Medical Psychology

Abstract

Medical psychology is the branch of applied psychology that brings the methods of psychological science to the understanding, prevention, and treatment of physical illness. It grew from the recognition that health and disease are not purely biological events but arise from the interaction of biological, psychological, and social processes, a view crystallized in the biopsychosocial model. This article traces the field from that model through its research programs: the appraisal theory of stress and allostatic load, the psychoneuroimmunology that links mental states to immune function, the placebo effect and its brain mechanisms, and the study of treatment adherence. It closes with the contemporary turn toward precise stress measurement and mechanistic models of how social adversity gets under the skin. Three interactive demonstrations let the reader weight a biopsychosocial case, trace stress to infection risk, and decompose a clinical response.

Keywords: medical psychology, biopsychosocial model, stress and disease, psychoneuroimmunology, placebo effect

Medical psychology is the field that applies the concepts, findings, and methods of psychology to physical health and medical care. Its defining premise is that illness is never a purely somatic matter: how a disease begins, how it is experienced, whether its treatment is followed, and how well the patient recovers all depend on psychological and social processes as much as on tissue pathology. The field took its modern shape when George Engel argued that biomedicine's exclusively molecular model of disease was scientifically incomplete and proposed in its place a biopsychosocial model, in which health and illness emerge from interacting biological, psychological, and social systems (Engel, 1977). Around the same time the allied field of health psychology was named and organized as psychology's contribution to the promotion of health, the prevention and treatment of illness, and the analysis of the health care system (Matarazzo, 1980). Medical psychology sits at that junction of mind and medicine, and its questions are practical as often as they are theoretical.

What Medical Psychology Is

Medical psychology is best understood as the application of psychological knowledge to the full arc of physical illness, from susceptibility and onset through diagnosis, treatment, and recovery. It overlaps with several neighboring fields whose boundaries are more administrative than real. Health psychology is the broad disciplinary home, defined as the aggregate of psychology's contributions to health promotion, illness prevention and treatment, and health policy (Matarazzo, 1980). Behavioral medicine is the interdisciplinary sibling that integrates behavioral and biomedical science in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of disease, and it was deliberately defined to be interdisciplinary from the outset rather than a subfield of any one profession (Schwartz & Weiss, 1978). Psychosomatic medicine, the oldest of these traditions, studies the relationship between psychological factors and bodily disease. What unites them, and what medical psychology contributes in particular, is the insistence that behavior is a central medical variable: a large share of premature mortality traces to behavioral risk factors such as smoking, diet, and inactivity, so that changing behavior is often the most powerful intervention available and a legitimate primary outcome of health care in its own right (Kaplan, 1990). The field is therefore both a science, seeking to explain how psychological processes affect the body, and a practice, seeking to improve outcomes by acting on those processes.

Types of Medical Psychology

Psychology, Medical is a formal descriptor in the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings, filed under Psychology at tree position F04.096.628.808 and cross-listed under Health Occupations. Beneath the descriptor MeSH hangs the narrower heading listed in Table 1. Two cautions apply. The list is an indexing classification built to organize the biomedical literature rather than a theory that carves the field at its joints, and it is far narrower than the field's actual span: medical psychology in practice extends across cardiology, oncology, immunology, pain medicine, and rehabilitation, few of which appear as formal subtypes. Only subtypes that are themselves live articles on this site are linked, and at present this descriptor's single child has no page of its own.

The Biopsychosocial Model

The intellectual foundation of medical psychology is the biopsychosocial model, Engel's answer to what he saw as a crippling narrowness in twentieth-century medicine. The dominant biomedical model treated disease as a deviation from norm in measurable biological variables and left no room within its frame for the social, psychological, and behavioral dimensions of illness; Engel argued that this reductionism was not hard-headed science but a cultural dogma, and that an adequate model must situate the patient and the illness within nested systems running from molecule and cell up through the person to family, community, and society (Engel, 1977). The model's claim is not the weak one that psychological factors influence how patients cope, but the strong one that biological, psychological, and social processes are jointly constitutive of health and disease and must all appear in a complete causal account. Over the following decades the model became the official framework of much of medicine and health psychology, though not without criticism that it was too vague to generate specific predictions and too easily reduced to a slogan. Its defenders have responded by sharpening it: one influential restatement recasts the model as a practical clinical method, a discipline of attending systematically to biological, psychological, and social contributors when formulating any case, rather than a grand theory (Suls & Rothman, 2004). A later appraisal argues that the accumulating evidence linking social and psychological factors to hard biological endpoints has finally given the model the empirical backbone its critics said it lacked, making it a framework whose time has come rather than a well-meaning abstraction (Wade & Halligan, 2017). The demonstration below lets the reader weight the three contributors for a single case and watch how the implied point of intervention shifts.

