When noise tires more than it shows. What research says about pupils’ stress and wellbeing

In the fifth lesson the pupil is still taking notes, answering questions and reporting no problem at all. Behind him, though, lies a whole day of listening: group conversations, chairs being moved, the buzz drifting in from the corridor, two people speaking at once, the bell, the ventilation. After the last period he leaves more irritable than usual, says his head hurts and does not want to talk straight away. None of this went into the register, because formally the day passed without incident. So it is worth asking: does the absence of a visible reaction really mean the sound environment had no effect on this child’s wellbeing?

Wellbeing is more than the absence of illness

When schools talk about pupils’ wellbeing, they do not mean only whether someone is healthy. Wellbeing covers how a child feels during the day, the quality of their relationships, a sense of safety, the ability to take part in what is going on, and the sense that what school demands is manageable. It is a multidimensional concept that cannot be reduced to a single number - and is not measured with a single question.

An important caveat follows. Reduced wellbeing is not a mental disorder. A pupil who is tired and irritable after a loud day does not thereby have a diagnosis. A temporary dip in how someone feels is information about a situation, not a diagnosis - and diagnoses are made by specialists after examination, not by classroom observation or a questionnaire response.

Many factors shape a pupil’s experience at once: relationships in the class, demands, the situation at home, sleep, health, how lessons are run. The school’s physical environment - including its sound environment - is one of them. Not the most important by definition and not the only one, but one the school as an institution can actually influence, and one that usually does not come up in conversations about how pupils feel.

Why unwanted sound can trigger a stress response

A stress response is how the body prepares to meet the demands of its surroundings. It is not harmful in itself - without it, mobilising for anything would be hard. Sound can trigger it because hearing works continuously and cannot be “turned away” the way the eyes can. Sound draws attention even when it signals nothing dangerous.

Not every sound imposes the same load. More demanding are usually sounds that are sudden, variable over time, meaningful (intelligible speech, for instance) and hard to predict. Control matters separately: if a child has no influence over whether and when a sound occurs, the same loudness can feel more intrusive than when the source is predictable or under their own control.

A distinction that is easy to trip over is needed here. Momentary arousal - a faster heartbeat after a door slams - is not the same as chronic stress. The first is a normal reaction that passes; the second means a sustained load and is something no single measurement can establish.

That is why studies use several different indicators: blood pressure, heart rate, cortisol levels across the day, and complaints reported by the children themselves. Cortisol calls for particular care. Calling it “the stress hormone” is a misleading shorthand: its concentration follows a daily rhythm and depends on when the sample was taken, on sleep, physical activity, meals and much else. A single result - higher or lower - does not identify chronic stress or assess a child’s health.

Noise annoyance is not trivial - but it is not a diagnosis either

The scientific literature uses the term noise annoyance. It describes more than “I don’t like that sound”. It takes in interference with an ongoing activity, a sense of disturbance and dissatisfaction, irritation, difficulty resting, a feeling of having no influence over the situation, and the need to adopt coping strategies - from moving away from the source to giving up some activities altogether.

In environmental research, perceived annoyance is treated as a real outcome, not as grumbling: it is measured, analysed and reported. At the same time it is not a mental illness and not a symptom that identifies anything. Nor does it depend on decibels alone - it depends on the source, its predictability, its duration, the context (the same buzz is received differently during a test and during break) and on individual sensitivity. Two children sharing a desk can rate the same sound very differently, and both ratings are true.

This does not make subjective experience “less scientific” than a meter reading. It is simply a different layer of information - and the only one that says anything about how a child lives through their day.

Measurement and experience describe different things

It is worth separating the parameters that describe a room from those that describe a user’s experience.

• Sound level - how loud it is at a given moment or on average over the measurement.
• Reverberation time - how long sound persists after the source stops; a property of the room itself.
• Type of source - speech, road traffic, building services, furniture being moved; each disrupts differently.
• Duration of exposure - how long in the day the child spends in such conditions.
• Variability of the sound - steady and irregular sound impose different loads at the same level.
• Perceived annoyance - how the child rates what they hear.
• Fatigue - the cost of sustaining attention and listening over many hours.
• Sense of control - whether the child has any influence over the conditions.
• Individual sensitivity - the threshold at which sound starts to bother someone differs from person to person.

The conclusion cuts both ways. Without professional measurement a room’s acoustic conditions cannot be assessed - the impression that “it seems loud in here” is not enough and does not replace a report. But sound level alone does not describe the full experience of a particular child either. These two sources of information do not compete; both are needed.

