stress mindsets address how a person perceives the experience of stress, such as whether stress is believed to have enhancing or debilitating consequences, and is thought to a kind of cognitive heuristic (Crum et al., 2013). The stress-is-enhancing mindset refers to a broad belief that stress has enhancing effects of performance, health, & wellbeing. The stress-is-debilitating mindset refers to the belief that stress has debilitating effects on performance, health, and wellbeing. Stress mindset can influence physiological, attentional, motivational, and affective processes. That is, stress-is-enhancing mindset is associated with more optimal neuroendocrine responses, positive affect, reduced bias for negative faces, improved cognitive flexibility, increased desire for social feedback, and greater self-control (e.g., Crum et al., 2013, 2017; Park et al., 2017; Yeager et al., 2022). Viewing stress as enhancing is associated with greater use of approach coping, in particular when intervention target mindsets for chronic controllable sources of stress, such as daily quizzes in a semester long class (Jenkins et al., 2021). In contrast, Sam from the example is exhibiting a stress-is-debilitating mindset as evidenced by their perception that stress is bad for them. Further, improvements in performance, wellbeing and health from adopting a stress-is-enhancing mindset appear to last for weeks and even months (Crum et al., 2017).²

2.3.4 Coping self-efficacy

With stress neither inherently good nor bad; attention shifts to the importance of how coping and regulation of stress contributes to student success outcomes. Coping self-efficacy, the belief in one's ability to cope with stress, plays a pivotal role in this regulation (Chesney et al., 2006). Coping self-efficacy, a stress appraisal, is comprised of three broad factors, including confidence in the ability to: (a) use problem focused coping, (b) get support from friends and family, and (c) stop unpleasant emotions or thoughts (e.g., emotion focused coping) (Chesney et al., 2006).³

While emotion regulation involves active strategies to manage emotions, coping self-efficacy focuses on the belief that one can implement these strategies effectively (Chesney et al., 2006). As an appraisal related to stress in educational contexts, coping self-efficacy captures an individuals' belief in their ability to cope with emotions (e.g., stress), stressful events (e.g., tests and other academic challenges), and the social aspects that comprise the school context (e.g., sense of belonging, help seeking). Coping self-efficacy can influence whether students view stress as a challenge or threat and subsequently informs their coping strategies. Coping self-efficacy recognizes that problem-focused, support, and emotion-focused coping are necessary for managing academic stress, and that balancing these areas of coping can foster effective coping and positive academic outcomes (e.g., see Freire et al., 2019; Kapil et al., 2024). Sam from the example demonstrates low coping self-efficacy, showing limited confidence in managing stress, meeting academic demands, and seeking support. The practical implications section will provide suggestions for helping Sam strengthen their coping self-efficacy.

2.4 Mental health

Mental health and wellbeing is also an important aspect of student success. A broad and multifaceted construct that refers to optimal functioning and experience (Diener et al., 2017; Ryan and Deci, 2001), mental health is associated with superior functioning related to; (a) psychosocial functioning, (b) work and academic performance (Järvelä and Hadwin, 2024), and (c) physical health (Howell, 2009; Keyes, 2007; Moulin et al., 2017). Mental health captures the degree to which students are flourishing emotionally, psychologically, and socially and aligns with current perspectives regarding student success (e.g., see Louis and Schreiner, 2012; Tinto, 2017).

In this paper, mental health and wellbeing is informed by a dual-continua model with mental illness and mental health differentiated as distinct and correlated axes (Keyes, 2005, 2013). The presence of mental health is described as flourishing and the absence of mental health as languishing and is understood as more than the absence of mental illness (Keyes, 2002, 2005). The mental illness dimension identifies the presence or absence of psychopathology (e.g., DSM V; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) while the mental health dimension considers to what extent wellbeing is present or absent (Howell, 2009; Keyes, 2005). Flourishing mental health represents elevated emotional, psychological and social wellbeing and languishing mental health represents reduction in these same three areas (Howell, 2009; Keyes, 2005).

Mental health and wellbeing, terms which will be used interchangeably here, consist of two distinct but related dimensions: hedonic and eudaimonic. As shown in Figure 1, Keyes (2002, 2005) outlines three subcategories or factors related to mental health: (a) emotional wellbeing (hedonic), (b) psychological wellbeing (eudaimonic), and (c) social wellbeing (eudaimonic). Emotional wellbeing refers to the presence of positive affect (e.g., happiness, interest) and a high quality of life (e.g., life satisfaction), representing the hedonic aspects of wellbeing. Psychological wellbeing focuses on positive self-evaluation, including satisfaction with accomplishments, seeing oneself as growing, and feeling good about oneself. Social wellbeing involves public and social criteria for evaluating life. Together, psychological and social wellbeing represent the eudaimonic dimension. Mental health is widely viewed as a state that helps individuals cope with stressors, work productively, and function as contributing members of society (World Health Organization (WHO), 2016).⁴

Figure 1

Keyes (2009).

2.4.1 Hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of mental health and their implications for student success

Hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of mental health differentially impact students and their academic success. The what, when, how, and why of these dimensions are summarized in Table 1 and elaborated below.

First, regarding what constitutes the hedonic dimension, hedonic mental health is based on a subjective assessment of wellbeing, equating it with pleasure, happiness, and life satisfaction (Ryan and Deci, 2001; Trompetter et al., 2017). It includes the presence of positive affect (e.g., happiness, interest, satisfaction) and overall satisfaction with life. Second, in terms of when hedonic wellbeing is most influential, it tends to relate to immediate, short-term outcomes (Huta and Ryan, 2010); (Ryan et al., 2013). Hedonic states are often shaped by proximal events and have transient effects on psychological functioning, which tend to dissipate quickly (Steger et al., 2008; Suh et al., 1996). Third, regarding how hedonic wellbeing exerts influence, positive emotional states contribute to adaptive functioning (Trompetter et al., 2017). Hedonic wellbeing broadens attention and cognition, fosters cognitive flexibility and approach-oriented behavior (Fredrickson, 2001; Reschly et al., 2008), enhances behavioral engagement (Linnenbrink, 2007), and fluctuates in alignment with levels of academic engagement (Rostampour et al., 2020). Fourth, the why or underlying mechanism of hedonic influence is explained by broaden-and-build theory. This theory which posits that positive emotions are associated with greater cognitive flexibility and enhanced attentional processes (Fredrickson, 2001).