Stress, Appraisal, and Disease

If the biopsychosocial model is medical psychology's framework, the stress-and-disease relationship is its most developed causal story. The modern concept of stress is not a simple stimulus but a transaction: Richard Lazarus argued that an event becomes stressful only through cognitive appraisal, the individual's evaluation of whether the event threatens something they value and whether they have the resources to cope with it, so that the same objective demand can be benign for one person and overwhelming for another (Lazarus, 1993). When appraisal yields threat, the body mounts a coordinated physiological response through the sympathetic nervous system and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. These responses are adaptive in the short run, but Bruce McEwen argued that their repeated or prolonged activation carries a hidden price he named allostatic load: the cumulative wear on the cardiovascular, metabolic, and immune systems that follows from chronically mobilizing the body's mediators of adaptation (McEwen, 1998). The pathway from stress to disease is now documented at every link. In a landmark study, Sheldon Cohen and colleagues exposed healthy volunteers to a common-cold virus and found that their rate of clinical illness rose in a dose-response fashion with a psychological stress index measured beforehand, direct experimental evidence that stress raises susceptibility to infection (Cohen et al., 1991). Reviews of the wider literature confirm that psychological stress is a graded risk factor for the onset and course of disease across many systems (Cohen et al., 2007), and mechanistic work has traced one major route through chronic low-grade inflammation, which links psychological stress to the development of coronary heart disease (Wirtz & von Kanel, 2017). The demonstration below reconstructs the shape of the stress-to-infection relationship Cohen reported, letting the reader move along the stress index and read off the change in illness risk.

Psychoneuroimmunology

The claim that a mental state can change the body's defense against disease once seemed implausible, because the immune system was thought to be autonomous, sealed off from the brain. Psychoneuroimmunology, the study of the interactions among psychological processes, the nervous system, and the immune system, began by demolishing that assumption. The founding experiment was almost accidental: Robert Ader and Nicholas Cohen paired a saccharin solution with a nausea-inducing drug that also happened to suppress immune function, and found afterward that the taste alone, with no drug present, could suppress the immune response, demonstrating that immunosuppression can be classically conditioned and therefore that the immune system is subject to learning through the brain (Ader & Cohen, 1975). That result opened a field. A large meta-analysis by Suzanne Segerstrom and Gregory Miller synthesized three decades of human research and drew a crucial distinction by the time course of the stressor: brief, acute challenges tend to up-regulate natural immunity in an adaptive way, whereas chronic stressors, those lasting weeks to years, down-regulate and dysregulate both natural and specific immune function, the pattern most relevant to disease (Segerstrom & Miller, 2004). Janice Kiecolt-Glaser and colleagues connected this immunological work back to the older tradition of psychosomatic medicine, showing across studies of caregivers, marital conflict, and depression that psychological distress slows wound healing, blunts vaccine responses, and raises inflammatory markers, so that the mind-body links psychosomatic medicine had long asserted could now be given a concrete immunological mechanism (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2002). Figure 1 summarizes the central finding that the immune consequence of stress depends on its duration.

The Placebo Effect

Few phenomena show the reach of psychology into the body as vividly as the placebo effect: a genuine improvement produced not by the specific ingredients of a treatment but by the psychosocial context surrounding it, the ritual of care, the patient's expectation, and the meaning assigned to the intervention. Once dismissed as a nuisance to be subtracted in trials, the placebo response is now understood as a real neurobiological event. Using functional imaging, Tor Wager and colleagues showed that a placebo analgesic reduced both the reported experience of pain and the pain-related activity in brain regions such as the thalamus and anterior cingulate, while increasing activity in prefrontal regions during the anticipation of relief, evidence that expectation engages the brain's own pain-modulating machinery rather than merely biasing what people say (Wager et al., 2004). A later synthesis by Yoni Ashar, Luke Chang, and Wager organized these findings into an affective-appraisal account, in which placebo effects arise from the brain's evaluation of the personal significance of the treatment context (Ashar et al., 2017). The clinical importance of the effect, and of its dark twin the nocebo effect, in which negative expectations worsen symptoms and generate side effects, is now recognized as central to practice: the way a clinician frames a treatment measurably shapes its outcome (Colloca & Barsky, 2020). Separating this contextual response from a drug's specific effect, and from the natural history of the illness, is both a methodological necessity and a clinical opportunity. The demonstration below lets the reader decompose an observed clinical response into those components.

