STRESS

Stress has a different meaning for different people under different

conditions. The first and most generic definition of stress was that
proposed by Hans Selye: "Stress is the nonspecific response of the
body to any demand."
Stress is a psychological and physiological response to events that
upset our personal balance in some way. When faced with a threat,
whether to our physical safety or emotional equilibrium, the body's
defenses kick into high gear in a rapid, automatic process known as
the “fight-orflight” response. We all know what this stress response
feels like, heart pounding in the chest, muscles tensing up, breath
coming faster, and every sense on red alert.
“Stress arises when individuals perceive that they cannot adequately
cope with the demands being made on them or with demands being
made on them or with threats to their well-being.” Lazarus, R.S.
(1966).
In psychological sciences, stress is a feeling of mental press and
tension. Low levels of stress might be desired, useful, and even
healthy. Stress, in its positive form, can improve biopsychosocial
health and facilitate performance.
Furthermore, positive stress is considered as an important factor to
motivation, adaptation, and reaction to surrounding environment.
However, high levels of stress could result in biological,
psychological, and social problems and even serious harms to people .
Stress may be either external with environmental source, or caused by
internal perceptions of the individual. The latter form, in turn can
produce anxiety, and/or other negative emotions and feelings such as
press, pain, sadness, etc., and result in serious psychological disorders
such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) .
 Psychological Stress:

The Lazarus Theory Two concepts are central to any psychological

stress theory: appraisal, i.e., individuals' evaluation of the significance
of what is happening for their well-being, and coping, i.e., individuals'
efforts in thought and action to manage specific demands (cf. Lazarus
1993). Since its first presentation as a comprehensive theory (Lazarus
1966), the Lazarus stress theory has undergone several essential
revisions (cf. Lazarus 1991, Lazarus and Folkman 1984, Lazarus and
Launier 1978). In the latest version (see Lazarus 1991), stress is
regarded as a relational concept, i.e., stress is not defined as a specific
kind of external stimulation nor a specific pattern of physiological,
behavioral, or subjective reactions. Instead, stress is viewed as a
relationship (`transaction') between individuals and their environment.
`Psychological stress refers to a relationship with the environment that
the person appraises as significant for his or her well being and in
which the demands tax or exceed available coping resources' (Lazarus
and Folkman 1986, p. 63). This definition points to two processes as
central mediators within the person–environment transaction:
cognitive appraisal and coping. The concept of appraisal, introduced
into emotion research by Arnold (1960 ) and elaborated with respect
to stress processes by Lazarus ( 1966, Lazarus and Launier 1978), is a
key factor for understanding stress-relevant transactions. This concept
is based on the idea that emotional processes (including stress) are
dependent on actual expectancies that persons manifest with regard to
the significance and outcome of a specific encounter. This concept is
necessary to explain individual differences in quality, intensity, and
duration of an elicited emotion in environments that are objectively
equal for different individuals. It is generally assumed that the
resulting state is generated, maintained, and eventually altered by a
specific pattern of appraisals. These appraisals, in turn, are
determined by a number of personal and situational factors. The most
important factors on the personal side are motivational dispositions,
goals, values, and generalized expectancies. Relevant situational
parameters are predictability, controllability, and imminence of a
potentially stressful event. In his monograph on emotion and
adaptation, Lazarus ( 1991) developed a comprehensive emotion
theory that also includes a stress theory (cf. Lazarus 1993). This
theory distinguishes two basic forms of appraisal, primary and
secondary appraisal (see also Lazarus 1966). These forms rely on
different sources of information. Primary appraisal concerns whether
something of relevance to the individual's well being occurs,whereas
secondary appraisal concerns coping options. Within primary
appraisal, three components are distinguished: goal relevance
describes the extent to which an encounter refers to issues about
which the person cares. Goal congruence defines the extent to
whichan episode proceeds in accordance with personal goals. Type of
ego- involvement designates aspects of personal commitment such as
self- esteem, moral values, ego-ideal, or ego-identity. Likewise, three
secondary appraisal components are distinguished: blame or credit
results from an individual's appraisal of who is responsible for a
certain event. By coping potential Lazarus means a person's
evaluation of the prospects for generating certain behavioral or
cognitive operations that will positively influence a personally
relevant encounter. Future expectations refer to the appraisal of the
further course of an encounter with respect to goal congruence or
incongruence. Specific patterns of primary and secondary appraisal
lead to different kinds of stress. Three types are distinguished: harm,
threat, and challenge (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Harm refers to the
(psychological) damage or loss that has already happened. Threat is
the anticipation of harm that may be imminent. Challenge results from
demands that a person feels confident about mastering. These
different kinds of psychological stress are embedded in specific types
of emotional reactions, thus illustrating the close conjunction of the
fields of stress and emotions. Lazarus ( 1991) distinguishes 15 basic
emotions. Nine of these are negative (anger, fright, anxiety, guilt,
shame, sadness, envy, jealousy, and disgust), whereas four are
positive (happiness, pride, relief, and love). (Two more emotions,
hope and compassion, have a mixed valence.) At a molecular level of
analysis, the anxiety reaction, for example, is based on the following
pattern of primary and secondary appraisals: there must be some goal
relevance to the encounter. Furthermore, goal incongruence is high,
i.e., personal goals are thwarted. Finally, ego- involvement
concentrates on the protection of personal meaning or ego- identity
against existential threats. At a more molar level, specific appraisal
patterns related to stress or distinct emotional reactions are described
as core relational themes. The theme of anxiety, for example, is the
confrontation with uncertainty and existential threat. The core
relational theme of relief, however, is `a distressing goal-incongruent
condition that has changed for the better or gone away' (Lazarus
1991). Coping is intimately related to the concept of cognitive
appraisal and, hence, to the stressrelevant person-environment
transactions. Most approaches in coping research follow Folkman and
Lazarus (1980, p. 223), who define coping as `the cognitive and
behavioral efforts made to master, tolerate, or reduce external and
internal demands and conflicts among them.' This definition contains
the following implications. (a) Coping actions are not classified
according to their effects (e.g., as reality-distorting), but according to
certain characteristics of the coping process. (b) This process
encompasses behavioral as well as cognitive reactions in the
individual. (c) In most cases, coping consists of different single acts
andis organized sequentially, forming a coping episode. In this sense,
coping is often characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of
different action sequences and, hence, an interconnection of coping
episodes. (d) Coping actions can be distinguished by their focus on
different elements of a stressful encounter (cf. Lazarus and Folkman
1984 ). They can attempt to change the person–environment realities
behind negative emotions or stress (problem-focused coping). They
can also relate to internal elements and try to reduce a negative
emotional state, or change the appraisal of the demanding situation (
emotion-focused coping).]