In contrast, regarding what defines the eudaimonic dimension, this approach emphasizes living in alignment with one's daimon, or true self. Eudaimonic goals are shaped both by the individual and their surrounding context (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Diener et al., 2017). The eudaimonic tradition focuses on optimal psychological functioning and includes both psychological and social wellbeing, capturing the extent to which individuals perceive themselves as living up to their internal standards and potential (Deci and Ryan, 2008; Keyes, 2002; Ryan et al., 2008). Second, with respect to when eudaimonic wellbeing impacts outcomes, its effects are more enduring and manifest over longer periods (Huta and Ryan, 2010; Ryan et al., 2013, 2008; Steger et al., 2008). Although not always associated with short-term positive affect, eudaimonic wellbeing contributes to more sustained wellbeing and is positively linked to affect over time (Huta and Ryan, 2010). Third, regarding how eudaimonic wellbeing functions, it enhances psychological functioning through engagement in meaningful, value-congruent goals and relationships. This form of wellbeing is linked to greater experiences of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Ryan and Deci, 2001). It also encompasses both individual growth, such as self-actualization (Ryff, 1989), and societal contribution through shared goals and values, which vary across cultural contexts (Christopher, 1999; Diener and Suh, 2000). Fourth, the why of eudaimonic wellbeing is grounded in self-determination theory, which suggests that pursuing eudaimonic goals and activities enhances an individual's sense of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, thereby promoting overall wellbeing (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Evidence suggests that long-term self-improvement and building deep social connections are among the most effective strategies for increasing wellbeing (Sheldon and Lyubomirsky, 2021).

In sum, both hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions are essential to psychological functioning and student wellbeing. While hedonic wellbeing contributes to short-term emotional engagement, eudaimonic wellbeing supports sustained growth and purpose. Contemporary perspectives increasingly advocate for integrative models of mental health that encompass both subjective (hedonic) and psychological/social (eudaimonic) dimensions (Diener et al., 2018; Keyes, 2002; Keyes and Annas, 2009).

3 Stress and mental health as conditions for student success

Conditions are contextual states influencing regulation of learning within SRL. Within the iterative and recursive SRL framework, conditions and products interact. Stress and mental health are products of past experiences and conditions shaping current SRL. As a condition, flourishing mental health enhances students' coping capacity, motivation, and persistence and is associated with improved academic performance through promotion of key academic behaviors such as class attendance and assignment completion (Kapil et al., 2025a). Similarly, well-managed stress contributes to academic achievement and is often necessary for reaching educational goals. In contrast, elevated levels of stress indicate perceived demands are exceeding resources, excess cognitive load, impaired strategy use, learning, and cognition (de la Fuente et al., 2020; Pascoe et al., 2020; Vogel and Schwabe, 2016). As conditions, stress and mental health potentially affect all phases of the self-regulated learning (SRL) cycle by shaping academic performance, motivation, and overall wellbeing (e.g., see Table 2).

Conditions are dynamic and reciprocal. For example, an individual's prior stress history, encompassing stress mindset and coping self-efficacy, shapes whether stress responses are rigid or malleable (Jamieson et al., 2022; Jenkins et al., 2021). From previous challenges in middle school, Sam in the example may have a prediction of not being able to manage school related challenges. Modifying an emotion category like stress requires a prediction error; thus, consider the impact for Sam in learning effective self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies can create such errors by shifting appraisals from threat (“I don't have enough resources to deal with this task”) to challenge (“I can do this”), fostering proximal mastery experiences that enhance coping self-efficacy and improve distal challenge stress responses over time (Barrett, 2022; Ecker and Vaz, 2022). Memory reconsolidation processes enable updating maladaptive stress memories by incorporating new coping information and expectations of success, which supports revision of stress appraisals (Kapil et al., 2025b; Ecker, 2015; Ecker et al., 2012; Ecker and Vaz, 2022). Given that stress mindset and coping efficacy are experience-dependent and influenced by stressor controllability, stress regulation and SRL interact dynamically (Jamieson et al., 2022; Jenkins et al., 2021). Conceptualizing stress as an emotion shaped by appraisal processes (Gross and Feldman Barrett, 2011; Pekrun et al., 2023) and predictive processing (Barrett, 2017a,b, 2022) clarifies its central role in academic motivation, cognition, and mental health, highlighting the importance of integrated approaches to support adaptive stress regulation and student success (Barbayannis et al., 2022; Park et al., 2017).

Stress and mental health are interrelated; stress can play a constructive role in fostering wellbeing (e.g., see Ng et al., 2009). The eudaimonic aspect of mental health, or “functioning well,” is rooted in goal pursuit as individuals stive to move toward their perceived “best self,” which inherently involves stress as individuals mobilize resources to meet associated goal related demands. In educational contexts, effective regulation of learning can support eudaimonic wellbeing through enhanced environmental mastery and goal attainment, thereby improving both mental health and stress management by increasing resources and reducing perceived demands. Mental health may also reinforce positive academic behaviors, creating a reciprocal relationship (see Kapil et al., 2025a). In this way, stress and mental health provide the foundational conditions for fostering student success. Table 2 provided an overview of the potential influence of stress and mental health across different phases of SRL, illustrating their role as influential and iterative conditions for student success. While this paper focuses on stress and mental health as conditions within SRL, the recursive nature of SRL informs the expectation that stress and mental health will permeate each component the COPES framework (see Figure 2). Prior experiences of stress and mental health function as internal conditions that shape how learners interpret current tasks and contexts, including their appraisals of demands and resources (stress) and capacity to persists and cope (mental health). Stress mindset and hedonic aspects of mental health can have more proximal, effects on approach behavior and motivation. In contrast, coping self-efficacy and eudaimonic aspects of mental health are expected to change more gradually as products of self-regulated learning episodes, being refined over time through mastery experiences and feedback, influencing which operations (strategies and tactics) are selected and sustained during studying. Across phases, learners continually generate evaluations of their stress, mental health, and learning progress relative to standards that are informed by prior experience, social norms, and contextual expectations, and these evaluations recursively update conditions for subsequent learning episodes.

Figure 2

4 An integrated theoretical approach to student success

Stress optimization primarily focuses on stress and provides a comprehensive account of cognitive, psychological, biological, and behavioral processes, advocating for integrating stress theory to optimize stress rather than avoid it (Jamieson et al., 2018). Central to this perspective is the recognition that stress is often unavoidable and that the dominant narrative framing stress as uniformly harmful is overly simplistic. Instead, stress optimization emphasizes facilitating thriving, resilience, and adaptive coping in contexts characterized by pressure and uncertainty, such as academic settings (Jamieson et al., 2018). Drawing on stress appraisal, stress mindset, and psychological constructionist perspectives of emotion, this body of work suggests that stressful experiences can (a) promote physiological and psychological thriving, (b) enhance performance and wellbeing when stressors are appraised as opportunities for growth, and (c) function adaptively in acute, motivated performance contexts (e.g., Crum et al., 2013, 2017; Jamieson et al., 2018). However, within student success research, stress optimization offers limited consideration of learning management, the learner, or learning contexts.

Mental health literature primarily focuses on wellbeing and provides a comprehensive framework that distinguishes between hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of mental health (e.g., Diener et al., 2018; Keyes, 2002; Keyes and Annas, 2009). While this work contributes essential insight into student wellbeing, it similarly gives limited attention to learning management processes, the learner, or academic learning contexts in student success research.

In contrast, self-regulated learning (SRL) focuses explicitly on learning management, learner processes, and learning contexts. SRL provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral processes that support learning and academic success. However, SRL research has given comparatively limited attention to the relationships among stress, stress regulation, mental health, and self-regulated learning. Accordingly, understanding stress and mental health as conditions that shape learning and student success requires an integrated approach informed by SRL, stress optimization, and mental health theory and research.

An integrated approach supports both feeling well and functioning well, offering a more holistic account of student success than any single framework alone. Specifically, it more effectively addresses (a) stress and mental health in academic settings, (b) the interrelations among stress, mental health, and learning, and (c) student success outcomes. SRL, mental health, and stress optimization are theoretically synergistic, sharing an emphasis on (a) metacognition, (b) recursive and multifaceted processes, (c) goal-directed activity, (d) resource enhancement, (e) interacting beliefs and responses, and (f) the potential benefits of challenge and stress in academic contexts (see Hadwin et al., 2011; Jamieson et al., 2018).

In this paper, student success, thriving, and optimizing potential are informed by SRL, stress optimization, and a dual continua model of mental health (Keyes, 2013). Stress optimization contributes insight into perceptions of coping with academic demands and stress (Crum et al., 2013; Jamieson et al., 2018), mental health theory explains how hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing influence learners' functioning (e.g., Keyes, 2013; Ryan and Deci, 2017), and SRL accounts for the adaptive learner processes integral to academic success (e.g., Winne and Hadwin, 2008). A summary of these contributions is provided in Table 3.

Taken together, stress optimization, mental health, and SRL address complementary components of student success and collectively offer a more robust foundation for research, theory, and practice than any single approach alone. The proposed integrated framework accounts for both student experiences and academic outcomes. The following sections examine each approach in relation to student success, identify gaps within each framework, and articulate how integration addresses these limitations. Figure 3 provides a visual representation of (a) SRL, mental health, and stress optimization, (b) gaps within each approach for student success research, and (c) key academic context features addressed by the integrated approach. An integrated approach proposes that: (a) stress optimization informs how appraisals, prior experiences, and coping with demands and resources interact with SRL processes and mental health; (b) mental health informs how hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing support motivation and persistence in engaging with SRL; and (c) SRL explains how stress regulation and learning processes interact, such that SRL enhances resources, reduces demands, and supports coping with academic tasks, while coping self-efficacy and stress mindset promote engagement in SRL and reduce SRL challenges.

Figure 3

The following are testable propositions informed by the proposed integrated framework:

Proposition 1: stress appraisals predict engagement with SRL practices and strategy quality

Proposition 2: mental health moderates SRL—performance link

Proposition 3: SRL mediates stress-performance relationship

Proposition 4: contextual overload (e.g., demands) weakens positive effects.

4.1 Caveats and constraints

Four caveats and constraints should be kept in mind regarding this integrated model. First, this paper examines stress in acute, motivated performance contexts (e.g., academic settings) and differentiates these experiences from chronic stress and trauma. Chronic stressors and traumatic experiences (e.g., war, poverty, abuse, neglect, racism, systemic oppression), particularly during sensitive developmental periods, constitute qualitatively distinct conditions with well-documented mental and physical health consequences. These experiences are generally maladaptive; accumulating evidence indicates that chronic stress and adversity can produce physiological dysregulation that disrupts regulatory systems and impairs coping capacity (Barrett, 2017a,b). For further detail, readers are referred to the adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) literature [e.g., Center for Disease Control (CDC), 2020; Houtepen et al., 2020].

Second, stress in motivated performance contexts is multifaceted and can both enhance and hinder outcomes. In these settings, stress mindsets and appraisals shape expectations and motivation, influencing whether individuals experience the potential benefits of stress, particularly in high-stakes situations (e.g., examinations). Even students facing adversity may partially buffer its effects when they understand and can harness the enhancing potential of stress (Park et al., 2017). Framing stress and mental health as integral to performance may support students' sense of agency, control, and competence when navigating challenges (Park et al., 2017).

Third, boundary conditions for stress appraisals must also be considered, that is, factors that limit or moderate the effects of viewing stress as enhancing vs. debilitating or of developing confidence in coping with stress. One key boundary condition is the duration and controllability of stress: stress mindset effects differ depending on whether stressors are acute or chronic and controllable or uncontrollable. Stress-is-enhancing mindsets are more likely to be adaptive in acute, controllable contexts and may be less effective, or even contraindicated, in chronic, uncontrollable conditions (e.g., ongoing trauma, severe hardship, severe psychopathology) (Jenkins et al., 2021). Stress mindset and coping self-efficacy are also experience-dependent; effects are shaped by contextual factors such as social support, environmental conditions, and situational demands, and may require sufficiently supportive contexts for positive outcomes in coping and performance to emerge (Crum et al., 2017).

Finally, stress-is-enhancing mindsets can promote adaptive motivation, wellbeing, and performance in acute, performance-based contexts; however, caution is warranted in situations involving chronic stress, ongoing trauma, excessive or inescapable demands, or severe psychopathology. In such contexts, emphasizing stress mindset may minimize lived experiences of distress, obscure harmful structural conditions (e.g., racism, abuse, oppression), and inadvertently discourage help-seeking or needed systemic change. Related critiques in the intelligence mindset literature note (a) small or variable effect sizes (Macnamara and Burgoyne, 2023; Sisk et al., 2018), (b) questions of construct validity (Macnamara and Burgoyne, 2023), and (c) overstated claims for performance and wellbeing (Burnette et al., 2023; Macnamara and Burgoyne, 2023; Yan and Schuetze, 2023). Although stress mindset has been shown to predict wellbeing, performance, and health (Crum et al., 2013, 2017; Keech et al., 2018; Jenkins et al., 2021), other studies report null associations with student success outcomes (Hadwin et al., 2022). Thus, stress mindset is a potentially important component of stress as a condition for learning, but its constraints and limitations warrant careful consideration as the evidence base grows.

5 Implications for practice

Recognizing the importance of stress and mental health as conditions for learning and student success, promoting coping through managing stress and mental health is expected to positively impact student success outcomes. Consider these four main areas for promoting stress and mental health as supportive conditions for student success: (a) mental health, (b) student stress appraisals, (c) student academic regulatory responses, and (d) social regulatory practices.

5.1 Mental health: promoting flourishing

As illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 1, flourishing mental health is supported by both the hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of wellbeing. The hedonic dimension refers to subjective wellbeing, emphasizing pleasure, happiness, and positive affect and can be considered feeling well (Ryan and Deci, 2001; Trompetter et al., 2017). Hedonic experiences, while important, tend to be short-lived and are best assessed in relation to specific, proximal events (e.g., a learning task) (Steger et al., 2008). Positive emotional states broaden cognition and attention (Fredrickson, 2001), promote approach motivation, enhance behavioral engagement (Linnenbrink, 2007), and are positively associated with academic engagement (Rostampour et al., 2020). Even small interventions, such as humor, curiosity-driven questions, or engaging videos, can elicit short-term increases in positive affect, which subsequently support academic behaviors like class attendance and assignment completion (Kapil et al., 2025a). However, these effects tend to dissipate quickly unless reinforced or complemented by more enduring eudaimonic pursuits.

In contrast, the eudaimonic dimension concerns functioning well, emphasizing purpose, personal growth, virtue, and alignment with one's values (Ryan and Martela, 2016; Ryff and Keyes, 1995). Eudaimonic wellbeing includes psychological and social wellbeing and is assessed based on objective indicators of a meaningful and fulfilling life (Keyes, 2002). These experiences are typically more enduring and unfold over longer periods (Steger et al., 2008). Supporting eudaimonic wellbeing involves helping students cultivate purpose, align with personal values, foster meaningful relationships, and develop competence and autonomy, which align with tenets of Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci, 2017).

This aligns closely with Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) theory, which emphasizes agency, strategic goal pursuit, metacognitive awareness, and personal development (Panadero, 2018; Winne and Hadwin, 2008). When academic goals are integrated with broader eudaimonic aspirations, such as becoming a doctor to fulfill a sense of purpose, academic goals and mental health are synergistic. Hedonic pursuits alone are unlikely to sustain wellbeing (Sheldon et al., 2019). Instead, engagement in eudaimonic goals enhances basic psychological needs such as competence, autonomy, and relatedness, thereby contributing to lasting wellbeing (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Table 4 provides a summary of hedonic and eudaimonic practices to promote flourishing mental health relative to different time points in an academic term. These are examples of instructional practices informed by the integrated theoretical framework, however they still need to be empirically examined regarding effectiveness.

5.2 Student stress appraisals: student perceptions of stress and coping

As noted previously, goal pursuit for both mental health and student success will include stress, as stress is involved anytime resources are needed to meet a demand or goal (Chesney et al., 2006; Lazarus and Folkman, 1986). Thus, promoting stress regulation also aligns well with flourishing mental health and regulation of learning.

5.3 Type of stress response

Challenge and threat responses have distinct effects on students: threat is linked to avoidance motivation, while challenge promotes approach-oriented behavior (Jamieson et al., 2018). Interventions that modify cognitive appraisals of resources and demands can support more adaptive stress responses (Jamieson et al., 2018). In other words, a student's interpretation of a stressful situation as a challenge or a threat depends on perceived resource availability. Enhancing available resources may increase the likelihood of experiencing the stressor as a challenge rather than a threat. For example, exam preparation involves both resource and demand appraisals. We propose that a student with strong SRL resources including a strong grasp of the material, clear mastery-oriented goals, effective study strategies, and metacognitive skills is better equipped to manage both the academic task and associated stress. This preparedness reduces uncertainty and perceived demands during the exam (e.g., see Table 2).

Stress in educational settings is influenced by a variety of internal and external factors, both positive and negative, that impact students' experiences and responses. Stress is triggered when these factors disrupt homeostasis and elicit sympathetic activation (Barrett, 2017a,b). For example, a student's experience of stress regarding a test depends on: (a) their previous experiences with tests and expectations for this one, (b) their physiological reactions and how they interpret them, (c) whether they view the test as an opportunity or a threat, and (d) their perception of available resources and demands. These factors collectively determine whether stress is perceived as challenge or threat, debilitating or facilitating (Jamieson et al., 2018; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Mendes and Park, 2014).

Consider Sam from the example introduced at the beginning of this article: (a) they have struggled with academic demands in the past, (b) they notice physiological stress activation and labels it as “feeling stressed,” and (c) they perceive their academic demands as overwhelming and distressing. To flourish at school, Sam will benefit from reducing demands and increasing resources through effectively regulating learning, stress, and mental health. How a student perceives stress itself, termed stress mindset, and coping with both stress and the academic environment, termed coping self-efficacy, are two additional stress appraisals that are important for promoting stress as an adaptive condition for learning and student success.

5.4. Stress mindset

Prior research indicated that a stress is enhancing mindset, viewing stress as important for growth and a natural part of optimized performance contexts like educational contexts, is associated with enhanced wellbeing, learning, and performance (Crum et al., 2013, 2017; Jamieson et al., 2022; Yeager et al., 2022). Stress mindset interventions are fortunately brief, with a short video or discussion regarding stress mindset having a positive impact for weeks or months following, although authors also note that it is not a ‘panacea' (Crum et al., 2017). Although the impact of stress mindset can be small or inconsistent (e.g., see Kapil et al., 2024), the intervention is so brief and simple that is worth sharing with students given the potential for positive impact.

5.5 Coping self-efficacy

According to stress and coping theory, stress occurs when an individual appraises a situation as significant and exceeding their coping resources (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Coping strategies include problem-focused approaches (e.g., modifying the stressor or environment), emotion-focused strategies (e.g., regulating emotional responses), and support-seeking behaviors (e.g., seeking help or peer connection) (Chesney et al., 2006; Lazarus and Folkman, 1986). Effective coping involves flexibly balancing these strategies, using problem-focused coping when the situation is controllable, and emotion-focused coping when it is not (Folkman, 2008). For instance, a student experiencing stress about an upcoming presentation can prepare in advance (problem-focused coping) to reduce demands. However, if the presentation is imminent, shifting to emotion-focused strategies, such as calming techniques and cognitive reappraisal, becomes more appropriate.

Within stress and coping theory, stress is conceptualized as a person–environment interaction, emerging when an individual appraises a situation as personally significant and exceeding their coping resources (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). This initial judgment, known as primary appraisal, concerns the significance and potential threat of the situation (Chesney et al., 2006). Secondary appraisal involves evaluating coping options. Specifically, how controllable the situation is and whether one believes they can effectively implement a coping strategy (Chesney et al., 2006). Self-efficacy plays a central role in this appraisal process and shapes coping responses (Chesney et al., 2006; Park and Folkman, 1997). Adaptive coping occurs when the chosen strategy aligns with the perceived controllability of the stressor. Coping is thus central to the stress process, and appraisal is critical for understanding both stress and coping outcomes (Folkman and Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus, 1991).