Adherence and Behavior Change

Medical psychology's most consequential applied problem is that treatments work only when they are used, and patients very often do not use them as prescribed. Robert DiMatteo's quantitative review of fifty years of research put the average rate of non-adherence to medical recommendations near a quarter of all patients, with wide variation by disease, regimen, and circumstance, and showed that poor adherence materially worsens outcomes (DiMatteo, 2004). Because so much of medicine's benefit is forfeited at this last step, understanding and improving what patients actually do is not a peripheral concern but, on the argument that behavior is the central outcome of health care, close to the point of the whole enterprise (Kaplan, 1990). To explain and change what patients do, the field has drawn on formal models of health behavior. The most influential, Icek Ajzen's theory of planned behavior, holds that a behavior follows most immediately from the intention to perform it, and that intention is in turn built from attitudes toward the behavior, perceived social norms, and perceived behavioral control, so that an intervention works by shifting those determinants rather than by exhorting the behavior directly (Ajzen, 1991). Adherence is itself shaped by psychological resources. Shelley Taylor and Annette Stanton showed that coping resources such as optimism, a sense of personal control, and social support predict better adjustment and health across a range of conditions, functioning as reserves that buffer the impact of illness and sustain the effortful behavior that treatment demands (Taylor & Stanton, 2007). The field's response has been to treat behavior change as a target in its own right, and behavioral medicine was founded precisely to bring behavioral science to bear on it within an interdisciplinary frame (Schwartz & Weiss, 1978). The practical questions of how patients monitor their own bodies, interpret symptoms, and act on medical advice draw on the same processes of interoception and decision making that cognitive psychology studies in the laboratory.

Worked Example

The placebo effect is easy to assert and easy to overstate, so it helps to see exactly how an observed clinical improvement breaks apart. Consider a hypothetical three-arm trial of a treatment for a self-limiting condition. In the no-treatment arm, whose patients simply wait, 20 percent improve over the study period; this is the natural history of the illness, the improvement that would happen anyway, and it includes both true recovery and regression to the mean. In the placebo arm, given an inert pill in the full ritual of treatment, 45 percent improve. In the active-drug arm, 60 percent improve. From these three numbers the components separate cleanly. The natural history contributes 20 percentage points. The placebo effect is the placebo arm minus the natural history, 45 minus 20, or 25 percentage points. The specific pharmacological effect is the drug arm minus the placebo arm, 60 minus 45, or 15 percentage points. Now express each as a share of the 60 percent who improved on the drug. Natural history accounts for 20 divided by 60, or 33.3 percent, of the observed response; the placebo effect accounts for 25 divided by 60, or 41.7 percent; and the drug's specific action accounts for only 15 divided by 60, or 25.0 percent. The lesson is bracing: in this example three-quarters of the improvement seen in patients taking the real drug is not the drug at all, but the natural course of the illness and the placebo response to being treated. It is exactly this arithmetic that makes the placebo arm indispensable, since a single-arm before-and-after comparison would have credited the entire 60 percent to the pharmacology (Colloca & Barsky, 2020). The demonstration above lets these three inputs be varied; the decomposition follows the same subtraction each time.

Discussion

Medical psychology has moved in half a century from a plausible but loosely argued proposition, that the mind matters to physical health, to a body of mechanistic science that specifies how it matters. The biopsychosocial model supplied the organizing frame; the stress literature supplied a causal pathway from appraisal through neuroendocrine activation to allostatic load and disease; psychoneuroimmunology supplied a concrete mechanism by which psychological states reach the tissues, through the immune and inflammatory systems; and placebo research showed that the context of care is itself an active ingredient with a traceable neurobiology. The applied payoff has been substantial, since recognizing behavior as a central determinant of health reframed prevention, adherence, and self-management as core medical targets rather than afterthoughts (Kaplan, 1990). Real tensions remain. The biopsychosocial model is still criticized as more orientation than theory, and the demand for it to yield specific, testable predictions has not been fully met (Suls & Rothman, 2004). The stress construct is used so broadly that measures scored under one label often do not converge, which blurs comparison across studies. And the effect sizes linking psychological factors to hard endpoints, while real, are typically modest and demand large samples to estimate stably. What is no longer in doubt is the central claim the field was built to defend: that physical health is genuinely biopsychosocial, and that psychological science is therefore not an ornament to medicine but part of its explanatory core.