What the research shows

Below are eight publications arranged to show, in turn: what is known about physiological responses, about wellbeing and annoyance, about behaviour and mental health - and where the findings diverge.

The state of knowledge on how pupils perceive acoustics

Systematic review (Mercugliano et al., 2025). An Italian team asked what is known about the relationship between the acoustic quality of classrooms and how pupils perceive their environment and rate their own wellbeing - across educational levels [1]. It was a systematic review, not a meta-analysis: the studies were identified and described against set criteria, but their results were not combined into a single figure. Noise perception, reverberation conditions, listening quality and wellbeing indicators were analysed. Two findings matter more here than any individual result. First, the number of studies meeting the inclusion criteria was limited - data on the youngest children were especially scarce. Second, the included works differed greatly in how they defined and measured wellbeing, which makes comparison harder. What this means for schools: the topic is real, but the evidence base is still narrow and should not be presented as settled. Limitation: the review does not establish effect sizes; the exact number of included publications needs confirming in the full text, which is why we do not give it here.

What is known about physiological responses

Physiological and psychological responses in the classroom (Wålinder et al., 2007). A Swedish team studied how noise conditions in primary-school classrooms relate to stress responses in pupils [2]. Noise levels were measured in the classrooms, and in the children the researchers analysed reported symptoms of tiredness and headache, systolic blood pressure and the daily variation in cortisol levels, together with indicators of emotional wellbeing. The authors observed associations between noise conditions and some of the responses analysed - not all of them, which is itself informative.

Two clarifications are essential. First, the study was observational: it describes co-occurrence, not a causal chain, and the results could be influenced by factors unrelated to acoustics - from the type of lesson to the composition of the groups. Second, a reduced daily variation in cortisol is a research indicator, not a diagnosis: on its own it cannot establish chronic stress, still less demonstrate a lasting disorder of hormonal function. The numbers of participants, classes and schools, the ranges of measured sound levels and the sizes of the differences observed require verification in the full text, which is why we do not quote them.

What is known about annoyance and wellbeing

First-graders and the acoustics of their classrooms (Astolfi et al., 2019). A field study in primary schools in Turin combined acoustic measurements of classrooms with questionnaires completed by the children themselves [3]. It covered pupils from 20 first-grade classes in 10 schools; the children rated what bothered them and how they felt in those rooms, and the results were related to the measured parameters of the spaces. Comparing classes with more and less favourable acoustic conditions showed that in the latter pupils reported disturbance more often - and among the sources that mattered were street traffic outside the window, the room’s reverberation and sound coming from adjacent spaces, not only their own class’s chatter.

The limitations should be named plainly. This was a cross-sectional study: it describes a state at one moment and does not prove causation. Some data came from questionnaires filled in by seven-year-olds, and the schools volunteered to take part, which may have affected the composition of the sample. A child’s answer to whether they feel good in the classroom is valuable information about their experience - and nothing more; it is not a psychological assessment. The publication also reports different numbers at recruitment and at final analysis, so any specific participant figure needs checking against the group it refers to.

Sorting the evidence: what is better and what is less well documented

A research review (Stansfeld and Clark, 2015). This review organises the evidence on the health effects of children’s noise exposure, and is useful precisely because it grades the strength of that evidence [4]. It covers noise annoyance, wellbeing, stress responses, blood pressure, stress hormones, mental health and cognitive outcomes - but does not place them at one level of certainty. Best documented are the associations concerning annoyance and the effect of chronic noise exposure on reading comprehension and memory; the data on blood pressure, hormonal indicators and mental health are weaker and less consistent. What this means for schools: these effects must not be presented as equally well established. Limitation: the review does not replace reading the primary publications and provides no new measurements of its own.

What is known about behaviour and mental health

Systematic review with meta-analysis (Schubert et al., 2019). This work concerns transport noise and behavioural and emotional difficulties in children and adolescents [5]. Fourteen articles from 10 studies were identified. The analysis covered emotional difficulties, conduct problems, hyperactivity and a total difficulties score, most often measured with questionnaires completed by parents, teachers or the children themselves. The results were not equally clear across all areas, and the authors noted the limited number and quality of available studies.

Four caveats are absolutely necessary here. Questionnaire-based “behavioural and emotional problems” are not a psychiatric diagnosis - they are the output of a screening instrument. Transport noise is not the same as noise generated inside a classroom. The findings cannot be transferred automatically to any school sound. And finally: the meta-analysis does not show that noise was the sole cause of the difficulties observed - housing conditions, socio-economic status and many other factors correlated with where a family lives are also in play.

Children near an airport (Haines et al., 2001). A British study covered pupils at schools near Heathrow Airport, chronically exposed to aircraft noise [6]. It analysed noise annoyance, indicators of stress responses, mental health and cognitive task performance at the same time. What matters most for our topic is that these areas did not behave alike: the findings on perceived annoyance and on some stress responses did not coincide with those on mental health. In other words - children could clearly report that noise bothered them without a corresponding decline in mental-health indicators. This is an important safeguard against over-interpretation: annoyance and mental health are different things and are measured differently. Limitations: an observational study concerning one specific noise source; the sample size and exact values require verification in the full text, which is why we do not give them.

What happens when conditions change

A prospective study after an airport relocation (Seabi, 2013). This was a rare research opportunity: a natural change in acoustic conditions after an airport was relocated in South Africa [7]. The study ran in three waves; 732 children took part in the first, and the number of participants fell markedly in later measurements. Noise annoyance at school and at home and the children’s self-rated health were assessed. The results did not point one way: some annoyance-related responses persisted even after conditions changed, while in some self-rated health measures no clear adverse outcome was found.

The limitations here are serious. The large loss of participants by the third wave weakens the conclusions, because those who stayed in the study may differ from those who dropped out. The results rest on self-report. The social and geographical context is specific and does not transfer to a Polish school without reservation. And the most important distinction: persisting annoyance is not the same as deteriorating health - the study does not show that responses to noise are irreversible.

How children describe it

Qualitative studies (Haines et al., 2003). This publication presents two qualitative studies: group discussions with 36 children and individual interviews with 18 children exposed to aircraft noise [8]. The value of such material is different from that of quantitative work - it shows how children themselves describe the disturbance. They spoke about interference with study and reading, about difficulty resting and playing, about interrupted conversations and activities they had to postpone. They also described their own coping strategies and how much it matters to have no influence at all over the source: you cannot ask an aeroplane to be quiet.

The limitations follow from the method and are not a flaw. Qualitative research is not designed to establish how often a problem occurs - no percentage can be derived from it. The samples are small and do not permit generalisation to all children. An interview is not a clinical measurement. What it provides, though, is hard to obtain any other way: the children’s own perspective, in their own words.

Transport noise and classroom noise are not the same

A large share of the studies cited above concerns transport noise - aircraft and road traffic. That is no accident: such noise is easier to measure and to assign to an address. But these findings must not be transferred directly to sounds generated inside a school.

Transport noise - road, rail, air - is largely independent of what happens inside the building. It also acts at home and during sleep, so it can burden a child outside school hours. It is predictable in general terms but unpredictable minute by minute, and practically beyond the users’ influence.

Noise inside the school is different in nature. The buzz from the corridor, pupils talking, furniture being moved, equipment and services, the room’s reverberation, noise during group work - these sources are closely tied to activity and to how lessons are organised. They change with the type of lesson and the number of people in the room, and are partly within the influence of the teacher and the school. Reverberation is a case apart: it is not a source of sound but a property of the room that amplifies all the others - we write about it in the article on reverberation and speech intelligibility.

Transport studies nonetheless retain their value: they show the mechanisms of annoyance, stress responses and the significance of lacking control, which are common to different kinds of sound. What they do not supply are numbers that can be attached to pupils talking in a particular classroom.

Why a sense of control matters

The same sound level can be experienced very differently depending on how much power the child has over it. Sound they chose themselves, that is part of play or has a clear purpose - music during break, counting down together, the noise of their own experiment - is received quite differently from sound that appears suddenly, cannot be predicted or avoided and cuts into the middle of an important task.

Two caveats. Controlled sound is not automatically free of cost: loud play is tiring too, especially when it goes on a long time with no chance to wind down afterwards. And a sense of control is not the only factor - level, duration, the type of task, the child’s sensitivity and their state that day all act alongside it. It is one piece of the puzzle, not the solution to it.

How children cope

Qualitative studies and reviews reveal a repertoire of behaviours children reach for in noisy surroundings. They cover their ears with their hands. They move away from the source, change seats, turn away. They try to ignore it, which itself costs effort. They ask for quiet - with varying success. They speak louder to hear themselves. They fill in what they missed from context and glance at what others are doing. They give up some activities or put them off to a calmer moment. They look for a quieter place, withdraw from conversation. They get irritable. They report a headache or tiredness.

Three things must be said unambiguously. Each of these behaviours can have many other causes - from tiredness and infection to the situation in the group. None of them is grounds for identifying anything. And none on its own proves that a given room has an acoustic problem. Nor are they all conscious strategies: a child who moves further from the window need not know why they did it.