Support also plays a key role in stress regulation, with implications for social support, engagement, belonging, and help-seeking (O'Keeffe, 2013; Porges, 2021; Taylor, 2011; Won et al., 2021). Students' engagement with the social and support systems in academic settings is associated with healthier stress responses, enhanced mental health, stronger school belonging, more frequent help-seeking, and greater social integration. These support-related regulatory practices contribute to: (a) improved mental health and wellbeing (Elmer et al., 2020), (b) academic practices and performance (Hadwin et al., 2011; Lobczowski, 2020; Won et al., 2018, 2021), and (c) protection against the adverse effects of stress (Southwick et al., 2016). For example, Table 5 depicts a tiered action framework illustrating implications of this integrated framework across phases of self-regulated learning, with reference to universal practices, targeted supports, and institutional policies to highlight. There is increasing consensus that understanding students' social and support regulation is essential to promoting academic success (Elmer et al., 2020; Hadwin et al., 2011, 2022; Lobczowski, 2020; McLean et al., 2023; Tinto, 2017; Won et al., 2021).

Revisiting the earlier example of Sam, their experience illustrates low coping self-efficacy in response to academic demands and stress. Sam exhibited: (a) low problem-focused coping, feeling incapable of addressing academic stressors; (b) low emotion-focused coping, struggling to manage stress-related emotions; and (c) low support-seeking, feeling unable to reach out to instructors. This low coping self-efficacy was associated with ineffective learning behaviors, such as avoiding class and not studying, which corresponded with motivation difficulties, a poor midterm grade, and languishing mental health.

In contrast, providing Sam with information and support to manage the emotion of stress, academic demands, and seek support is expected to lead to flourishing mental health and reduced motivation challenges, and likely a better result on their next midterm. If Sam had higher coping self-efficacy, likely informed by past success, they would feel more capable of emotion regulation, engaging in adaptive SRL practices, and seeking support when needed. This would contribute to better regulation of academic demands, improved performance, and enhanced mental health.

Thus, students' ability to regulate their academic environment, particularly through adaptive stress appraisals and coping strategies, shapes their stress experiences. Adaptive appraisals of stress are expected to facilitate approach motivation and behavior, which in turn enhance self-regulatory actions (e.g., see Freire et al., 2016; Jamieson et al., 2022; Karademas and Kalantzi-Azizi, 2004).

Ultimately, the practical implications of stress and mental health for SRL can be considered across the phases of SRL as well as in terms of targeted supports for individual students, universal course practice, and institutional policies. Refer to Table 4 for suggestions.

6 Implications for research

This discussion on mental health and stress as conditions for self regulated learning and student success has implications for both research and practice in educational settings. Additional research is needed to delineate how mental health, stress regulation, and academic performance intersect over time, particularly through longitudinal and intervention-based studies. Future research can continue to explore the reciprocal relationship between “feeling well” (e.g., mental health, stress regulation) and “functioning well” (e.g., academic engagement and performance) in educational settings. From a practice perspective, educational settings can continue to consider embedding mental health and stress regulation supports directly into the academic environment through curriculum design, student services, and instructional practices. This can include implementing proactive and holistic supports, such as resilience-building programs, embedded wellness education, and training for educators to recognize and respond to student distress.

Regarding future research, employing course-embedded, section-randomized designs combining stress regulation interventions with self-regulated learning coaching to examine causal pathways linking stress mindset and coping self-efficacy shifts to improved learning, performance, and mental health outcomes. Intensive longitudinal methods such as experience sampling linked with digital SRL behavior traces and physiological data could capture dynamic hedonic affect and regulation patterns that underpin adaptive stress responses. Additionally, mixed-methods longitudinal studies integrating quantitative and qualitative data would elucidate how stress appraisal and SRL support long-term eudaimonic wellbeing and academic success. These approaches can clarify the mechanisms by which mindset and regulatory processes interact to promote resilience and sustained student achievement. Through aligning research and practice, institutions can create environments that not only address student challenges but also promote psychological and academic flourishing.

7 Conclusion

Student success is influenced by an interplay of mental health, stress regulation, and learning management. As this paper highlights, flourishing in academic environments benefits from addressing the role that mental health and stress play as influential conditions in shaping students' ability to perform and thrive. Despite growing recognition of these factors, they remain underrepresented in many student success frameworks. By integrating mental health and stress regulation into both research and educational practice, institutions can more effectively support students as whole individuals. A holistic approach, one that values both feeling well and functioning well, offers a more inclusive and sustainable path toward student flourishing.

References

• 1

  American College Health Association (ACHA) (2022). ACHA-National College Health Assessment: Canadian Reference Group Executive Summary Spring 2022. Hanover, MD: ACHA. Available online at: https://www.acha.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/NCHA-III_SPRING_2022_UNDERGRAD_REFERENCE_GROUP_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY.pdf

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edn. American Psychiatric Association. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  ArnstenA. F. T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.10, 410–422. doi: 10.1038/nrn2648

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  BakhtiarA.WebsterE. A.HadwinA. F. (2018). Regulation and socio-emotional interactions in a positive and a negative group climate. Metacogn. Learn.13, 57–90. doi: 10.1007/s11409-017-9178-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BarbayannisG.BandariM.ZhengX.BaquerizoH.PecorK. W.MingX. (2022). Academic stress and mental well-being in college students: correlations, affected groups, and COVID-19. Front. Psychol.13:886344. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.886344

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  BarrettL. F. (2017a). How Emotions Are Made. New York, NY: Harcourt Publishing.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  BarrettL. F. (2017b). The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.12, 1–23. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx060

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BarrettL. F. (2022). Context reconsidered: complex signal ensembles, relational meaning, and population thinking in psychological science. Am. Psychol.77, 894–920. doi: 10.1037/amp0001054

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  Bienertova-VaskuJ.LenartP.ScheringerM. (2020). Eustress and distress: neither good nor bad, but rather the same?BioEssays42:e1900238. doi: 10.1002/bies.201900238

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  BoekaertsM.CornoL. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention. Appl. Psychol.54, 199–231. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  BransonV.DryM. J.PalmerE.TurnbullD. (2019). The adolescent distress-eustress scale: development and validation. SAGE Open9:215824401986580. doi: 10.1177/2158244019865802

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  BrooksA. W. (2014). Get excited: reappraising pre-performance anxiety as excitement. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen.143, 1144–1158. doi: 10.1037/a0035325

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  BurnetteJ. L.BillingsleyJ.BanksG. C.KnouseL. E.HoytC. L.PollackJ. M.et al. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of growth mindset interventions: forwhom, how, and why might such interventions work?Psychol. Bull.149, 174–205. doi: 10.1037/bul0000368

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  CacioppoJ. T.BerntsonG. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: a critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychol. Bull.115, 401–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.401

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  Center for Disease Control (CDC) (2020). Adverse Childhood Experiences. Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/index.html

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  ChesneyM. A.NeilandsT. B.ChambersD. B.TaylorJ. M.FolkmanS. (2006). A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. Br. J. Health Psychol.11, 421–437. doi: 10.1348/135910705X53155