Current Directions

The most active front in contemporary medical psychology is measurement. The field has recognized that its progress is limited by how crudely it quantifies its central exposure, and a major effort now seeks to unify the assessment of stress across self-report, physiology, and life-event history so that findings can be compared and combined rather than talking past one another (Epel et al., 2018). A second direction is theoretical consolidation. George Slavich's social safety theory proposes that the human stress response is fundamentally organized around the detection of threats to social connection and belonging, and that experiences of social threat, exclusion, and isolation drive the inflammatory biology that links adversity to depression and disease, an attempt to give the sprawling stress-and-health literature a single evolutionary and mechanistic spine (Slavich, 2020). Inflammation has become the through-line connecting these strands, as the concrete biological pathway along which psychological and social stress reaches chronic disease, most clearly in the cardiovascular system (Wirtz & von Kanel, 2017). Running beneath all of this is the same question that has driven the field from the beginning, now asked with sharper tools: by exactly what route does experience, from a virus challenge to a lifetime of disadvantage, get under the skin and change the body (Cohen et al., 2007)? The answers increasingly take the form of specified biological mechanisms rather than general assertions of mind-body connection.

Common Misconceptions

Saying stress causes disease means illness is all in the mind.

The claim is the opposite of psychological. Stress reaches the body through concrete physiology, the sympathetic and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal responses whose repeated activation accumulates as allostatic load and dysregulates immune and inflammatory function. The effect is measured in wound healing, viral susceptibility, and cardiac events, not in imagination (McEwen, 1998; Segerstrom & Miller, 2004).

A placebo response proves the symptom was not real.

A placebo relieves real symptoms through real brain mechanisms. Imaging shows that placebo analgesia reduces pain-related neural activity and recruits the brain's own pain-modulating systems, so a response to placebo indicates that expectation and context can engage genuine physiology, not that the complaint was feigned (Wager et al., 2004).

Medical psychology is the same thing as psychiatry.

Psychiatry is the medical specialty treating mental disorders. Medical psychology instead applies psychological science to physical illness, from cardiac rehabilitation to cancer care to adherence, and it is organized around the biopsychosocial model rather than around psychopathology (Engel, 1977).

Glossary

Adherence.

The extent to which a patient's behavior, in taking medication or following advice, corresponds to the agreed medical recommendation.

Allostatic load.

The cumulative physiological wear on the body that results from repeated or chronic activation of the stress-response systems.

Behavioral medicine.

The interdisciplinary field integrating behavioral and biomedical science in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of disease.

Biopsychosocial model.

Engel's framework holding that health and disease arise from interacting biological, psychological, and social systems rather than from biology alone.

Cognitive appraisal.

The individual's evaluation of whether an event is threatening and whether they can cope with it, which determines whether it is experienced as stressful.

Conditioned immunosuppression.

A learned reduction in immune response elicited by a neutral cue previously paired with an immunosuppressive agent, the founding finding of psychoneuroimmunology.

Coping resources.

Relatively stable psychological and social assets, such as optimism, perceived control, and social support, that buffer the impact of stress and illness.

Health psychology.

The aggregate contribution of psychology to the promotion of health, the prevention and treatment of illness, and the analysis of the health care system.

Natural history.

The course an illness would take without the treatment under study, including spontaneous recovery and regression to the mean, against which a treatment effect must be judged.

Nocebo effect.

The worsening of symptoms or generation of side effects produced by negative expectations about a treatment, the harmful counterpart of the placebo effect.

Placebo effect.

A genuine improvement produced by the psychosocial context of a treatment, including expectation and the ritual of care, rather than by its specific active ingredient.

Psychoneuroimmunology.

The study of the interactions among psychological processes, the nervous system, and the immune system.

Psychosomatic medicine.

The tradition studying the relationship between psychological factors and bodily disease, the historical forerunner of psychoneuroimmunology.

Regression to the mean.

The statistical tendency for extreme measurements to be followed by ones closer to average, which can masquerade as a treatment effect if there is no comparison arm.

