Jacobs and Charles agreed with the system set out by Holmes’ and Rahe’ however they adapted the system to apply to family stress. They found that families with a higher life change rating had children who were more likely to develop cancer compared to a controlled group being treated for non – cancerous illnesses. This study supports Holmes’ and Rahe’ in the fact that it agrees with the fact that stressful situations lead to life threatening illnesses.
Rahe’ also agreed with the fact that stress in life events was correlated and or associated with illness. Rahe set out an investigation of 2500 male US naval personnel over a period of 6 months. Rahe set out a questionnaire based on the SRRS study by Holmes’ and Rahe. It included 43 life events that disrupt normal routines and require social adjustment. Each event had a number corresponding with how stressful that situation is. Each participant was asked to indicate how many of the life events they had experienced. A correlational analysis was carried out to examine the link between the number of points they received on the test and the occurrence of illness. Rahe found that there was a positive correlation between the two variables but the strength of the relationship was weak. This correlation of +0.118 is fairly small however in a sample of 2500 it is a significant correlation. This study has high population validity because of the number of participants used in the study. It also has a high ecological validity because the US naval personnel were studied in their everyday life. However this study can be seen as being culture biased because the only participants used for the experiment were US Naval personnel.
Michael and Ben-Zur suggest that there is an element missing from the Holmes and Rahe scale. Michael and Ben-Zur carried out a study in which 130 participants with roughly half female and half male participants. Half of the group of participants had recently been widowed and half had recently divorced. Michael and Ben-Zur found that widowed individuals scored higher on life satisfaction before than after the loss, while divorced individuals showed an opposite pattern after divorce.
This contradicts the Holmes and Rahe study because it states that life events may not be stressful on an individual. The Holmes and Rahe study doesn’t take into account if the life events are positive or negative.
Daily Hassles are relatively minor events that arise in the course of a normal day. These daily hassles can be routine or unexpected incidents but the emotional effects usually disappear after a short time.
Lazarus believed that daily stressors affect well being by accumulating over a series of days. These create persistent irritation and overloads resulting in a more serious stress reaction. Lazarus suggests that frequency and the type of daily hassles experienced provide a better explanation for psychological health compared to major life events.
Glass studied 6 undergraduates as they completed various cognitive tasks in one of five conditions: loud of soft noise was either random or played at fixed intervals. The stress on the individual was measure using the galvanic skin response. Each participant was then asked to complete four puzzles, two of which couldn’t be solved in order to provoke frustration. Participants in the predictable noise situation showed less stress than those who experienced the random noise. This shows that unpredictable stressors have the most effect on an individual. The fact we have to apply constant attention in a random situation means our ability to cope with stress is reduced. This study shows that small and unpredictable events cause the most stress in an individual agreeing with the daily hassles theory of prolonged constant episodes of stress leading to more serious stress reaction. This study is a laboratory study meaning it has low levels of ecological validity also the fact that it is sample biased because all the participants were student’s leads to the fact that we can not generalise from these findings.
There are methodological problems with many of the studies into daily hassles because the data from the studies in largely correlational meaning causal links between illness and daily hassles can not be determined for definite. Also the fact that participants are often asked to recall their own hassles from pervious months mean that the results are not likely to be reliable because the event can be perceived differently after the situation.
Research into life events and daily hassles and illness has not found a huge correlation between them, but the incidence has been significant enough for psychologists and doctors to take the issues seriously and see it as a significant risk to individuals. It is clear that in general sense, the day to day events and major negative events are likely to have a detrimental effect on an individuals health because of a stressor.