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  ChouP.-C.ChaoY.-M. Y.YangH.-J.YehG.-L.LeeT. S.-H. (2011). Relationships between stress, coping and depressive symptoms among overseas university preparatory Chinese students: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health11:352. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-352

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  ChristopherJ. C. (1999). Situating psychological well-being: exploring the cultural roots of its theory and research. J. Counsel. Dev.77, 141–152. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1999.tb02434.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  CrumA.AkinolaM.MartinA.FathS. (2017). The role of stress mindset in shaping cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses to challenging and threatening stress. Anxiety Stress Coping30, 379–395. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2016.1275585

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  CrumA. J.SaloveyP.AchorS. (2013). Rethinking stress: the role of mindsets in determining the stress response. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.104, 716–733. doi: 10.1037/a0031201

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  DavisS. K.HadwinA. F. (2021). Exploring differences in psychological well-being and self-regulated learning in university student success. Frontl. Learn. Res.9, 30–43. doi: 10.14786/flr.v9i1.581

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  de la FuenteJ.Verónica PaoloniP.Vera-MartínezM. M.Garzón-UmerenkovaA. (2020). Effect of levels of self-regulation and situational stress on achievement emotions in undergraduate students: class, study and testing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health17:4293. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124293

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychol. Inq.11, 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: an introduction. J. Happiness Stud.9, 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  DenovanA.MacaskillA. (2017). Stress and subjective well-being among first year UK undergraduate students. J. Happiness Stud.18, 505–525. doi: 10.1007/s10902-016-9736-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  DienerE.HeintzelmanS. J.KushlevK.TayL.WirtzD.LutesL. D.et al. (2017). Finding all psychologists should know from the science on subjective well-being. Can. Psychol.58, 87–104. doi: 10.1037/cap0000063

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  DienerE.OishiS.TayL. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nat. Hum. Behav.2:253. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  DienerE.SuhE. M. (2000). Culture and Subjective Well-being. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/2242.001.0001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  EckerB. (2015). Memory reconsolidation. Int. J. Neuropsychother.1, 2–46. doi: 10.12744/ijnpt.2015.0002-0046

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  EckerB.TicicR.HulleyL. (2012). Unlocking the Emotional Brain: Eliminating Symptoms at Their Roots Using Memory Reconsolidation. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203804377

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  EckerB.VazA. (2022). Memory reconsolidation and the crisis of mechanism in psychotherapy. New Ideas Psychol.66:100945- doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2022.100945

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  EfklidesA.SchwartzB. L.BrownV. (2018). “Motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: does metacognition play a role?,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, eds. B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (New York, NY: Routledge), 64–84. doi: 10.4324/9781315697048-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  ElmerT.MephamK.StadtfeldC. (2020). Students under lockdown: comparisons of students' social networks and mental health before and during the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland. PLoS ONE15:e0236337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236337

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  FolkmanS. (2008). The case for positives emotions in the stress process. Anxiety Stress Coping21, 3–14. doi: 10.1080/10615800701740457

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  FolkmanS.LazarusR. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.48, 150–170. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.150

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  FredricksonB. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden- and-build theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol.56, 218–226. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  FreireC.FerradásM. D. M.NúñezJ. C.ValleA.VallejoG. (2019). Eudaimonic well-being and coping with stress in university students: the mediating/moderating role of self-efficacy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health16:48. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16010048

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  FreireC.FerradásM. D. M.ValleA.NúñezJ. C.VallejoG. (2016). Profiles of psychological well-being and coping strategies among university students. Front. Psychol.7:1554. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01554

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  GreeneJ. A.AzevedoR. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin's model of self-regulated learning: new perspectives and directions. Rev. Educ. Res.77, 334–372. doi: 10.3102/003465430303953

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  GrossJ. J.Feldman BarrettL. (2011). Emotion generation and emotion regulation: one or two depends on your point of view. Emot. Rev.3, 8–16. doi: 10.1177/1754073910380974

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  HadwinA. F.JärveläS.MillerM. (2011). “Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially-shared regulation of learning,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, eds. (New York, NY: Routledge), 65–84.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  HadwinA. F.SukhawathanakulP.RostampourR.Bahena-OlivaresL. M. (2022). Do self-regulated learning practices and intervention mitigate the impact of academic challenges and COVID-19 distress on academic performance during online learning. Front. Psychol.13:813529. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.813529

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  HoutepenL. C.HeronJ.SudermanM. J.FraserA.ChittleboroughC. R.HoweL. D. (2020). Associations of adverse childhood experiences with educational attainment and adolescent health and the role of family and socioeconomic factors: a prospective cohort study in the UK. PLoS Med.17:e1003031. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003031

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  HowellA. J. (2009). Flourishing: achievement-related correlates of students' well-being. J. Posit. Psychol.4, 1–13. doi: 10.1080/17439760802043459

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  HutaV.RyanR. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: the differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. J. Happiness Stud.11, 735–762. doi: 10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  JamiesonJ. P.BlackA. E.PelaiaL. E.GraveldingH.GordilsJ.ReisH. T. (2022). Reappraising stress arousal improves affective, neuroendocrine, and academic performance outcomes in community college classrooms. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.151, 197–212. doi: 10.1037/xge0000893

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  JamiesonJ. P.CrumA. J.GoyerJ. P.MarottaM. E.AkinolaM. (2018). Optimizing stress responses with reappraisal and mindset interventions: an integrated model. Anxiety Stress Coping31, 245–261. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2018.1442615

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  JamiesonJ. P.HangenE. J. (2021). “Stress reappraisal interventions: improving acute stress responses in motivated performance contexts,” in Handbook of wise interventions: How social psychology can help people change, eds G. M. Walton and A. J. Crum (The Guilford Press), 239–258.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  JärveläS.HadwinA. (2024). Triggers for self-regulated learning: a conceptual framework for advancing multimodal research about SRL. Learn. Individ. Differ.115:102526. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102526

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  JaworskaN.De SommaE.FonsekaB.HeckE.MacQueenG. M. (2016). Mental health services for students at postsecondary institutions: a national survey. Can. J. Psychiatry61, 766–775. doi: 10.1177/0706743716640752

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 51

  JenkinsA.WeeksM. S.HardB. M. (2021). General and specific stress mindsets: links with college student health and academic performance. PLoS ONE16:e0256351. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256351

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 52

  KapilM.HadwinA. (2021). “Stress and the SRL cycle” in EDD 101 Strategies for University Student Success, ed. A. Hadwin (University of Victoria).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 53

  KapilM.RostampourR.HadwinA. (2024). Coping self-efficacy and stress mindset as predictors of student success outcomes. J. Postsec. Student Success4, 147–172. doi: 10.33009/fsop_jpss135208

