stress Flashcards
SAM
Sympathetic branch of the ANS sends out nerve impulses. Stimulates the adrenal medulla to release adrenalin and noradrenalin. Both these substances cause an increase in the activity of the sympathetic ANS: Increase heart rate, Increase blood pressure, Increase in breathing rate, Increase in muscle tension and Diversion of blood to the muscles (fight or flight).
HPA
Stimulates the anterior pituitary gland which releases ACTH (adrenocorticotropic hormone). Stimulates adrenal cortex to release the group of hormones called cortisol. These hormones cause an increase in energy level by: Increase in breakdown of fats to sugar, Increase in blood flow, Lower sensitivity to pain, But they suppress the action of the immune system.
What happens when the stressor has gone?
The parasympathetic nervous system will activate to attempt to restore balance to the body. This will reduce the fight or flight response. Heart rate, breathing rate, blood pressure will reduce.
General Adaption Syndrome
Used to describe the body’s short-term and long-term reactions to stress and how disease is caused by chronic exposure to stress. 3 stages; alarm, resistance and exhaustion.
Seyle’s definition of stress
The non-specific response of the body to any demand. It is a generalised reaction. This means that the bodily response is the same regardless of the source of stress (e.g. an exam or being chased by a tiger!). A stressor is any demand that initiates the stress response in the body.
ALARM STAGE
The threat or stressor is recognised & a response is made. The brain will trigger production of adrenaline & noradrenaline so the body can prepare itself for the fight or flight response.
What are the key features of such a response?
Increase heart rate, Increase blood pressure. Increase in breathing rate, Increase in muscle tension, Diversion of blood to the muscles.
RESISTANCE STAGE
If the stressor continues, the body has to find a way to cope (i.e. adapt to the stressful environment). Physiological activity is greater than normal so this stage uses a lot of energy & resources (e.g. stress hormones). So the body attempts to stabilise the physiological changes that have occurred, restore lost energy and repair any damage. The parasympathetic ANS will be activated in an attempt reduce heart rate, rebuild stores of sugar etc. If stressor goes, body will return to normal.
EXHAUSTION STAGE
If stress cannot be overcome, the body can no longer function normally. The initial symptoms of the adrenaline response may reappear (e.g. raised heart rate). The adrenal glands may be damaged due to over-activity & the immune system may be suppressed. Continued stress may lead to diseases of adaptation; Stomach ulcers, hypertension, heart disease, depression, colds and coughs.
Strength of the GAS
Supporting evidence. Seyle subjected rats to different stressors such as extreme cold & excessive exercise. The same collection of responses occurred (a syndrome) regardless of the stressor. This shows a general response to any stressor = General Adaption Syndrome. Damage to the body usually occurred 6-48 hours later Seyle could then track the response to a continuing stressor through the resistance & exhaustion stages. Thus supporting the 3 stages proposed.
Weakness of the GAS
The GAS proposes that bodily resources (e.g. stress hormones) become depleted so that the body can no longer fight infection. However, we now know that these resources do not run out! The exhaustion stage actually increases hormones such a cortisol and it is this increase which is linked to stress related illness. Therefore more recent research contradicts GAS.
This theory is based on biological fact, why is this a strength? (GAS & SAM/HPA)
Biological explanations of behaviour are based on biological fact. This means the biological basis of the stress response can be tested under controlled conditions. In addition it is replicable, Therefore the biological theory is falsifiable.
However how can reductionism and determinism be applied to this theory? (GAS & SAM/HPA)
Deterministic. Suggests all behaviour is determined by biological responses & there will be no free will in our reactions. This suggests that everyone will have no choice but to react in the same way (fight or flight / going through the stages of alarm, resistance & exhaustion). The theory is therefore an example of hard biological determinism.
