Psychology B1 - stress Flashcards
life events and daily hassles, workplace, personality
role of life events in stress
-main sources of stress = important events that happen time to time - marriage, funerals.
-have to make psychological adjustments to cope with stressful situation.
-bigger event - more to adjust - more stress.
-can cumulate (add up).
-two life events occur together, bigger adjustments to make.
measuring life events
Holmes and Rahe (1967)
-Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) - measures life events.
-list of 43 life events, given Life Changing Units (LCUs) - amount of adjustment needed.
-level of stress calculated by adding up LCUs for events.
life events and ill health
Rahe (1972)
-SRRS, find if ill health is associated with life events
-gather LCU score from over 6-12 months
-Rahe (1972), scoring under 150 LCU = 30% probability of experiencing stress related illness
-150-299 LCUs= 50%
over 300 LCUs = 80%
role of daily hassles in stress
-minor irritations and fustrations.
-happen often, effects cumulate.
-stressful due to belief that we can’t cope.
measuring daily hassles
Kanner et al. (1981) - hassles scale
-developed hassles scale
-117 daily hassles, select hassles experienced and severity (1 to 3), add up to get their total.
measuring daily hassles
Kanner et al. (1981) - uplifts scale
-produced uplifts scale.
-uplifts = small daily ‘boosts’, counteract stress of hassles.
daily hassles and ill health
-threaten our health if we experience so many hassles
-ill- links with life events, they both disrupt our normal daily routines
-life event = indirect source, creates more hassles
-hassles = direct source
practical uses
(evaluation)
+
-measured with self-report methods
-SRRS + hassles scale = questionnaires, theyre direct and assess themselves
-encourages openness and honesty
-measurements = valid
support for effectiveness
(evaluation)
+
-supported by studies
-Lietzen et al. (2011), people experiencing asthma had more stress
-Ivancevich (1986), compared sources of stress, hassles = stronger predictors of poor health
-life events + hassles = sources of stress
retrospective research
(evaluation)
-
-involve retrospective recall
-pps complete checklists, recall sources of stress
-memory isn’t always accurate
-life events are rare which makes them hard to recall
-hassles are common and minor which means they could be forgotten
-not accurately reflecting impacts on health
workplace stress
HSE
-HSE = health and safety executive
-595 000 workers experienced stress, depression or anxiety
-15.4 million working days lost
-57% of days lost due to ill health
three factors in the workplace that impact stress
- role conflict
- work environment
- level of control
- role conflict
-intra - when workplace puts competing demands on employee
-inter - person has two roles with competing demands – in workplace and out of workplace
- work environment
-temperature - if workplace = too hot or cold, can affect stress levels
-noise - uncontrollable, too loud, can affect stress levels
- level of control
-control link with stress - no control, negative consequences on health
aims
Johansson et al (1978)
-to investigate the relationships between levels of work stress and productivity on workers in a factory
procedure
Johansson et al (1978)
-natural experiment
-independent group design
-1st group = skilled workers, rate they work at is their wage
-2nd group = maintenance, flexible shifts
-take a daily urine sample, body temp measured and caffeine/ nicotine consumption noted
-self rating scales and examined records of illness/absence
findings
Johansson et al (1978)
-high-risk group - 1st sample = x2 adrenaline and increased levels on work days due to them being rushed/irritated
-overall wellbeing was lower
-low-risk group = urine samples- x1.5 adrenaline
conclusions
Johansson et al (1978)
-experienced stress due to:
1. responsible for pay
2. repetitive and monotonous work
3. machine paced work (low control)
4. work in isolation
strengths
Johansson et al (1978)
+
-useful – helped factories implement ideas to reduce stress
-valid – what was meant to be measured was studied, positive consequences
-ecological validity – real workers in work environment
weaknesses
Johansson et al (1978)
-
-correlation – no cause and effect could be determined, study was just a mere correlation
-cultural/gender bias – carried out on Swedish men, results could be affected by culture and gender - isn’t highly generalisable
personality and stress
-personality is linked with their ability to cope with stress
-identified as a key indicator in how we respond to stress
-not everyone responds to stress in the same way
Friedman and Rosenman
(1959)
-three important personality types
1. TYPE A- highly competitive, ambitious, impatient and aggressive
2. TYPE B- relaxed, laid back, lack sense of urgency
3. TYPE C - conventional, industrious, react to stress with helplessness
Friedman and Rosenman: study
-possible causes of coronary disease (CHD)
-9 year study, 3000 men aged 35-59, speculated, patterns of behaviour carried higher risk
-category - TYPE A, B, AB
-conclusion - TYPE A = concerned with status + achievement, workaholics, higher risk of CHD
TYPE B = higher levels of satisfaction, patient and even-tempered
-70% of men developed CHD, assessed as TYPE As
