(Unit 3) Stress Flashcards
Holmes and Rahe (1967)
Created an SRRS (Questionnaire to measure life events and stress) which included 43 different life events, all given numbers based on how stressful they were deemed-the resulting figure when all were tallied up would be a persons life change unit.
A person with less than a 150 LCU had a 30 percent chance of suffering from stress, while a score of over 300 meant you had an 80 chance of developing a stress related illness.
SRRS
Social Readjustment Rating Scale (Questionnaire to measure life events and stress)
Rahe et al (1970) aims
To investigate whether the onset of illness correlates with the SRRS scores.
Rahe et al (1970) procedure
Navy soldiers were given the SRRS to complete prior to a tour that would last 6-8 months. They had to tick how many of those life events they had experienced in the previous six months and a score was given.
Any illness over the next 6 months was recorded.
Rahe et al (1970) findings
Small positive correlation between the life change score and illness, meaning the higher the number of life events the greater your chance of developing a stress related illness.
Life Change Unit
Refers to the number of points awarded on an item on the SRRS
Stress
A state which occurs when the perceived demands of a situation exceed the perceived ability to cope.
Daily hassles
Minor events from everyday life such as misplacing your shoes or missing the train to work
Kanner et al (1981) aim
To compare the hassles and uplife scale with the SRRS as predictors of psychological symptoms of stress, such as ill health
Hassles scale
Consists of 117 hassles, including losing things, pollution and concerns about owing money. Participants are asked to circle which items had happened to them in the previous month, and once completed they rate on a three point scale the severity of these occurences.
Uplifts scale
Consists of 135 items, including being lucky, getting a present and making friends. Participants are asked to circle which items had happened to them in the previous month, and once completed they rate on a three point scale the frequency of these occurrences.
Kanner et al (1981) procedure
100 participants with a relatively split gender ratio aged 45-64 who participated in a twelve month study on stress, coping and emotions. They were white, generally well educated, on an adequate income and were from california. The study used the Hassles scale and the Uplifts scale.
Tests were sent to each participant one month before the study began, after which they would have an interview.
Kanner et al (1981) findings
The hassles and uplifts scores were generally consistent from month to month. They found that men’s events were positively correlated with hassles (the more events, the more hassles) and negatively correlated for uplifts (the more events, the fewer uplifts. For women life events positively correlated with both hassles and uplifts. Finally, hassles were a significantly better predictor of psychological symptoms, for example stress from life events.
Kanner et al (1981) strengths
Self report questionnaires and scales are often standardised which makes the replication with other samples possible
Lots of qualitative and quantitative data can be gathered about stress and its influences from participants in order to analyse patterns of what is influencing stress in society.
Kanner et al (1981) weaknesses
Social desirability bias may occur when you ask participants to report on their stress and daily lives. For example, they could be embarrassed which could cause the results to be biased.
People may rush the questionnaires.
Johannsson et al (1988) aim
To examine the psychological and physiological stress response of employees in a Swedish saw mill
Johannsson et al (1988) procedure
The sample was made up of two groups. The high risk group, which was made up of 14 sawyers, edgermen and graders, while the control group was made up of repair men, maintenance workers, and so on. All of the workers were on performance related pay and worked shift work.
All participants provided a urine sample in addition to rating themselves on mood and wakefulness by selecting words like sleepiness, irritation, and so on. (Scale from none at all to maximum)
Johannsson et al (1988) Findings
The high risk group had higher irritability ratings and reported feeling more rushed than the control. Their adrenaline levels were two times higher than the baseline (which was measured at home) and only continued to rise during the day.
Johannsson et al (1988) Conclusion
Repetitive, machine paced and attention demanding work in a Swedish saw mill contributed to high stress level in the high risk group. This was a risk to their wellbeing.
Higher stress levels in work are caused by lack of control over job, repetitive work, and stress of performance related pay.
Role conflict
Involves an individual being put in a situation that requires them to behave in a way that is not in their best interests.
Breslow & Buell (1960) Level of Control
Amount of work can increase workplace stress; having too much or too little can have similar effects. Those who work more than 48 hours a week were twice as likely to develop coronary heart disease than those working 40 hours a week. Being in control is an important element of workplace stress.