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 54

  KapilM.RostampourR.HadwinA.MillerM.MacDonaldS. W. S. (2025a). Mental health and foundational academic behaviours: important pieces of the academic success puzzle. Can. J. High. Educ.55, 75–92. doi: 10.47678/cjhe.v55i2.190351

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 55

  KapilM.RostampourR.HadwinA.MillerM.MacDonaldS. W. S. (2025b). Supporting student success with the “stress stories project” pilot intervention study: an integrated approach to regulating stress and enhancing learning management to support flourishing at school. Can. J. Schl. Psychol. doi: 10.1177/08295735251395628

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 56

  KarademasE. C.Kalantzi-AziziA. (2004). The stress process, self-efficacy expectations, and psychological health. Pers. Individ. Dif.37, 1033–1043. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 57

  KeechH.agger, M. S.O'CallaghanF. V.HamiltonK. (2018). The influence of universitystudents' stress mindsets on health and performance outcomes. Ann. Behav. Med.52, 1046–1059. doi: 10.1093/abm/kay008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 58

  KeyesC. L. (2009). Brief Description of the Mental Health Continuum Short Form (MHC-SF). Available online at: https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/MHC-SFEnglish.pdf (Accessed January 20, 2022).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 59

  KeyesC. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. J. Health Soc. Behav.43, 207–222. doi: 10.2307/3090197

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 60

  KeyesC. L. M. (2005). Mental health and/or mental illness? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.73, 539–548. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 61

  KeyesC. L. M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: a complementary strategy for improving national mental health. Am. Psychol.62, 95–108. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.95

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 62

  KeyesC. L. M. (2013). “Promoting and protecting positive mental health: early and often throughout the lifespan,” in Mental Well-being: International Contributions to the Study of Positive Mental Health, ed. C. Keyes (Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands), 3–28. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5195-8_1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  KeyesC. M.AnnasJ. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. J. Posit. Psychol.4, 197–201. doi: 10.1080/17439760902844228

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  KeyesC. M.HaidtJ. (Eds.). (2003). Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-lived. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10594-000

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  KimJ.CicchettiD. (2010). Longitudinal pathways linking child maltreatment, emotion regulation, peer relations, and psychopathology. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry51, 706–716. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02202.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  KuhG.KinzieJ.SchuhJ.WhittE. Associates. (2005). Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  LarsenJ. T.McGrawA. P.CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time?J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.81, 684–696. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.4.684

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  LazarusR. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. Am. Psychol.46, 819–834. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY: Springer.

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1986). “Cognitive theories of stress and the issue of circularity,” in Dynamics of Stress: Physiological, Psychological, and Social Perspectives, eds. M. H. Appley and R. Trumbull (New York, NY: Plenum Press), 63–80. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-5122-1_4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  LinnenbrinkE. A. (2007). “Chapter 7 - the role of affect in student learning: a multi-dimensional approach to considering the interaction of affect, motivation, and engagement,” in Emotion in Education (Elsevier Inc), 107–124. doi: 10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50008-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  LobczowskiN. G. (2020). Bridging gaps and moving forward: building a new model for socioemotional formation and regulation. Educ. Psychol.55, 53–68. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1670064

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  LouisM. C.SchreinerL. A. (2012). “Helping students thrive: a strengths development model,” in Thriving in Transitions: A Research-Based Approach to College Student Success, eds. L. A. Schreiner, M. C. Louis, and D. D. Nelson (University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition), 19–40.

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  MacnamaraB. N.BurgoyneA. P. (2023). Do growth mindset interventions impact students'academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. Psychol. Bull.149, 133–173. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/ba7pe

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  MaranT.SachseP.MartiniM.WeberB.PinggeraJ.ZuggalS.et al. (2017). Lost in time and space: states of high arousal disrupt implicit acquisition of spatial and sequential context information. Front. Behav. Neurosci.11:206. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00206

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  McLeanL.GaulD.PencoR. (2023). Perceived social support and stress: a study of 1st year students in Ireland. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict.21, 2101–2121. doi: 10.1007/s11469-021-00710-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  MendesW. B.ParkJ. (2014). Neurobiological concomitants of motivational states. Adv. Motiv. Sci.1, 233–270. doi: 10.1016/bs.adms.2014.09.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  MoulinF.KeyesC.LiuA.CaronJ. (2017). Correlates and predictors of well-being in Montreal. Community Mental Health J.53, 560–567. doi: 10.1007/s10597-017-0080-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  NgD. E.AuroraR.HarterJ. (2009). Affluence, feelings of stress, and well-being. Soc. Indic. Res.94, 257–271. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9422-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  O'KeeffeP. (2013). A sense of belonging: improving student retention. Coll. Stud. J.47, 605–613.

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  PanaderoE. (2018). A review of self-regulated learning: six models and four direction for research. Front. Psychol.8:422. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  PanlilioC. C.FerraraA. M.MacNeillL. (2019). “Trauma, self-regulation, and learning,” in Trauma-Informed Schools, ed. C. C. Panlilio (Cham: Springer), 61–80. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-12811-1_4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  ParkC. L.FolkmanS. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Rev. Gen. Psychol.1, 115–144. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  ParkC. L.HelgesonV. S. (2006). Introduction to the special section: growth following highly stressful life events– current status and future directions. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.74, 791–796. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.74.5.791

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  ParkD.YuA.MetzS. E.TsukayamaE.CrumA. J.DuckworthA. L. (2017). Beliefs about stress attenuate the relation among adverse life events, perceived distress, and self-control. Child Dev.62:1269. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12946

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  PascoeM. C.HetrickS. E.ParkerA. G. (2020). The impact of stress on students in secondary school and higher education. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth25, 104–112. doi: 10.1080/02673843.2019.1596823

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  PekrunR.LichtenfeldS.MarshH. W.MurayamaK.GoetzT. (2017). Achievement emotions and academic performance: longitudinal models of reciprocal effects. Child Dev.88, 1653–1670. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12704

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  PekrunR.Linnenbink-GarciaL. (2012). “Academic emotions and student engagement,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, eds. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (New York, NY: Springer), 259–282. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_12

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  PekrunR.MarshH. W.ElliotA. J.StockingerK.PerryR. P.VoglE.et al. (2023). A three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.124, 145–178. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000448

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  PorgesS. W. (2021). Polyvagal theory: a science of safety. Front. Integr. Neurosci.16:871227. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2022.871227

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  ReschlyA. L.HuebnerE. S.AppletonJ. J.AntaramianS. (2008). Engagement asflourishing: the contribution of positive emotions and coping to adolescents' engagementat school and with learning. Psychol. Sch.45, 419–431. doi: 10.1002/pits.20306

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  RibeiroÍ. J. S.PereiraR.FreireI. V.de OliveiraB. G.CasottiC. A.BoeryE. N. (2018). Stress and quality of life among university students: a systematic literature review. Health Profess. Educ.4, 70–77. doi: 10.1016/j.hpe.2017.03.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  RostampourR.KapilM.DavisS.HadwinA. (2020). “Examining within person fluctuations in mental health,” in Paper accepted at AERA Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA). Available online at: https://www.aera20.net (Accessed April 30, 2020).