Social safety theory.

Slavich's proposal that the stress response is organized around detecting threats to social connection, which drive the inflammation linking adversity to disease.

Specific effect.

The portion of a treatment's benefit attributable to its characteristic active ingredient, isolated by subtracting the placebo response from the total.

Stress.

The transactional process in which an appraised demand exceeds perceived coping resources, mobilizing a coordinated physiological response.

Theory of planned behavior.

Ajzen's model holding that behavior follows from intention, which is itself determined by attitudes, perceived social norms, and perceived behavioral control.

Key Researchers

Robert Ader (1932-2011). Psychologist at the University of Rochester who, with Nicholas Cohen, discovered conditioned immunosuppression and named and founded the field of psychoneuroimmunology. Wikipedia - Wikidata

Sheldon Cohen. Psychologist at Carnegie Mellon University; his viral-challenge studies furnished some of the strongest experimental evidence that psychological stress raises susceptibility to infectious disease. ORCID - Google Scholar - Wikipedia - Wikidata

George L. Engel (1913-1999). Psychiatrist and internist at the University of Rochester whose biopsychosocial model reframed medicine around the interaction of biological, psychological, and social factors. Wikipedia - Wikidata

Janice K. Kiecolt-Glaser. Psychologist at Ohio State University; her studies of caregivers, marital conflict, and depression linked psychological distress to immune dysregulation, slowed wound healing, and inflammation. ORCID - Google Scholar - Wikipedia - Wikidata

Richard S. Lazarus (1922-2002). Psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley; his transactional, appraisal-based theory of stress and coping reshaped how the field understands what makes an event stressful. Wikipedia - Wikidata

Joseph D. Matarazzo (1925-2025). Psychologist at Oregon Health & Science University who named and organized the field of health psychology and its behavioral-health agenda. Wikipedia - Wikidata

George M. Slavich. Clinical psychologist at the University of California, Los Angeles; his social safety theory offers an integrative account of how social threat drives the inflammatory biology linking stress to disease. ORCID - Google Scholar

Andrew Steptoe. Psychologist at University College London; a leading figure in psychobiology and behavioral medicine whose work connects psychosocial factors to cardiovascular and neuroendocrine outcomes. ORCID - Google Scholar - Wikipedia - Wikidata

Shelley E. Taylor (living). Social and health psychologist at the University of California, Los Angeles; her work on coping resources, positive illusions, and the tend-and-befriend stress response shaped the psychology of adjustment to illness. Wikipedia - Wikidata

Tor D. Wager. Neuroscientist at Dartmouth College; his functional-imaging studies gave the placebo effect a mechanistic account in the brain's pain-modulating and appraisal systems. ORCID - Google Scholar - Wikipedia - Wikidata

Frequently Asked Questions

What is medical psychology?
Medical psychology is the branch of applied psychology that brings psychological theory and method to physical health and medical care. It studies how psychological and social processes affect the onset, course, treatment, and experience of physical illness, and it applies that knowledge to improve outcomes, resting on the biopsychosocial model of health and disease (Engel, 1977).

How does medical psychology differ from health psychology and behavioral medicine?
The three overlap heavily and are often used interchangeably. Health psychology is the broad disciplinary label for psychology's contributions to health (Matarazzo, 1980); behavioral medicine is the deliberately interdisciplinary field integrating behavioral and biomedical science (Schwartz & Weiss, 1978); and medical psychology emphasizes the application of psychological science to physical illness and medical settings. The distinctions are largely historical and institutional rather than substantive.

Can psychological stress really cause physical illness?
Yes, and the evidence is experimental as well as observational. When volunteers were exposed to a cold virus, those with higher pre-existing psychological stress developed clinical illness at higher rates in a dose-response pattern (Cohen et al., 1991). Stress reaches the body through neuroendocrine and immune pathways whose repeated activation accumulates as allostatic load (McEwen, 1998).

What is psychoneuroimmunology?
Psychoneuroimmunology is the study of how psychological processes, the nervous system, and the immune system interact. It began with the discovery that immune suppression can be classically conditioned (Ader & Cohen, 1975) and has shown that acute stress can briefly enhance natural immunity while chronic stress suppresses and dysregulates immune function (Segerstrom & Miller, 2004).

Is the placebo effect real, or just people imagining they feel better?
It is real. Brain imaging shows that placebo analgesia reduces pain-related neural activity and engages the brain's own pain-modulating systems, not merely what people report (Wager et al., 2004). The placebo response, and its harmful counterpart the nocebo effect, reflect how expectation and the context of care shape genuine physiology (Colloca & Barsky, 2020).

Why do so many patients not take their medication as prescribed?
Non-adherence is common, averaging roughly a quarter of patients across conditions, and it stems from the regimen's complexity, side effects, cost, understanding, and the patient's psychological resources (DiMatteo, 2004). Because treatments help only when used, and because behavior is a central determinant of health, adherence is one of medical psychology's most important applied targets (Kaplan, 1990).

Is medical psychology the same as psychiatry?
No. Psychiatry is the medical specialty that diagnoses and treats mental disorders, largely with medication and psychotherapy. Medical psychology applies psychological science to physical illness, such as heart disease, cancer, and chronic pain, and works within the biopsychosocial framework rather than focusing on psychopathology.

What are the newest directions in the field?
Current work is sharpening how stress is measured so results can be compared across studies (Epel et al., 2018), building integrative theories such as social safety theory that tie social threat to inflammatory biology (Slavich, 2020), and tracing the specific inflammatory pathways through which stress reaches chronic disease (Wirtz & von Kanel, 2017).

References

Ader, R., & Cohen, N. (1975). Behaviorally conditioned immunosuppression. Psychosomatic Medicine, 37(4), 333-340. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-197507000-00007

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ashar, Y. K., Chang, L. J., & Wager, T. D. (2017). Brain mechanisms of the placebo effect: An affective appraisal account. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 73-98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093015

Cohen, S., Tyrrell, D. A. J., & Smith, A. P. (1991). Psychological stress and susceptibility to the common cold. New England Journal of Medicine, 325(9), 606-612. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199108293250903

Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., & Miller, G. E. (2007). Psychological stress and disease. JAMA, 298(14), 1685-1687. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.14.1685

Colloca, L., & Barsky, A. J. (2020). Placebo and nocebo effects. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(6), 554-561. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1907805

DiMatteo, M. R. (2004). Variations in patients' adherence to medical recommendations: A quantitative review of 50 years of research. Medical Care, 42(3), 200-209. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000114908.90348.f9

Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460

Epel, E. S., Crosswell, A. D., Mayer, S. E., Prather, A. A., Slavich, G. M., Puterman, E., & Mendes, W. B. (2018). More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 49, 146-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2018.03.001

Kaplan, R. M. (1990). Behavior as the central outcome in health care. American Psychologist, 45(11), 1211-1220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.11.1211

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., McGuire, L., Robles, T. F., & Glaser, R. (2002). Psychoneuroimmunology and psychosomatic medicine: Back to the future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(1), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200201000-00004

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000245

Matarazzo, J. D. (1980). Behavioral health and behavioral medicine: Frontiers for a new health psychology. American Psychologist, 35(9), 807-817. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.9.807

McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England Journal of Medicine, 338(3), 171-179. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199801153380307

Schwartz, G. E., & Weiss, S. M. (1978). Behavioral medicine revisited: An amended definition. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1(3), 249-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00846677

Segerstrom, S. C., & Miller, G. E. (2004). Psychological stress and the human immune system: A meta-analytic study of 30 years of inquiry. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 601-630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.601

Slavich, G. M. (2020). Social safety theory: A biologically based evolutionary perspective on life stress, health, and behavior. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 265-295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045159

Suls, J., & Rothman, A. (2004). Evolution of the biopsychosocial model: Prospects and challenges for health psychology. Health Psychology, 23(2), 119-125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.23.2.119

Taylor, S. E., & Stanton, A. L. (2007). Coping resources, coping processes, and mental health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 377-401. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091520

Wade, D. T., & Halligan, P. W. (2017). The biopsychosocial model of illness: A model whose time has come. Clinical Rehabilitation, 31(8), 995-1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215517709890

Wager, T. D., Rilling, J. K., Smith, E. E., Sokolik, A., Casey, K. L., Davidson, R. J., Kosslyn, S. M., Rose, R. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Placebo-induced changes in FMRI in the anticipation and experience of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1162-1167. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093065

Wirtz, P. H., & von Kanel, R. (2017). Psychological stress, inflammation, and coronary heart disease. Current Cardiology Reports, 19(11), 111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-017-0919-x