Factors Contributing To Individual Differences in Stress Response - Case Study Example

Running head: Difference in stress response Factors Contributing To Individual Differences in Stress Response Insert Insert Grade Insert Tutor’s Name February 15, 2012 Factors contributing to individual differences in stress response Introduction Stress manifests itself in various ways in the victims. It is described as “the physical, mental, and emotional strain that we feel when hurried, under pressure, or as a result of some worry or anxiety” (Gilles, 2009). Several conditions contribute to stress and barely every individual experiences some form of stress, whether good or bad. Suffering from some chronic illness may be a source of stress for many people. It is important to understand how to respond to these stresses and factors contributing to differences in individual responses to stress. For instance, while alcohol proves effective in managing stress in some people, it has contradicting results in others (Sher & Walitzer, 1986). Stress response is the natural coping mechanism of the body to respond to stressful events and it involves the release of ‘hormones and glucose into the bloodstream to provide extra energy and alertness’ (Gilles, 2009). Researchers in response to stress often employ different approaches such as a consideration of the stimulus, the response, or the transactional perspective. However, regardless of the approached used, it is generally recognized that the individuals exhibit differences in the ability to respond to different stressful events. The differences can be attributed to the environmental, socio-cultural, and genetic factors specific to the individuals. Some of the individual factors include personality traits (Kazmi et al, 2009), gender, social class, culture, ethnicity, age, and genetic composition (Davidyan, 2008). This paper examines the background of these observed individual differences with a focus on three contributing factors namely the environmental, cognitive, and genetic factors. Factors Contributing to the Differences Several factors contribute to the observed differences in stress response. Davidyan (2008) considers the factors in three different broad categories namely the demographic or historic developmental factors, psychological factors, and social factors. The demographic or historic developmental factors include gender, age, ethnicity, genetic predisposition, history of trauma or abuse, and the individual medical history (Davidyan, 2008). The psychological factors include whereas the social factors include acculturation, social support, socio-economic and educational status, leisure time activities (Davidyan, 2008). Environmental factors Various studies on human epidemiology have indicated that the early life experiences contribute significantly to the development of differences in how the individuals respond to stressful events in later stages of their lives. The differences that are observed in the psychological environment in which a physical stressor occur account for the variability in stress response (Sapolsky, 1994, p.263). The researches on the developmental programming of the stress system have examined the roles played by the environmental stressors or the exogenous glucocorticoids in the development of sensitivity to stress by an individual (Claessens et al, 2011). It must be noted that these factors do not stand alone in providing the influence. The environmental factors interplay other factors like the gene combination to define the differences. The outcomes of early experiences do not determine precisely the fate of an individual in the later stages. A class of environmental, cognitive, and genetic factors takes part in molding the overall outcome of the early life experiences. Personality traits and other dispositional traits have a stake in explaining the stress responses (Avitsur et al, 2006, p.289). However, there are cases in which the environmental factors are powerful and can override other factors like the genetic factors (Claessens et al, 2011). Various aspects of the environment working at specific developmental stages contribute to changes in the functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. These influences have been considered in various dimensions. Earlier researches involved use of animal models in determining the effects of the environmental factors. These involved various postnatal manipulations of the animal’s environment. Early handling is one manipulation whose effect was discovered in the 1950s by Seymour Levine (Claessens et al, 2011). The manipulation involved a brief maternal separation of rat pups. Various unexpected observations were made from the manipulations. The researcher noted that the manipulation, early handling, had stimulated some prolonged phenotypic changes like hyporesponsiveness of the HPA axis, reduced emotionality, and an improved cognitive ability of the pups compared to the pups in the control groups (Claessens et al, 2011). The results were unexpected since the theories prior to these researches held that early exposure to stress could lead to increased emotional instability. Instead, the research showed that an exposure to moderate or mild stress at an early age could enable the infant to adapt to physiologically and psychologically stressful events when they transition into adults (Claessens et al, 2011). This observation became the basis upon which the theory of stress inoculation-induced resilience was developed. Further researches were conducted in the same line to investigate the effect of a prolonged maternal separation, a more adverse manipulation than early handling. The researches aimed at examining the effects of more adverse experiences in the developmental programming (Claessens et al, 2011). In this case, the maternal absence for the pups was prolonged from one to 24 hours. The effects of this manipulation were opposite to those of early handling. The effects included hyperresponsiveness of the HPA axis, unaltered sensitivity to opioids, weakened cognitive ability, and increased emotionality (Claessens et al, 2011). It may remain unclear if these findings from animals may apply in psychiatry to explain human behavior. It is unethical to expose the humans to similar experimental manipulations. However, some studies have indicated that maternal depression during pregnancy could lead to alteration of the functioning of the HPA axis. Early adverse experiences like child abuse have been found to have significant impacts on the alterations of HPA axis functioning (Claessens et al, 2011). The individuals have higher risks of developing psychiatric dysfunction. Other mild forms of this adversity also lead to high risks of stress-related pathologies. Factors like socioeconomic difficulties in early life and poor parenting styles affect health status of the individuals as they develop into adults. It is then evident that early adversity plays a significant role in developmental programming of various disorders. Similarly, children exposed to adequate maternal care have a better response to, and recovery from, stress. Genetic factors Genetic predisposition falls in the broad category of the demographic and historic developmental factors affecting response to stress in individuals. The contributions of the genetic factors have been traced from the differences observed in the behavior and stress response of individuals exposed to similar adverse experiences. The researches reveal that the sensitivity of the individuals to stress and their vulnerability to stress-related illnesses had had significant differences even among individuals within the same family (Claessens et al, 2011). The inheritance of certain genetic factors among the population can be used to explain the difference. Even though no single gene factor can be associated with a disorder, it is clear that a combination of various genetic factors manipulate the influence of environment in response to stress (Claessens et al, 2011). The human stress response systems including the neural circuitry and the neuroendocrine pathways have shared structure that is typical of all the human species. However, a great difference is observed in how these systems react to external stressors (Ellis et al, 2006). Human adults, children, as well as young and mature laboratory animals have shown varied reactivity to psychological stressors that can be attributed to genetic variations in the organisms. The evolutionary origins of these differences could be understood from different perspectives. The differences could follow an evolutionary noise, a random non-adaptive variation that explains other phenomena like difference in the length of human toes among a group of people. The differences could be attributed to ‘selection-irrelevant genetic variation, the random effects of sexual combination, and non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity in response to experience’ (Ellis et al, 2006, p.180). The resulting genetic variation can be inherited even though this does not form part of natural selection. In the same line of argument, it is suggested that genetic variation follow other neutral forces like mutation-selection and non-functional forms of phenotypic plasticity (Ellis et al, 2006). Maladaptive interactions also affect the normal social functioning of an individual (Horowitz, 2002). The other evolutionary perspective is that the individual differences in stress response are patterned adaptively within the human species. The environments inhabited by the organisms often provide the organism with alternative ways of reproduction and survival. These diverse ecological niches promote adaptive phenotypic variation within a given species (Ellis et al, 2006). Depending on the conditions of a niche, an organism will diverge in a manner that ensures its functionality. The human response to stress can be explained in this way. Recent studies in Neurogenetics have identified gene variant factors the affect the functioning of neuropeptide Y, a signaling molecule regulating several functions including emotional responses (Zhou, et al, 2008). . Cognitive abilities/ Coping styles A person’s cognitive ability and the coping skills will determine his or her reaction to a given stressor. The thought process of an individual and eventual perception of a stressor is important in understanding the response ability. An individual may perceive some event as a stressor while another individual will perceive the same event differently (Engs, 1987). This has been witnessed in some past scenarios. Davidyan (2008) provides an example of a situation in which an event was perceived differently by two individuals. The case, which appeared on a television program, involved neighboring houses of two individuals destroyed by strong winds. However, no losses of lives were recorded for both cases. When the fathers from the two families were interviewed later by a news reporter, they had different perceptions of the event. While one man was crying himself out considering that he had lost all the wealth that had been accrued in life, the other father was well composed and grateful that all the members of his family were safe including a dog (Davidyan, 2008). In this situation, the stressor is very similar but the responses are different. This results in what is termed the coping theory of stress. The theory holds that an individual that has received stress stimulus assesses the stimulus to determine if it is a threat, a source of harm/loss, a source of challenge, or if it is irrelevant (Engs, 1987). The response will depend on the assessment by the individual on the stressor stimulus. No stress-response mechanism will be generated if the individual determines the stimulus to be irrelevant and harmless to the body. On the other hand, a coping response will be activated in the event that the assessment finds these stressor stimuli harmful and threatening. It has also to be noted that the coping response may or may not succeed. If the response succeeds, the body of the individual resumes its normal physiological functions (Engs, 1987). However, failure of the coping response leads to chronic stresses coupled with psychological and physical health problems. Stress should be managed properly and in good time to prevent further complications that may result. Cognitive ability further applies in the management of stress that has been appraised. Individuals with chronic illnesses like diabetes are highly prone to stress and other mental depressions. The nature of disease as well as the required care and coping with the disease suffice to yield stress (Polonsky, 2012). Provision of counseling to improve coping skills suffices to manage such stress. Other interventions include meditation, and daily counseling. Conclusion Several factors affect the stress response in an individual. Individuals respond differently to stressful and events and the differences result from an interplay or interaction between a variety of psychological, social, demographic, or historic developmental factors specific to the individuals. Environmental factors like maternal care and other early experiences like child abuse (physical or sexual) play an important role determining the response pattern to stress by an individual. These factors further interact with the genetic and other sociological factors in influencing the stress response. As such, the management techniques to be applied are also personal and specific to the individuals. An individual needs to understand and identify what can work for him or her in the management of stress Reference List Avitsur, R., et al.2006. Social Interactions, Stress, and Immunity. Neurologic Clinics, 24 (3):483–91. Claessens, S. et al., 2011. Development of individual differences in stress responsiveness: an overview of factors mediating the outcome of early life experiences. Psychopharmacology, 214(1): 141–154. (Online). Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045508/ [Accessed February 15, 2012]. Davidyan, A., 2008. Individual Differences in Stress Responses. (Online). Available at: http://www.severehypertension.net/hbp/more/individual-differences-in-stress-responses/[Accessed February 15, 2012] Engs, R.C., 1987. Alcohol and Other Drugs: Self Responsibility. Bloomington: Tichenor Publishing Company. (Online). Available at http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/hints/stress1.htm [Accessed February 15, 2012] Ellis, B.J. et al. 2006. The stress response systems: Universality and adaptive individual differences. Developmental Review, 26; 175–212. (Online). Available at: http://aok.pte.hu/acbn_net/book/stress.pdf [Accessed February 15, 2012] Gilles, G., 2009. What Is the Stress Response? (Online). Available at: http://type1diabetes.about.com/od/glossaryofdiabetesterms/g/Stress_Response.htm [Accessed February 15, 2012] Horowitz, M., 2002. Treatment of stress response syndromes. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Publishing. Kazmi, R. et al. 2009. Individual Differences and Stress-Performance Relationship. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad, 21(3). (Online). Available at: http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/21-3/Rubina.pdf [Accessed February 15, 2012]. Polonsky, W., 2012. Stress Management for Diabetes and Associated Chronic Illnesses. (Online). Available at: http://type1diabetes.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=type1diabetes&cdn=health&tm=238&f=10&su=p1026.33.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.isletsofhope.com/diabetes/mental-health/stress_management_1.html [Accessed February 15, 2012]. Sapolsky, R., 1994. Individual differences and the stress response. THE NEUROSCIENCES Vol.6; pp261-269. (Online). Available at: http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~rearley/Sapolsky_1994b.pdf [Accessed February 15, 2012] Sher, K., & Walitzer, K., 1986. Individual Differences in the Stress-Response-Dampening Effect of Alcohol: A Dose-Response Study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1986, Vol. 95, No. 2, 159-167. (Online). Available at http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/lit/articles/SherK1986a.pdf [Accessed February 15, 2012] Zhou, Z. et al. 2008. Genetic variation in human NPY expression affects stress response and emotion. Laboratory of Neurogenetics, NIAAA, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA. (Online). Available at: http://huehueteotl.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/genetic-factor-in-stress-response-variability-discovered/ [Accessed February 15, 2012]. Read More