Experimental trial examines slime's impact on stress relief in first-year psychology students, suggesting potential for low-cost wellness strategies.
Stress is a common experience among first‑year college students as they transition into higher education and cope with increased academic, social, and personal demands. While evidence‑based stress management techniques exist, many require training, time, or professional guidance, limiting their accessibility. Recently, tactile sensory tools such as slime have gained popularity as informal stress‑relief strategies; however, empirical support for their effectiveness among non‑clinical adult populations remains limited. This study investigated the effect of a slime‑based sensory intervention on acute stress levels among first‑year psychology students. Using an experimental quantitative design with a between‑subjects pretest–posttest approach, 30 students from the University of Perpetual Help System DALTA – Molino Campus were randomly assigned to either a slime intervention group or a control group with no stress‑relief tool. Stress levels were measured before and after the intervention using a standardized self‑report instrument. Paired‑samples t‑tests revealed a statistically significant reduction in stress levels within the slime group, whereas no significant change was observed in the control group. However, independent‑samples t‑tests indicated no significant difference in post‑intervention stress levels between groups. These findings suggest that while slime use may produce short‑term stress reduction for individuals, its overall effect may be insufficient to yield measurable differences at the group level. The study concludes that slime may serve as a supplementary, low‑cost stress‑relief option rather than a standalone intervention. Implications align with Sustainable Development Goal 3 (Good Health and Well‑Being), supporting the exploration of accessible mental health strategies within higher education contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Omanhan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: