Development of the Social Readjustment Rating Scale [by Holmes and Rahe 1967].

*However, the correlations between life change units and susceptibility to any particular illness and to be rather low, indicating a weak association between life events and illness.

*Number of events reported decreases with age and increases with education.

*Single, separated, and divorced people reported more events than married and

* Widowed persons.

CONCLUSION: -

Participants responding to the SRRS check the items they experienced in the past, for example within the last year. The life-change values of the checked items are then summed up to yield a total score that indicates how much “stress” the individuals had. For example someone who has experienced the loss of a loved one is supposed to suffer about as much stress as someone else who has married and has been fired at work within the same time period. Obviously, the same stress can refer to completely different life events in different individuals, and it is questionable whether they should be regarded as psychologically equal and lumped together in the same analysis. The stress score is then usually related to mood, illness, depression, and other possible outcome.

CRITICISMS: -

*Anita DeLongis and her co-workers [1982] were critics of the life event approach, because various problems outlined.

*They felt that the life event research studies had found at best a very weak correlation between life events and illness.

*An alternative would be to focus on the ongoing stresses and strains of daily living, what we call “hassles”.

*In reality according to DeLongis el al, it is these more than anything that determine the extent to which a person feels stressed.

An evaluation of the aspects relating to the life event scale by Holmes and Rahe

Two doctors Holmes and Rahe developed the SRRS in 1967; they thought that whenever an individual an adjustment to an environment the chances of stress being caused would by quite high, as there is a disturbance in an individual’s normal routine, this includes divorce, marriage, death of spouse, birth of a new member in the family, losing your job etc.

                Those who complete the SRRS questionnaire simply tick off their life events they have experienced; this says nothing about the meaning they give to these events. The 43 life events on the SRRS maybe perceived differently by different people.

                The SRRS approach has many limitations: - “The assumptions that desirable life events can cause stress-related illnesses is not generally supported, and in addition, the scale tends to muddle together different kinds of life events, most particularly those over which you have some control and those you do not. It is the latter events that are the most stressful”.

                        This research has been influential to many other researchers. Some studies do suggest a relationship between life changes and the likelihood of someone experiencing illness, but overall the chances of this relationship succeeding are very small. The future problems with illnesses and diseases cannot be predicted. This is because the SRRS approach is quite a simple measurement, as only the mean values are added to produce a total score.

                SRRS is thought to be quite retrospective, information about life events is usually collected at least 6 months and often up to 18 months after the events have happened. Using a “prospective approach that follows healthy individuals over a number of years, noting their life events and illnesses, can solve this problem. This method ahs produced strong correlations [Brown and Harris 1989]”.

                         This approach asks people to remember both an illness and a life event that occurred in one year. “One way this might produce unreliable data is if a person who was under stress, for whatever reason, focused on minor physiological sensations and reported them as ‘symptoms of illnesses’” [Davison and Neale 1994].

                As some have been stated above. Various life changes could also cause changes in behaviour, for example if a couple is separating, one might start drinking heavily, which increases the risk of being ill.

 The research is correlational rather than experimental. If stress is really caused by an illness cannot be known, as it is correlational. Stress could have caused a life event instead of a life event causing stress.

                “Individual differences, such as your coping skills, past experiences and physical strength, all moderate the extent to which a potentially stressful event will effect you”. Different cultures also teach different styles of coping. The type of person you are might also affect the results. For example there are three types, A, B, and C, each type reacts differently to stress.

Holmes and Rahe’s view was challenged. Positive life changes may be less disturbing than negative life changes.

                Weaknesses of this approach - some items vague, subjective appraisals not taken into account, no distinction between desirable and undesirable events

                This SRRS approach also has some advantages. The SRRS is quite simple and a straightforward measure of stress. It is quick and easy to administer, as people just tick off the events that have happened to them over a period of one yea        r. scoring is also easy as the researcher only adds the total of life change units. It also offers a wide range of events and relative impact of events assessed. It is an effective way for measuring stress. The higher the individual’s stress score, the greater the risk of them getting ill. So people for example with a heart disease would probably have higher life change unit scores than healthy people.

                “According to Kanner et al [1981], it is less dramatic, but often everyday events in life, that are most stressful, such events include being stuck in traffic, having arguments. Kanner et al have called such irritants, problems or difficulties, hassles”. This is a scale; it is a 117-item questionnaire that is used to examine relationship between hassles and health. High scores have been found to been related to both physiological and psychological ill health.

                “Anita DeLongis and her co-workers [1982] were critics of the life event approach, because various problems outlined.

They felt that the life event research studies had found at best a very weak correlation between life events and illness.

An alternative would be to focus on the ongoing stresses and strains of daily living, what we call “hassles”.

In reality according to DeLongis el al, it is these more than anything that determine the extent to which a person feels stressed”.

                 DeLongis [1982] investigated the relationship between hassles and physical health, as well as uplifts and physical health. They did find a better correlation than that for the life events and health.