  • Google Scholar

• 94

  RostampourR.KapilM.HadwinA. (2023). Academic Well-Being: ConstructValidation of an Instrument to Measure Student Mental Health and Well-Being in Academic Settings. Paper presented at EARLI, Greece. Available online at: https://www.google.com/search?client=safariandrls=enandq=earli+conference+2023andie=UTF-8andoe=UTF-8 (Accessed September 15, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 95

  RudlandJ. R.GoldingC.WilkinsonT. J. (2020). The stress paradox: how stress can be good for learning. Med. Educ.54, 40–45. doi: 10.1111/medu.13830

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu. Rev. Psychol.52, 141–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press. doi: 10.1521/978.14625/28806

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  RyanR. M.HutaV.DeciE. L. (2013). “Living well: a self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia,” in The Exploration of Happiness, Happiness Studies Book Series, ed. A. Della Fave (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 117–139. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5702-8_7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  RyanR. M.HutaV. A.DeciE. L. (2008). Living well: a self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. J. Happiness Stud.9, 139–170. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  RyanR. M.MartelaF. (2016). “Eudaimonia as a way of living: connecting Aristotle with self-determination theory,” in International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life. Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being, ed. J. Vittersø (Springer International Publishing AG), 109–122. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  RyffC. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.57, 1069–1081. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  RyffC. D.KeyesC. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.69, 719–727. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  SchreinerL. A. (2010). Thriving in the classroom. About Campus15, 2–10. doi: 10.1002/abc.20022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  SelyeH. (1936). Thymus and adrenals in response of the organism to injuries and intoxication. Br. J. Exp. Pathol.17, 234–248.

  • Google Scholar

• 105

  SelyeH. (1976). “Stress without distress,” in Psychopathology of Human Adaptation, ed. G. Serban (Boston, MA: Springer). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-2238-2_9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  SheldonK. M.CorcoranC.PrenticeM. (2019). Pursuing eudaimonic functioning versus pursuing hedonic well-being: the first goal succeeds in its aim, whereas the second does not. J. Happiness Stud.20, 919–933. doi: 10.1007/s10902-018-9980-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  SheldonK. M.LyubomirskyS. (2021). Revisiting the sustainable happiness model and pie chart: can happiness be successfully pursued?J. Posit. Psychol.16, 145–154. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2019.1689421

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  SiskV. F.BurgoyneA. P.SunJ.ButlerJ. L.MacnamaraB. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychol. Sci.29, 549–571. doi: 10.1177/0956797617739704

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  SoodA.SharmaD.SharmaM.DeyR. (2024). Prevalence and repercussions of stress and mental health issues on primary and middle school students: a bibliometric analysis. Front. Psychiatry15:1369605. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1369605

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  SouthwickS. M.SippelL.KrystalJ.CharneyD.MayesL.PietrzakR. (2016). Why are some individuals more resilient than others: the role of social support. World Psychiatry15, 77–79. doi: 10.1002/wps.20282

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  StegerM. F.KashdanT. B.OishiS. (2008). Being good by doing good: daily eudaimonic activity and well-being. J. Res. Pers.42, 22–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.03.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  SuhE.DienerE.FujitaF. (1996). Events and subjective well-being: only recent events matter. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.70, 1091–1102. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.1091

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  SuldoS. M.RileyK. N.ShaffnerE. J. (2006). Academic correlates of children and adolescents' life satisfaction. Sch. Psychol. Int.27, 567–582. doi: 10.1177/0143034306073411

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  TaylorS. E. (2011). “Social support: a review,” in The Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology, ed H. S. Friedman (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 190–214. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342819.013.0009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  TintoV. (2017). Reflections on student persistence. Stud. Success8, 1–8. doi: 10.5204/ssj.v8i2.376

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  TrompetterH. R.de KleineE.BohlmeijerE. T. (2017). Why does positive mental health buffer against psychopathology? An exploratory study on self-compassion as a resilience mechanism and adaptive emotion regulation strategy. Cogn. Ther. Res.41, 459–468. doi: 10.1007/s10608-016-9774-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  UphillM. A.RossatoC. J. L.SwainJ.O'DriscollJ. (2019). Challenge and threat: a critical review of the literature and an alternative conceptualization. Front. Psychol.10:1255. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01255

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  VenkatramanA.EdlowB. L.Immordino-YangM. H. (2017). The brainstem in emotion:a review. Front. Neuroanat.11:15. doi: 10.3389/fnana.2017.00015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  VogelS.SchwabeL. (2016). Learning and memory under stress: implications for the classroom. NPJ Sci. Learn.1:16011. doi: 10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.11

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  WebsterE. A. (2019). Regulating Emotions in Computer-Supported Collaborative proBlem- Solving Tasks (Doctoral dissertation). University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.

  • Google Scholar

• 121

  WinneP. H.HadwinA. (1998). “Studying as self-regulated learning,” in Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, eds. D. J.Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesse (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 277–304.

  • Google Scholar

• 122

  WinneP. H.HadwinA. F. (2008). “The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning,” in Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications, eds. D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 297–314.

  • Google Scholar

• 123

  WonS.HensleyL. C.WoltersC. A. (2021). Brief research report: sense of belonging and academic help-seeking as self-regulated learning. J. Exp. Educ.89, 112–124. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2019.1703095

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  WonS.WoltersC. A.MuellerS. A. (2018). Sense of belonging and self-regulated learning: testing achievement goals as mediators. J. Exp. Educ.86, 402–418. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2016.1277337

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  World Health Organization (WHO) (2016). Mental Health: Strengthening Our Response [Fact Sheet]. Available online at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en/ (Accessed May 18, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 126

  WormwoodJ. B.KhanZ.SiegelE.LynnS. K.DyJ.BarrettL. F.et al. (2019). Physiological indices of challenge and threat: a data-driven investigation of autonomic nervous system reactivity during an active coping stressor task. Psychophysiology56:e13454. doi: 10.1111/psyp.13454

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  YanV. X.SchuetzeB. A. (2023). What is meant by “growth mindset”? Current theory, measurement practices, and empirical results leave much open to interpretation: Commentary on Macnamara and Burgoyne (2023) and Burnette et al. (2023). Psychol. Bull.149, 206–219. doi: 10.1037/bul0000370

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  YeagerD. S.BryanC. J.GrossJ. J.MurrayJ. S.Krettek CobbD.SantosP.et al. (2022). A synergistic mindsets intervention protects adolescents from stress. Nature (London)607, 512–520. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04907-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar