Stress can be explained as the stimulus in the environment that triggers a stress response. Psychologists call anything that causes someone to act stressed a stressor

BRADY et al (1958) – Stress & the Development of Ulcers (Executive Monkey)

Aim –Whether stress of receiving electric shocks leads to stress-related illness in monkeys & if it would interact with degree of control.

Procedures – Monkeys received electric shocks to their feet at 20second interval for 6hours & 6hours rest in between. Monkeys were in pairs, 1-excutive monkey (press leaver to postpone shocks). Other monkey received all shocks (yoked animal)

Findings – Not all shocks could be avoided. After 23days ‘executive’ monkey began to die of gastric ulceration. Monkey who couldn’t avoid shocks remained healthy.

Conclusion – The shocks themselves weren’t stressful, the critical factor was the stress from trying to avoid shocks.

Criticism – Monkeys were used, so can’t generalize to humans, monkeys have different physiology & behave differently to humans.

Brady chose more active monkeys as bar-pressers, so this could have made them more sensitive to stress. Experiment poorly controlled, both experiment should be equal. Unethical – monkeys were dieing.

Commentary

The ethics is big issue in these studies. Experiment wouldn’t be allowed today due to cruelty to animals. Cannot generalise results to humans.

The same Immune System Suppression happens in Humans

KIECOLT-GLASER et al (1995) – Stress & the Immune System

Aim – Stress of important examination has effect on functioning of immune system

Procedure – Natural experiment, 75 medical students.

Blood samples taken: month before exam (low stress) & during exam (high stress).

Immune function assessed by measuring NK cell activity in blood sample.

Students given questionnaires to check life stress.

Findings – NK cell activity significantly reduced in second blood sample, taken during finial exams, compared with first sample taken month before.

NK cell activity was most reduced in participants who reported high levels of life events.

Conclusion – Exam stress reduces immune function, potentially leaving students ill.

Immune function is also affected by psychological variable such as stress of life events.

Criticism – Correctional study, so a strong conclusion about cause & effect relationship cannot be drawn.

Natural experiment using natural sources of stress & therefore has reasonable ecological validity

Commentary

SWEENEY (1995) found people caring for relatives with dementia also took longer than a control group to heal their wounds. However, for both studies the 2 groups may have varied in other ways apart from the stress of being a carer.

Sources Of Stress

Life Changes are a Source of Stress

We experience major life events, (death, marriage, moving house etc). These can be very stressful. When psychologists want to find out how stress people are, they look at their health, because it’s probably linked to stress.

HOLMES & RAHE Studied Whether the Stress of Life Changes was linked to Illness

5000 hospital patients’ records were studied & any major life events that had occurred before the person become ill were noted. It was found that patients were likely to have experienced life changes prior to becoming ill & that more serious life changes seemed to be more linked to stress & illness.

…They Ranked Life Events on the Social Re-Adjustment Rating Scale (SRRS)

1. HOLMES & RAHE (1967), list of 43 common life events & asked people to give a score for each one on how stressful it was. They called the numbers that made up each score the Life Changes Unit (LCU).
2. They then ranked the events, called Social Re-Adjustment Rating Scale (SRRS). Death of spouse ranked 1st.
3. They then conducted a study, to see if people who’d experienced more stressful events were likely to become ill.

RAHE et al (1970) – Life Changes & Stress

Aim – Whether scores on SRRS were correlated with subsequent onset of illness.

Procedures – 2,500 American sailors’s given SRRS to assess how many life events they had experienced in previous 6months. Total score on SRRS recorded for each participant. Following 6months records kept of each sailor health.

Findings – Positive correlation of +0.118 between Life Changes scores & illness scores. Although correlation was small, it indicates there was a meaningful relationship between LCU & health.

As LCU increased so did frequency of illness.

Conclusion – LCU positively correlated (related) with illness scores, experiencing life events increased chances of stress-related health breakdown. Life events can’t be only factor.

Criticism – Study doesn’t take reaction of individual differences to stress into account. Sample restricted to male US Navy personnel, therefore it was ethnocentric (Americans only) & andocentric (males only). Hard to generalize to population.

There are some Issues with the SRRS

1. Link between SRRS & Illness depends on the accuracy of recall.
2. The SRRS doesn’t separate positive & negative life events. Stress & Illness may be linked to negative life changes.
3. Long-term, minor sources of stress have not been considered (hassle at work).

Stress in the Workplace comes from 5 Key Areas

1. Relationships at work
2. Work Pressure
3. The Physical Environment – (very noisy, overcrowded etc)
4. Stresses linked to our role – (worrying about job security/prospects for promotion)
5. Lack of control – (influence over the type & amount of work)

MARMOT et al (1997) – Lack of Control & Illness in the Workplace

• 7000+ civil services employee, working in London were surveyed. Information about their grades of employment, how much control they felt they had, how much support they felt they had etc. Was obtained.
• When the medical histories of employees were followed up 5years late, those on lower employment grades who felt less control over their work (& less social support) were found to be more likely to have cardiovascular disorder.
• Believing that you have little control over your work seems to be an important influence on work stress & the development of illness.

Commentary

Marmot only looked at ‘white collar’ work (i.e. office-type jobs), so their results may not apply to other kinds of work. Smoking was common to those who developed illness.

So those who felt less control over there work may have smoked which may have caused heart problems rather than stress.

JOHANSSON et al (1978) – Stress In the Workplace

Aim – Whether work stressor such as repetitiveness, machine-regulated pace of work & high levels of responsibility increases stress-related physiological arousal & stress-related illness.

Procedures – High risk group of 14finishers in Swedish sawmill. Their work was machine-paced, isolated, very repetitive, productivity determined wage rate of entire factory. They were compared with low-risk 10clearners who were self-paced etc.

Stress-related hormones in urine were measured on work days & rest days.

Findings – 14fishers secreted more stress hormones (adrenaline & noradrenaline) on work days then rest days. They also showed high levels of stress-related illness (such as headaches) then cleaners.  

Conclusion – Work stressors – especially repetitiveness, machine-pacing, high responsibility, lead to chronic (long-term) physiological arousal. This leads to stress-related illness.

Criticism – Individual differences are not controlled, (some people may be vulnerable to stress (Type A are attracted to high-risk demanding jobs)).

Stress – Individual Differences

Different Personalities Can Lean to Different Stress Levels

Type A – Competitive & Ambitious

Type X – In between

Type B – Non-Competitive, Relaxed, Easy going.

FRIEDMAN & ROSENMAN (1974) – ‘Type A’ Personality & Illness

Aim – Links between Type A behaviour & Cardiovascular (heart) disease 

Procedures – 3,200 California men, 39-59years, categorized as either Type A, Type X or Type B. Followed up for 8½ years to assess their lifestyle & health outcomes.

Findings – By end of study, 257 men developed coronary heat disease (CHD), 70% - Type A 

Conclusion – Type A behaviour pattern increases vulnerability to heart disease.

Behaviour modification programmes can reduce Type A risk of heart disease.

Criticism – Other factors such as hardiness could cause problem. Not an experimental study so cause & effect cannot be assumed; other studies failed to show relationship between Type A & heart disease:

SHEKELLE et al (1985), found no relationship between ‘Type A’ behaviour & heart disease, from a 7year study involving 12,000 men.

Commentary

Only 2 personality types (to simplistic). Later research identified ‘Type C’ (mild-mannered, easy going, may react to stressful situations), this people have higher risk of cancer.

‘Type D’ – very negative/pessimistic people who worry too much, these people have higher risk of heart attack.

This research doesn’t prove that personality characteristics can cause stress & illness. It could be the other way round.

Stress can be Related to Culture

Culture is a really vague term that is used to group people by beliefs, behaviour, morals or customs they share. Cultures have a big impact on how people live & how others react to them.

Biological Studies – COOPER et al (1999) suggested that the higher the level of cardiovascular disorder that is found in African-Americans could be due to genes, more commonly found in this group, which contributes to high blood pressure.

They also found high blood pressure in Africans which lived in urbanised countries (America) than those in rural areas (Nigeria). This suggests a Social Influence.

Social Studies – higher stress & blood pressure might be found in people in urban areas because of factors like overcrowding, pollution & high unemployment. However, ADAMS-CAMPBELL et al (1993) found African-American women had high blood pressure than white women who were of the same social-economic group (e.g. same lifestyle, money etc).

Cognitive Studies – African-Americans may experience more prejudice which may lead to more negative thoughts & beliefs (‘cognition’). They encounter more difficulties & threats which may lead to more stress & so more illness.

Commentary

Biological, Social & Cognitive influence links between culture, stress & illness. It’s difficult to identify the exact influence, because we cannot control experiments involving genetics/prejudice due to ethic issues. Cardiovascular disorder may be due to number of factors rather then just one.

Stress Can Also be related to Gender

Psychologists believe that men & women respond to stress in different ways. They have looked at biological, social, cognitive differences between males & females influence their response to stress.

Biological Explanation – males & females may have evolved different physiological response to stress due to their roles during early evolution of humans. To adapt at their role of ‘hunter-gatherers’, males might have evolved a stronger ‘fight or flight’ response than women, who had the roles of child-carers.

TAYLOR et al (2000) claim, women’s hormones produce a calmer response to stress & make it more likely that they seek social support to help them cope. However, social factors may explain gender differences in coping methods.

Social Explanation – all cultures have developed stereotyped social roles for men & women, relating to what beliefs, behaviours & occupations they ‘should’ have. A western stereotype has been that men are less open about their feelings. So, they may be less open about feeling stressed & more likely to use harmful coping methods like drinking & smoking.

• CARROLL (1992) found that women do generally make more use of social support to deal with stress. This may explain why women have lower risk of CHD. However, Carroll found that there has been an increase in CHD in women, which could suggest changing stereotypes, as more women drink & smoke.

Cognitive Explanation – males & females may differ in how they interpret stressful situation & think about ways of reacting. For example: VOGELE et al (1997) claim, women are better able to control anger & therefore respond more calmly to stressful situations. Men feel that anger is an acceptable way to respond, & feel stress if they can’t show it.

Commentary

It’s dangerous to make sweeping generalisations about all men & women responding to stress in particular ways. Someone’s response to stress will also be affected by other stuff, like their culture, their personality & their individual coping methods.

Stress Management

Physiological Methods of Stress Management use Drugs & Biofeedback

Both drug therapy & biofeedback help people copy with stress by changing the way their body responds to it.

Drug Therapy – the drug used work in two ways

1. They slow down the activity of the central nervous system (CNS).

      Anti-anxiety drugs called benzodiazepines (BZs) help the body react to its own natural anxiety   relieving chemical GABA (gamma-amino-butyric acid), which slows down the activity of neurones & makes us feel relaxed.

2. They reduce the activity of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS).

      The SNS increases heart rate, blood pressure & levels of the hormone cortisol. High levels of cortisol can make our immune system weak & also cause heart disease. The group of drug called beta-blockers reduce all these unpleasant symptoms.

Biofeedback – the person learns to relax

Biofeedback – The person learns how to control symptoms of stress so that they feel relaxed in real-life stressful situations. There are 4 steps involved:

1. The person is attached to a machine that monitors & gives feedback on heart rate or blood pressure.
2. The person learns to control stress by taking deep breathes which slow down heart rate (relaxed)
3. Relaxation acts like a reward & encourages the person to repeat this as an involuntary activity.
4. The person learns to use this in real-life situations.

Strengths & Weaknesses of Physiological Methods

• Both drugs & biofeedback are effective:

Drugs are quick & effective in reducing dangerous symptoms such as high blood pressure.

KAHN et al (1986) found that BZs were superior to a placebo (sugar pill) when they tracked 250 patients over an 8-week period.

ATTANASIO et al (1985) found that biofeedback helped teenagers & children with stress related disorders to gain control over the symptoms of migraine headaches.

They also showed an increase in enthusiasm & more positive attitude.

• Both treat symptoms rather than the underlying causes of stress:

Drugs only help symptoms & only if there taken. Biofeedback also aims to reduce symptoms, but using relaxation techniques can, give the person a sense of control & have more long lasting benefits.

• Drugs have side effects, biofeedback doesn’t:

Drugs have minor side effects. Withdrawal symptoms, such as increased anxiety, seizures, tremors & headaches, when people come off medication can be distressing. BZs can be addictive & are generally limited to a maximum of 4 weeks’ use. There are no side effects of biofeedback, just relaxation. This method’s advantage is that it is voluntary & not invasive. 

• Drugs are easier to use than biofeedback:

Drugs are relatively easy to prescribe & use. Biofeedback needs specialist equipment & expert supervision.

Psychological Methods (Learning to Think Differently)

Psychological approach helps by thinking differently about a stressful situation. This process is effective as it helps with the source of the stress rather than just the symptoms.

MEICHENBAUM’S Stress Inoculation Technique (SIT):

This works like immunization. Just like you might be inoculated against any attack from disease, you can protect yourself from harmful effects of stress. Training involves preparation so that you can deal with stress before it becomes a problem. 3 steps are involved:

1. Conceptualization: Identify fears & concerns with therapist’s help.
2. Skill acquisition & rehearsal – Train to develop skills like positive thinking & relaxation in order to improve self confidence.
3. Application & follow-through – Practice newly acquired skill in real life situation with support & back up from therapist.

MEICHENBAUM (1977) found that SIT works both with short-term & long-term stressors.

Increasing Hardiness:

KOBASA suggests that a strong & hardy person shows 3 Cs:

Control, Commitment & Challenge

MADDI introduced a training program to increase hardiness (toughness), arguing that the more hardy the person, the better they cope with stress.

This training has 3 steps:

1. Focusing: Learn to recognize physical symptoms of stress, (e.g. increase in heart rate etc).
2. Reliving stressful encounters: Learn to analyses stressful situations to better understand possible coping strategies.
3. Self improvement: Take on challenges that can be coped with & build confidence, thereby gaining a greater sense of control.

MADDI (1998) got 54 managers who went on a hardiness training program to report back on their progress.

They recorded an increase in hardiness & job satisfaction & decrease in strain & illness.

There are some weaknesses with psychological methods:

1. Only suit some very determined individuals.
2. Research based on white middle class business folks (population validity).
3. Procedures are very lengthy & require considerable commitment of time & effort.
4. Concepts may be too complex.

The Role of Control in Stress

How We View Stress is More Important than Stress Itself

The transactional model of stress suggests that people differ in how they view a stressful situation. For example, 1person being made redundant at work might feel devastated, while another might feel positive about the opportunities it opens up.

LAZARUS (1966) believed that our perception of the ‘stressor’ is more important than the stressor itself.

Control over How we View Stressors Affects How Stressed we Get

There are 6 studies to learn about how a lack of control can either cause or enhance stress:

1. SELIGMAN (1974) – 2groups of dogs were given electric shocks. 1group could press a lever to stop the shock, the other group couldn’t. Both group received the same amount of shocks, but when later given the chance to escape, the dogs with no previous control didn’t even try. This is known as learned helplessness. Seligman believed that human depression can also be explained in terms of learned helplessness.

2. ROTTER (1966) believed that the perceived locus of control affects how stressed people get. People can be described as 1 of 2 types:

• Externalisers – They believed good things happen due to luck & bad things are someone else’s fault. These people are likely to become anxious as they have no control.
• Internalisers – This type of person takes personal responsibility for both good & bad events in life. These people have control & can cope with stress well.

3. SULS & MULLEN (1981) found illness was associated with uncontrollable life events than with controllable events.

4. MARMOT (1997) – found, people in jobs with less responsibility showed high risk of cardiovascular disease. These people have low job control.

5. SCHAUBROECK (2001) – found, employees who believed they are responsible for things going wrong at work were more stressed. This suggests greater control isn’t always better for some.

6. GLASS & SINGER (1972) – investigated the illusion of control

• Investigate whether illness of control can reduce stress.
• Participants were deceived into believing they could control a loud noise by pressing a button. There stress response, compared to another group who had no control. There arousal level was measured using the galvanic skin response (GSR), this measures sweating.
• The experimental group showed less stress response (lower arousal) than control group.
• If people think they are in control (even when they’re not), they are less likely to get stressed.

Information & Cognitive Control Are Useful Together

Information Control – having some knowledge on nature of stress.

Cognitive Control – Control over stress through relaxation.

Langer et al investigated the effectiveness of these two methods of control.

LANGER et al (1975) – Studied the Types of Control

• Compare 3groups, who were undergoing non-emergency surgeries, investigating, effectiveness of information & cognitive control.
• 1group was given information control (informed about treatment & effect on them, following days). 2nd group was given cognitive control (they were prepared to think positively). 3rd group was not prepared in any way. This served as the comparison group.
• The 1st two groups coped far better than the comparison group.
• Both informational & cognitive control increase people’s ability to cope with stress. For maximum benefit, there is no reason why they should not be used together.

Stress Management Techniques Use Cognitive Control

Stress management techniques aim to increase cognitive control & minimise the negative effects of stress. A simple method is to say things to yourself that will help you cope with stressful situations.