Theories of the Relationship between Stress and the Occurrence of Diseases - Essay Example

?Psychological Theories of Stress and Illness Introduction Stress is a matter where in the interplay between psychology and health is obvious. It is widely recognised that stress presents a definite case of how the psychological functioning of an individual can influence his/her physical wellbeing, and vice versa. Hence the question is does stress cause ill-health? People are faced with numerous difficult and tough circumstances, for example, a congested neighbourhood, work problems, family conflicts, time constraints, or financial troubles. Daily exposure to numerous stressful circumstances could have adverse health outcomes. Severe stressors can bring about both chronic and serious physical illnesses and psychological disorders (Harrington, 2012). This issue has received a great deal of scholarly attention. If stress can be proven to be a major determinant of individuals’ vulnerability to illness, then the likelihood that treatments or measures intended to prevent or alleviate stress exists, or to aid people in dealing successfully with inescapable stress, may reduce the prevalence of illness and boost the recovery of individuals who are already sick. The assumption that stress is a primary source of physical ailment is not credibly substantiated by current empirical findings. The dilemma is that it is very hard to perform well-controlled studies in this arena and majority of what has been carried out is open to an array of potential explanations (Perrewe & Ganster, 2002). The effect of stress on health is examined from various points of view using laboratory experiments, clinical studies, epidemiological survey procedures, and animal models. There are two general models of examining these impacts in human beings. The first is to evaluate the effect on specific groups of possibly stressful or traumatic situations and the second is to study the cause of particular illnesses. Numerous studies have reported that morbidity and stress are related, but this does not automatically imply that stress serves a causal function (Harrington, 2012). There are several problems in determining a conclusive correlation. Studies are incoherent in terms of explaining the question of whether the features of the episode itself, such as threat or injury, or the alterations that take place as a result, such as losing one’s job, are the cause of adjustment problems. It is widely recognised that stress results in illness in several ways (Janisse, 2012). Selye (1956 as cited in Brannon & Feist, 2009, p. 102) observes that stress works in three stages, namely, alarm, resistance, and exhaustion; when the immune system or resistance of the individual weakens a consequent episode of fatigue or exhaustion can show itself through poor health. At first, Selye did not have sufficient proof for this assumption, but nowadays there is much evidence to support it (Brannon & Feist, 2009, p. 102). Nevertheless, a direct correlation cannot be supposed because ill-health is apparently brought about by numerous aspects, and stress is just one of them. Most people who feel stressed do not experience ill health. Stressful episodes are typically momentary, whilst other risk factors for illness can be more permanent-- for instance, unhealthy diet, substance abuse, smoking, and unsafe lifestyle generally. When weighing a single life episode against those enduring behavioural patterns, the latter appears to be more strongly related to the occurrence of poor health (Lovallo, 2005). Furthermore, encountering a crucial life episode is associated with social support and coping mechanisms, by which these two aspects may regulate the relationship between stress and illness. There are three primary channels that connect stress with illness. The first channel treats ‘physiological changes’ as an intermediary between cause and effect, specifically, changes of cardiovascular and endocrine functioning and immune states (Lovallo, 2005). For instance, current studies in the psychoneuroimmunology area have reported improvement in diagnosing bodily reactions to stress that comprise precursors of illness. Cardiovascular and endocrine functioning, as manifested in heart rate or blood pressure, is regarded a stress-related codeterminant of cardiovascular illness (Janisse, 2012). Nevertheless, according to Snooks (2009), the level of functioning is not entirely determined by stress. Rather, it is also determined by gender, age, genes, and so on. The second channel comprises ‘health-compromising behaviours’ (Contrada & Baum, 2011, p. 130). Individuals experiencing stress may prefer relieving their stress though smoking or alcohol consumption. They feel extremely consumed by their stress to keep an eye on their diets and other preventive habits.Sticking on regular self-care may weaken during a stressful event. A third channel refers to all forms of ‘negative affect’ usually related to stress. Persistent anger, depression, and anxiety are health comprising sooner or later. Cheerfulness or positive thinking is associated with good health, whilst depression and pessimism can be a source of ill health (Contrada & Baum, 2011, p. 130). Depression could be a common reason for untimely death. Support for mortality outcomes is most persuasive for cardiac research. Research shows that depressed cardiac patients have a higher rate of mortality than those who were not depressed. Nevertheless, most studies in this field did not take into account control variables, like substance abuse, smoking, or physical disease (Burke, 2006). Researchers of current life episodes seek a greater understanding of the connection between stress and illness. Studies trying to establish single episodes as the root of ill health are usually unsuccessful. If at all possible, identifying a decisively causal connection between a particular stressor and particular illness would be a remarkable progress in this field (Burke, 2006). The development of particular illnesses has been associated often with previous experience with stress. Very few studies concentrate on specific stressors as regards a particular illness. In most studies, either health effects or stress are ambiguous. Studies that concentrate wholly on physical health effects after an episode are comparatively scant. This is attributable partially to methodological drawbacks of research in life event (Snooks, 2009). It is widely believed that stress is damaging to health. But not everybody experiences health difficulties because of extreme stress. Other variables work simultaneously. A great deal of literature is focused on interpersonal differences in coping with unpleasant circumstances. Indeed, it is nearly impossible to explore the impacts of stressful life episodes without taking into account the different techniques of dealing with them (Janisse, 2012). As episodes vary in their nature and effect, so do individuals exhibit different responses to an episode. Psychological Theories of Stress Psychological theories of stress focus on the individual’s view and assessment of the possible harm caused by environmental factors. When their environmental challenges are believed to be outside their capability to cope, they feel stressed and develop a related emotional reaction. Psychological theories of stress state that episodes affect only those individuals who evaluate them as traumatic or stressful, also known as ‘perceive stress’ (Perrewe & Ganster, 2002, p. 64). It is essential to highlight that stress evaluations are influenced not wholly by the response factors or stimulus state, but instead by individuals’ perceptions of their interactions with their immediate environment (Perrewe & Ganster, 2002, p. 64). Specifically, the belief that one is feeling stressed is an outcome of both the perception of the significance of an episode and the assessment of the sufficiency of coping capability. The leading theory of the evaluation process was developed by Lazarus. In the initial framework of his theory, Lazarus (1966) stated that an evaluation of a stimulus as mild or serious, called ‘primary appraisal’, takes place between stress response and stimulus appearance (Contrada & Baum, 2011, p. 196). Lazarus, in his subsequent works, stated that an event will also lead to stress response if it is assessed as a threat or a harm. Primary appraisal is thought to rest in two groups of antecedent factors: the individual’s psychological functioning and the perceived aspects of the stimulus condition. A number of stimulus variables influencing primary appraisal involve possible stimulus control, the length of the stimulus, the degree of the stimulus, and the likelihood of risky confrontation (Contrada & Baum, 2011, pp. 196-197). Individual factors that influence primary appraisal consist of their perceptions about themselves and their environment, associated personality features, and the potency and composition of their commitment and ideals. When a stimulus is assessed as needing coping resources, individuals assess their capability in order to verify whether they can handle the situation—specifically, get rid of or at least mitigate the impacts of a stressful stimulus. This mechanism is called ‘secondary appraisal’ (Brannon & Feist, 2009, p. 104). Coping mechanisms may comprise responses intended to directly modify the stressful circumstances or actions or thoughts whose objectives are to ease the emotional stress reaction (Brannon & Feist, 2009, p. 104). If one believes that necessary coping resources are present, then the threat is evaded and no stress reaction takes place. On the contrary, if one is not sure that s/he is able to cope with a condition that has been evaluated as stressful, stress is felt. It is essential to mention that this mechanism of appraising the pressures of a situation and assessing one’s capability of coping not merely takes place at the beginning of a stressful episode but usually persists or reappears throughout the course of the episode (Cassidy, 1999). Hence, an episode that is originally evaluated as threatening could be eventually reevaluated as mild, and coping resources that are originally perceived to be insufficient may eventually be discovered to be sufficient. On the contrary, episodes that one originally appraises as benign could be eventually reassessed as threatening (Brannon & Feist, 2009, pp. 104-105). Even though it is believed that particular episodes are almost generally evaluated as stressful, the effect of even these episodes can be expected to rely on the assessment of an individual of the threat involved and his/her capacity to deal with it. As aforementioned, evaluations of threat bring out unfavourable emotional reactions. They also can bring out an array of other consequences such as changes in interpersonal behaviours; modifications in performance of complicated activities or tasks; alterations in health practices like sleeping, diet, alcohol consumption, and smoking; and self-reported frustration (Misra, 1999). However, psychological theories of stress have a tendency to be ambiguous in their assumptions about the specific measures that will be influenced, and of the disposition of the relations among these consequences. Psychological stress theories have developed from two distinct traditions—those that attempt to explain normal stress responses and those that examine particular psychological stress problems. These models of abnormal and normal stress responses have grown disctinctly of each other (Lazarus, 2006, p. 12). The analysis of normal stress responses originally resulted in models that focused on features of the stress response, like the physical stress reaction or the stressor. Existing transactional or interactional stress theories highlight the essence of psychological mechanisms, especially cognitive assessment, and individual differences in perceived stress. The interactional model of stress states that the interaction between the individual and the environmental stimulus is crucial in establishing stress reactions. An illustration of an interactional model is the ’person-environment fit’ theory, where in stress occurs when individuals are exposed to unfamiliar environments (Ayers, 2007, p. 216). The transactional model, on the other hand, states that the different stress factors affect one another. Such assumptions have been integrated into models of abnormal stress processes, like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), where assessment of persistent threat is viewed to be significant in the emergence of the disorder. As stated by the transaction theory, when pressures are evaluated as going beyond one’s capability coping mechanisms are used in an attempt to modify the situation, or the reaction to that situation (Ayers, 2007, p. 216). The mechanism is repetitive, with the situation being reevaluated after efforts of coping have been initiated, usually resulting in additional coping attempts. Numerous health psychology professionals stress that individuals are complex, and stress has social and emotional impacts alongside physical consequences. There is a huge difference in the impacts of stress on human beings. Several individuals are more vulnerable or at risk of harm from stress than other people (Harrington, 2012). Most assume that stress starts in the brain with the interpretation of a risk, but numerous think that the stress process is interactional and influences an individual’s reaction to a stressful episode. Conclusions Stress causes illness. Even though it is difficult to fully determine the conclusiveness of this assumption, the existence of numerous empirical studies that explore the connection between stress and health still attest to the capability of stressors to cause illness. Three major explanations confirm the positive correlation between stress and illness, namely, physiological changes (i.e. stress causes cardiovascular diseases, high blood pressure, etc), health-compromising behaviours (i.e. smoking and unhealthy eating habits due to stress), and negative affect (i.e. depression or post-traumatic stress disorder). Psychological theories of stress, especially Lazarus’s appraisal process, transactional, and interactional stress theories, demonstrate how individual vulnerability intermingles with stress to lead to an array of negative health effects. The mechanisms through which stress could influence health can be behavioural, biological, or psychological, and stress could function in different ways to affect the development of illness. References Ayers, S. (2007) Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine. UK: Cambridge University Press. Brannon, L. & Feist, J. (2009) Health Psychology: An Introduction to Behaviour and Health. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Burke, P.J. (2006) Contemporary Psychological Theories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Cassidy, T. (1999) Stress, Cognition and Health. London: Routledge. Contrada, R. & Baum, A. (2011) The Handbook of Stress Science: Biology, Psychology, and Health. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Harrington, R. (2012) Stress, Health & Well-Being: Thriving in the 21st Century. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Janisse, M. (2012) Individual Differences, Stress, and Health Psychology. London: Springer Limited. Lazarus, R. (2006) Stress and Emotion. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Lovallo, W. (2005) Stress & health: biological and psychological interactions. London: Sage Publications. Misra, G. (1999) Psychological Perspectives on Stress and Health. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Perrewe, P. & Ganster, D. (2002) Historical and Current Perspectives on Stress and Health. UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Snooks, M. (2009) Health Psychology: Biological, Psychological, and Sociocultural Perspectives. UK: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Read More