Alternative Theories of Stress - Essay Example

Examine some of the alternative theories of stress which have been put forward in health psychology and discuss their practical usefulness DiscussionIt has been noted that stress demonstrates a range of negative feelings and reactions that go with intimidating or demanding situations. A definite amount of stress was even suggested to be essential for survival and that not all stress reactions are unenthusiastic. It was pointed out, however, that while a certain amount of stress is necessary for survival, prolonged stress adversely affect health and well-being (Bernard & Krupat, 1994). Franken (1994) pointed out that stress is usually viewed as a set of neurological and physiological reactions serving an adaptive function. But Pearlin (1982) using social perspectives of the stress reaction have noted that different people experiencing similar life conditions are not necessarily affected in the same manner. Likewise, stressful situations can be viewed as damaging, intimidating, or demanding a well as complicated to define considering the many factors contributing to it. Hans Selye (1982) noted that few people define the concept of stress in the same way, but some do not even bother to attempt a clear-cut definition. Nevertheless, Selve (1982) acknowledged that a wide variety of dissimilar situations are capable of producing the stress response such as fatigue, effort, pain, fear, and even success. Biopsychosocial Model of Stress Bernard & Krupat (1994) described the Biopsychosocial Model of Stress as one of the most comprehensive models of stress. The model involves three components as: External component of the Biopsychosocial Model of stress involves environmental events that precede the recognition of stress and can elicit a stress response. A previously mentioned, the stress reaction is elicited by a wide variety of psychosocial stimuli that are either physiologically or emotionally threatening and disrupt the body's homeostasis (Cannon, 1932). In addition, health problems and increased accidents were also pointed out to be associated with stressful work demands, job insecurity and changes in job responsibilities (Bernard & Krupat, 1994). Internal component of stress involves a set of neurological and physiological reactions to stress. Selye (1985) defined stress as "nonspecific" resulting from a variety of different kinds of stressors. Focusing on the internal aspects of stress, he also noted that a person who is subjected to prolonged stress goes through three phases: Alarm Reaction, Stage of Resistance and Exhaustion. He termed this set of responses as the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS). Accordingly, he suggested that the Alarm Reaction is equivalent to the fight-or-flight response and includes the various neurological and physiological responses when confronted with a stressor. In addition, the Stage of Resistance is a continued state of arousal so that when a stressful situation is prolonged, the high level of hormones during the resistance phase may upset homeostasis and harm internal organs leaving the organism vulnerable to disease. The Exhaustion stage occurs after prolonged resistance where the body's energy reserves are finally exhausted and breakdown occurs. Selye (1982) also noted that many of the diseases precipitated or caused by stress occur in the resistance stage and he called these as "diseases of adaptation." Diseases include headaches, insomnia, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular and kidney diseases. The third component of the biopsychosocial model of stress is the interaction between the external and internal components, involving the individual's cognitive processes. Lazarus and colleagues (1984b; 1978) have proposed a cognitive theory of stress which addresses this interaction. They refer to this interaction as a transaction, taking into account the ongoing relationship between the individual and the environment. Their theory places the emphasis on the meaning that an event has for the individual and not on the physiological responses. Lazarus et al. believe that one's view of a situation determines whether an event is experienced as stressful or not, making stress the consequence of appraisal and not the antecedent of stress. According to this theory, the way an individual appraises an event plays a fundamental role in determining, not only the magnitude of the stress response, but also the kind of coping strategies that the individual may employ in efforts to deal with the stress. Physiological Toughening Dienstbier (1989) argued against the emphasis the GAS places on the role of chronic stress and proposes another model of stress which is the Physiological Toughening focusing on the duration of stressful events. According to this theory, stressors vary in their durations. Acute stressors are the shortest and often involve a tangible threat that is readily identified as a stressor, while chronic stressors have longer duration and are often ambiguous and intangible. Physiological Toughening is concerned with the third category of stressors called intermittent stressors. It was described that intermittent stressors are the most variable in duration, alternating between periods of stress and calm. Interruption Theory Mandler (1982) pointed out that emergency situations are transformed into routine situations decreasing the intensity of the stressful situation. Mandler's Interruption Theory of stress provides a transition between the internal component of stress and the interaction component defining stress as an emergency signaling interruption. and the interaction between the external and internal components. Transaction Theory Under the Transaction Theory of stress, the cognitive appraisal of stress is a two-part process involving a primary appraisal and a secondary appraisal. Primary appraisal involves the determination of an event as stressful and the event or situation can be categorized as irrelevant, beneficial, or stressful. The secondary appraisal occurs after assessment of the event as a threat or a challenge and the individual evaluates his or her coping resources and options. In addition, stress arises only when a particular transaction is appraised by the person as relevant to his or her well-being. However, Dienstbier (1989) reformed the Transaction theory and focused on the emotional consequences of appraising an event as a stressor or as a challenge. He pointed out that when an event is appraised as a challenge, it leads to different physiological consequences than when it is appraised as a harm/loss or threat. Likewise, a series of studies by (Frankenhaeuser et al, 1986) provide some support for Dienstbier's assertion that a stressor evaluated as a challenge should be viewed more positively than a harm, loss or threat event. Frankenhaeuser proposed that physiological reactions to stressors depend on two factors: effort and distress. Pearlin (1982) proposed that individuals' coping strategies are primarily social in nature and that the manner in which people attempt to avoid or resolve stressful situations, the cognitive strategies that they use to reduce threat, and the techniques for managing tensions are largely learned from the groups to which they belong. It was further suggested by Fumiko Naughton that culture and society may shape what events are perceived as stressful, what coping strategies are acceptable to use in a particular society, and what institutional mechanisms may be turned to for assistance. And Pearlin (1982) also joined that society, its value systems, the stratified ordering of its populations, the organization of its institutions, and the rapidity and extent of changes in these elements can be sources of stress. Merton (1957) agreed that society can elicit stress by promoting values that conflict with the structures in which they are acted upon. Merton (1957) cited that the system of values in the United States promotes attainment of monetary and honorable success among more people than could be accommodated by the opportunity structures available resulting in many individuals who internalize these culturally prized goals as doomed to failure. Components Biological Components It has been generally accepted that the effects of stress is directly linked to coping. Its biological or physiological component shows that the body has its own way of coping with stress so that any perceived threat or challenge to an individual from the environment triggers a chain of neuroendocrine events. These events has two separate responses: sympathetic/adrenal response, with the secretion of catecholamines or epinephrine, norepinephrine; or pituitary/adrenal response characterized with the secretion of corticosteroids (Frankanhauser, 1986). The sympathetic/adrenal response takes the message from the brain to the adrenal medulla via the sympathetic nervous system secreting epinephrine and norepinephrine. Canon (1929) described this as the "fight or flight" response where the heart rate quickens and the blood pressure rises. Considering that cortisol is a potent hormone, Sevle (1956) suggested that prolonged secretion of it will lead to health problems such as the break down of cardiovascular system, digestive system, musculoskeletal system, and the recently established immune system. Loss of chance for recovery lead to both catecholamine and corisol depletion and result in the third stage of the General Adaptation Syndrome of exhaustion. Bolger and Ekenrole (1991) established by studies that social support is linked to stress. It was suggested that this can be seen as a dimension of the biological component since it is closely linked to the biological environment of that individual. Many aspects to social support as major categories would be emotional, tangible, and informational. In addition to understanding stress, personality types were also cited. Personality type called Type A Personality have been defined to have competitive, impatient and hostile characteristics. Rosenman (1978) has linked hostility to coronary heart disease which is thought be caused by stress. Eysenck (1988) coined the term Type C Personality for those who are known to be repressors who are prone to cancer. Likewise, hardiness, having a sense of control, commitment, and challenge towards life in general, is a personality that has much to do with how an individual handles stress. In Kobasa's (1979) study of subjects who were laid off in large numbers by AT&T when the federal deregulation took place, it was found that the people who were categorized as having hardy personalities were mentally and emotionally better off than the rest. Likewise, Rosenman (1978) suggested that while it may be possible to modify one's personality, research has shown it to be inherited. Cognitive component Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggested that the cognitive approach to coping stress is based on a mental process of how the individual appraises the situation. The two types of appraisals are the primary and the secondary as discussed under Transaction Theory. Appraisal include, physical resources, such as how healthy one is, or how much energy one has, social resources, such as the family or friends one has to depend on for support in his/her immediate surroundings, psychological resources, such as self-esteem and self-efficacy, and also material resources such as how much money you have or what kind of equipment you might be able to use. Epstien and Meier (1989) added that there are other ways of to approach coping from a cognitive perspective such as that of constructive and destructive thinking, a similar concept to that of optimistic versus pessimistic (Taylor, 1991), the perceived level of self-efficacy and self-esteem. Theoretical Paradigms This model can also be applied to the coping process that is bound to come after stress where stress is replaced by coping. The two factors involved are the "environment" and the "person". Conclusion: All of the mentioned theories about stress point out relevant data and information that could be useful for practitioners and researchers. Most of these are interrelated and prove to be relevant in a continuing process of understanding as well as providing an insight on how to best deal with a modern malaise called stress. Stress, until now, is either considered a symptom, consequence or disease in various schools of thought and any relevant data that could be compiled may serve a purpose or two in defining ways to prevent, if not deal with it in entirety. Reference: Bernard, L. C., & Krupat, E. (1994). Health Psychology: Biopsychosocial Factors in Health and Illness. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers Franken, R.E. (1994). Human Motivation, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Pearlin, L. I. (1982). The social contexts of stress. In L. Goldberger and S. Breznitz, eds. Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects. New York: The Free Press Cannon, W.B. (1932). The Wisdom of the Body. New York: Norton. Selye, H. (1985). History and present status of the stress concept. In A. Monat & R.S. Lazarus, eds. Stress and Coping, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University. Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and physical health. Psychological Review, 96:84-100. Mandler, G. (1982). Stress and Though Processes. In L. Goldberger and S. Breznitz, eds. Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects. New York: The Free Press. Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Guilford. Lazarus, R.S., & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transactions between person and environment. In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis, eds. Perspectives in Interactional Psychology. New York: Plenum. Frankenhaeuser, M. (1986). A psychobiological framework for research on human stress and coping. In M.H. Appley and R. Trumbll, eds. Dynamics of stress: Physiological, psychological, and social perspectives. New York: Plenum. Merton, R.K. (1957). Social structure and anomie. In R. K. Merton, ed. Social Theory and Social Structure, 2nd ed. New York: Free Press. Cannon, W. B. (1929). Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage: An Account of Recent Research into the Function of Emotional Excitement, 2nd ed. New York: Appleton. Seyle, H. (1956). The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bolger, N., & Eckenrole, J. (1991). Social relationships, personality, and anxiety during a major stressful event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61:440-449. Roseman, R. H. (1978). The interview method of assessment of the coronary-prone behavior pattern. In: T. M. Dembroski et al., eds. Coronary-prone Behavior. New York: Springer- Verlag. Eysenck, H. J. (1988). Personality and stress as causal factors in cancer and coronary heart disease. In: M. P. Jaisse, ed. Individual Differences, Stress, and Health Psychology. New York: Springer-Verlag. Kobasa, S. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37:1-11. Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (1989). Constructive thinking: A broad coping variable with specific coping components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57:332-350. Taylor, S. (1991). Health Psychology, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59:525-537. Mattlin, J., Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. Cl (1990). Situational determinants of coping and coping effectiveness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31:103-122. Read More