Not every loud moment is a problem

This has to be said clearly, because texts about noise invite misunderstanding: the goal is not silence. A school is a place of conversation, laughter, play, music, cooperation, experiments, movement and spontaneous reactions. Sound in it is a sign that something is happening, not a fault to be removed. Nobody is calling for children to be hushed.

The problem arises in other situations: when the level and character of the sound do not match the function of the space (a reading room that sounds like a canteen); when there is nowhere to rest during the day; when communication is constantly hindered rather than occasionally; when sounds are needlessly amplified because the room sustains them; when users have no way of changing the conditions; and when a high load persists for much of the day rather than for a single lesson.

What the research does not allow us to say

This section matters as much as the discussion of results. Most of the studies cited do not allow an observed effect to be attributed to a single factor. Some are cross-sectional - describing a state at one moment, not a sequence of events. Some rest on questionnaires and self-report, which are a valuable but not the only possible source of data. Noise level also co-occurs with other features of a school and its surroundings: the age of the building, its location, the affluence of the neighbourhood - and these too affect pupils’ wellbeing.

The studies concern different sound sources and are not interchangeable: findings about aircraft noise are not findings about group work [5][6]. Cortisol measurements depend on many factors unrelated to noise and are not a means of identifying stress [2]. Qualitative research shows how a problem is experienced, not how often it occurs [8]. Not all reviews find clear links with mental health - and the review that organises the evidence explicitly grades the strength of the evidence for each effect [4].

Finally, the two limits that matter most in school practice. Individual differences between children are large: the same conditions do not mean the same load for every pupil. And population findings are not a tool for assessing an individual child - none of the studies discussed here can determine why one particular pupil has a headache after lessons.

Summary

Let us return to the pupil from the start of this article - the one who took notes to the end and reported no problem. The research does not allow us to say that noise at school caused his irritability and headache; nor does it allow us to rule it out. It does allow something narrower and more useful: a child does not have to stop working or cover their ears for the sound environment to add to their tiredness. The cost is often paid quietly - in effort that nobody records.

A well-designed acoustic environment does not remove every source of stress at school. It will not replace good relationships, sensible demands or psychological support. It can, however, reduce a load that serves neither learning, nor relationships, nor development - and that is reason enough to ask about it. We wrote about how much attention and working memory it costs to work in noise in the article on concentration and memory in a loud classroom.

References

1. Mercugliano A., Corbani A., Bigozzi L., Vettori G., Incognito O., The Effects of Classroom Acoustic Quality on Student Perception and Wellbeing: A Systematic Review Across Educational Levels, „Frontiers in Psychology” 2025; 16. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1586997; PMID: 40861365.
2. Wålinder R., Gunnarsson K., Runeson R., Smedje G., Physiological and Psychological Stress Reactions in Relation to Classroom Noise, „Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health” 2007; 33(4): 260-266. DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.1141; PMID: 17717617.
3. Astolfi A., Puglisi G.E., Murgia S., Minelli G., Pellerey F., Prato A., Sacco T., Influence of Classroom Acoustics on Noise Disturbance and Well-Being for First Graders, „Frontiers in Psychology” 2019; 10: article 2736. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02736.
4. Stansfeld S., Clark C., Health Effects of Noise Exposure in Children, „Current Environmental Health Reports” 2015; 2(2): 171-178. DOI: 10.1007/s40572-015-0044-1; PMID: 26231366.
5. Schubert M. i wsp., Behavioral and Emotional Disorders and Transportation Noise Among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, „International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health” 2019; 16(18): 3336. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16183336; PMID: 31510007.
6. Haines M.M., Stansfeld S.A., Job R.F.S., Berglund B., Head J., Chronic Aircraft Noise Exposure, Stress Responses, Mental Health and Cognitive Performance in School Children, „Psychological Medicine” 2001; 31(2): 265-277. DOI: 10.1017/S0033291701003282; PMID: 11232914.
7. Seabi J., An Epidemiological Prospective Study of Children's Health and Annoyance Reactions to Aircraft Noise Exposure in South Africa, „International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health” 2013; 10(7): 2760-2777. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph10072760; PMID: 23823713.
8. Haines M.M., Brentnall S.L., Stansfeld S.A., Klineberg E., Qualitative Responses of Children to Environmental Noise, „Noise & Health” 2003; 5(19): 19-30. PMID: 12804209.

This article is for information only. It does not replace an acoustic measurement, an assessment of conditions at a school, or an individual consultation about a child’s health and wellbeing.