Rotter (1966) Locus of control
Refers to the sense of responsibility we each have about what directs events into our lives.
Rotter (1966) Internal locus of control
These are individuals who take full responsibility for the events that happen in their lives
Rotter (1966) External locus of control
An individual who believes that the things that happen to them are out of luck, circumstances, other people etc.
Rotter (1966) aim
Rotter aimed to review research into internal and external Loc and produce a questionnaire.
Rotter (1966) procedure
Rotter reviewed several published and unpublished studies that investigated the links between Loc and other psychological variables.
He produced a questionnaire called the internal-external scale. Which consisted of 29 statements, one internal and external.
Each participant had to pick a statement that closely reflected their beliefs in order to measure their Loc.
Rotter (1966) findings
Rotter found that the I-E scale was a valid and reliable method to measure Loc.
Internals were more likely than externals to change their environment, resist temptation, and be concerned with skill and ability.
Rotter (1966) conclusion
Loc is a powerful predictor of a wide variety of behaviours in many situations.
Loc can be validly and reliably measured in adults and children through using the I-E scale. And Loc can be affected by factors such as parenting, culture, and socioeconomic influences.
Rotter (1966) One strength to support the theory of Loc
There is evidence to support the link between Loc and conformity. With Theo Avtgis’ study, he found that high externals were more persuadable than high internals. Which suggests that Loc may make externals more vulnerable to risk factors such as addiction.
Rotter (1966) Strength to support practical application of Loc
The link between Loc and health is useful.
In 2008 Catherine Gale measured the Loc of 7551 children aged 10. And by the age of 30 those who were internals were less likely than externals to be obese or experience psychological stress. This suggests that interventions aimed at developing an internal Loc could be one way of helping people gain health benefits later.
Krause’s weakness of the role of Loc
In 1986 Neal Krause found that extreme internals respond to unavoidable events by becoming stressed just the same as externals do. Therefore, being internal doesn’t automatically prevent you from being stressed. Leading to the theory that Loc can’t account for individual differences in health-related behaviours.
Rotter (1966) strength
Rotters review was one of the earliest and most comprehensive investigations into the role of Loc. His review explained why studies gave different findings about the effects of key variables such as stress on behaviour. And it was because internals and externals respond differently to certain variables, and other studies did not take this into account.
Rotter (1966) weakness
There was variability with the studies Rotter used for his. And any weaknesses found in these studies would reduce the validity of the conclusions drawn by Rotter. For example, social desirability bias may have affected the validity of questionnaire studies because people are not truly representing their experience. Therefore, we cannot rely on the conclusions Rotter drew out about Loc as there were no measure of quality checked within the studies.
Louis et al (2009) Aim
To test the theory of planned behaviour as an explanation of health decision making and its relationship with stress
Louis et al (2009) Procedure
154 male and female students completed a questionnaire to measure the following factors related to healthy eating behaviour: subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and intentions to eat healthy/unhealthy food. The research also measured the participants degree of life stress and their perception of body images
Louis et al (2009) Findings
Personal attitudes towards healthy eating predicted intention to eat healthy food but subjective norms did not. Small effect of perceived control on healthy eating intentions. subjective norms favouring healthy eating predicted to eat unhealthy but at low levels of stress
Louis et al (2009) Conclusion
Provides partial support for the theory of planned behaviour. Perceived control predicted intention to eat more healthy. However the impact of attitude/norm/control on intentions were all affected by stress, which isn’t predicted by the theory
Louis et al (2009) Strength
Personal attitudes towards healthy eating predicted intention to eat healthy food but subjective norms did not. Small effect of perceived control on healthy eating intentions. subjective norms, following healthy eating predicted to eat unhealthy but at low levels of stress
Louis et al (2009) Weakness
One weakness is that this study was based on the questionnaire data. Self report are subjective measures and suffer from limitations such as social desirability bias where participants respond to questionnaires in a way that make them look good. in addition to that there was no objective measures in the study, such as the amount of actual healthy eating participants engaged in. This means that the study is measuring intentions but not behaviours, and intentions may not lead to changes in behaviour.