However how can reductionism and determinism be applied to this theory? (GAS & SAM/HPA)
Biological explanations of behaviour are reductionist. Reduces all stress behaviours down to biological processes. There is further reduction to specific components e.g. precise level of a hormone. Ignores all other factors (cognitive, environmental) so is too simplistic.
Emotion focused: coping with stressed.
Dealing with stress by tackling the symptoms eg the anxiety that accompanies stress. This could be done by keeping busy which is a distraction. Or thinking about the stressor in a more positive manner.
Emotion = women
Problem focused: coping style with stress.
Dealing with stress by tackling the cause in a direct & practical way. This could include taking control of the situation.
Problem = men
Research into gender differences in coping with stress
Peterson et al (2006). Studied over 1000 men & women seeking fertility treatment at a hospital. Ps completed several questionnaires including the ‘Ways of coping questionnaire’.
Findings: There were gender differences in coping. Women were more likely to accept blame & use various avoidance tactics (emotion-focussed approach). Men used more problem-solving including planning solutions (problem-focussed approach).
One reason why men & women seem to cope with stress differently is because they may actually have different stressors? What might these different stressors be?
Matud (2004): Studied almost 3000 Spanish men & women aged 18-65. Men listed relationships, finance & work-related events as most stressful (could be dealt with in a problem-focussed way). Women listed family & health related events as most stressful (often had to be dealt with in an emotion-focussed way). Therefore men & women appear to cope differently with stress but that could be because they are coping with different stressors in the first place!
Are emotion-focused & problem-focused strategies actually different?
Seeking social support could be seen as either emotion or problem-focussed or both! The emotional support that it provides is emotion-focused but if used to seek information this could be seen as problem-focused. If we have problems defining the types of strategy, how can we conclude that men & women use different strategies? In fact both genders are likely to use both methods depending on the type of stressor.
Most stress studies rely on self report methods. What possible methodological issues may occur?
Women may be more willing to reveal the emotional side of coping, whereas men play down their emotional difficulties. Therefore there may be no gender difference in coping styles but there is a difference in willingness to reveal a ‘softer’ side. This may be due to social desirability bias. In addition much research is based on retrospective recall of past events. This is likely to be unreliable & biased depending on how stressed the person is feeling. The more stressed = the more negative the recall.
Research has shown that there may be more than 2 coping strategies. What might be a third coping strategy?
The finding that men are more problem- focused & women more emotion-focused is not supported in recent studies. One study assessed male & female undergraduates over an 8 week period & found no gender differences in coping. This might be due to the simplistic division of coping strategies. Subsequent research has shown that there are more than 2 coping styles, Eg a 3rd strategy has been identified – avoidance-orientated coping.
Life changes
These are significant changes in a person’s life that disrupt normal routines. Include both positive and negative events. Life changes are a source of stress because you have to make a significant psychological adjustment to adapt to the changed circumstances. The bigger the change, the greater the adjustment and the associated stress. Effects are cumulative – they add together to create more stress.
Holmes and Rahe (1967)
Developed a standard measurement tool to measure life changes as causes of stress.
Called the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS).
Key study
Life changes - procedure
Reviewed medical records of 5000 people. Found onset of illness often preceded by life events. Selected 43 of these life events asked 394 people to rate degree of social readjustment for each one. From this they developed the social readjustment rating scale (SRRS). Each event is ranked and assigned a number of life change units (LCU’s) to signify the degree of readjustment needed. People are asked to tick which events occurred in a 1-2 year period. Totalled score and used as an index. People with higher scores suffered more stress related illness. Complete the LCU score for yourself over the last 12 months. Score of 150+ increased chances of stress related illness by 30%. Score of 300+ increased chance by 50%. Ps were asked to tick which events occurred in a 1 or 2 year period. The score was added up to give them a total score to represent how stressful their life was Holmes and Rahe then looked back at previous illnesses the P had experienced (retrospective) and observed illness in the following few months (prospective).
key study life changes - findings.
People with higher scores on SRRS suffered more stress related illness = Positive correlation between the two. Score of more than 150 increased chances of stress illness by 30%. More than 300 increases by 50%. It was concluded that the social readjustment from life changes is a source of stress and therefore leads to stress related illness.
Daily Hassles
Daily Hassles are the minor but frequent aggravations and annoyances of everyday life that combine to cause us stress. It has been argued that these could give a better understanding of how stress can make us ill than Life changes.
key study daily hassles - procedure
Kanner (1981) developed a scale of 117 events that annoy people daily, 100 middle class adults had to complete the hassles scale for 9 months. They also completed a life changes scale twice (before the study began and after the study finished). Finally the participants completed a scale to measure the psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression.
key study daily hassles - findings
Found significant positive correlations between hassle frequency and psychological symptoms for both men and women. The more hassles they experienced, the more severe their psychological symptoms were.
Conclusion: They also found that Hassles were a better predictor of psychological problems, than the Life changes scores.
Supporting evidence - srrs
Many studies have found a link between the SRRS and illness e.g Rahe (1970), 2500 male sailors given SRRS to measure life changes experienced in the last 6 months. For the following 6 months they kept records of their health. The LCU score was correlated with illness, Small but significant positive correlation +0.118. However as its only a small correlation it suggests stress only plays a small part in causing illness.
Evaluation of using the SRRS & daily hassles.
quick and easy to use, therefore should be able to obtain a large sample size. This means results should be generalisable.
However, issues with social desirability bias for example people may not want to admit to ‘sexual dysfunction’. Therefore there could be issues with internal validity.
Cause and effect - SRRS & dialy hassles.
Research is correlational
SRRS -
It cannot be claimed that the stress of life changes causes illness. It is possible that some other variable (for example, having less money) could cause this relationship. Also some of the life change events may result from illness rather than causing the illness in the first place e.g. changes in eating and sleeping habits, sexual difficulties and increased trouble with a boss or family members could all be the result of illness. Therefore cause and effect cannot be inferred.
Daily Hassles
A final problem with the Daily hassles scale being linked to illness is that research is correlational. This means that we cannot infer cause & effect as it cannot be claimed that the stress of daily hassles causes illness (as the research suggests). Instead it may be that being ill magnifies the effect of hassles which at other times may be insignificant. Therefore the direction of causality between stress & illness is not clear.
individual differences - SRRS & Daily hassles.
SRRS - Ps just tick off events they have experienced, this gives no indication of their perception of the event. An event may be more/less stressful for an individual depending on their circumstances E.g. pregnancy gets a score of 40 regardless of circumstances. Also does not take into account personality. E.g. Type A and hardiness have both been linked to perception of stress.
DAILY HASSLES - A problem with using the Daily hassles scale is that Individuals may perceive hassles differently; so what may be a hassle to one person may not be to another. One psychologist attempted to overcome this issue by revising the scale allowing people to rate each hassle on 4-point scale. This allows the individual’s perception of stress surrounding the event to be considered. It was found that Ps with higher scores had more symptoms of stress (flu, sore throat, headaches). Thus, supporting the role of daily hassles in illness, even when individual differences are taken into account.
Retrospective data - SRRS & Daily hassles
SRRS - You are asked to recall past events and illness over the last 1-2 years. SO forgetting may occur. Supporting this issue, Rahe investigated the test-retest reliability of the SRRS and found that scores vary depending on the time interval between testing. Also, ill people remember more negative events. Therefore there may be memory recall biases.
DAILY HASSLES - A problem with the use of the Daily hassles scale is that it relies on retrospective data which may lead to an inaccurate recall of events. Research has suggested that a person’s current state of mind affects their memory of past events. E.g. if they are feeling low then they are likely to recall more negative than positive events that have happened. However, some researchers have overcome this by using a diary method to rate hassles on a daily basis. Therefore using the diary method may increase accuracy of recall & validity of daily hassle scores.