The transactional model of stress and coping

One way of improving our relationship with stress is to understand
some of the processes which underpin it, and how they influence the
ways we try and cope. One way of understanding this is through
the transactional model of stress and coping1. The transactional model
of stress and coping argues that our experience of stress is ultimately
a system of appraisal, response and adaptation.

Stress is a product of primary and secondary

appraisals
The transactional model of stress and coping proposes that stress is
experienced as an appraisal (an evaluation) of the situation we find
ourselves in. Specifically, the transactional model suggests we go
through two stages of appraisal before feeling and responding to stress.
In our primary appraisal, we evaluate the situation to decide if it is
relevant to ourselves. In particular, we evaluate whether it will bring
about the possibility of gain or harm. If it doesn’t, we don’t worry about
it (decide it is irrelevant).If it is relevant, we decide if it
is positive or dangerous. If we feel it is dangerous, we then move into
making a secondary appraisal. In these appraisals, we decide if we have
the ability to cope with the situation – usually by examining the balance
of situational demands (such as risk, uncertainty, difficulty etc) and our
perceived resources (including things such as social support, expertise
etc, see more here). If we feel demands outweigh resources we
experience negative stress (also described threat, which you can read
more about in our post on feeling overwhelmed). At this point, we also
start to engage in coping strategies.
Coping strategies
How do we cope with the stress which can arise as a result of
secondary appraisals? The transactional model of stress and
coping argues that we can either adopt problem
focused or emotion focused coping styles. Problem focused
approaches involve attempting to deal with the situation itself,
trying to change it into something more palatable – such active
coping can be difficult but, if successful, results in a real change
in circumstance. In contrast, a emotion focussed approach
involves changing our relationship with the situation in a way
which reduces the stress it causes. This can involve denial,
avoidance or cognitively re-framing the meaning of the event.
Whilst this doesn’t change the nature of the problem itself, it
does change the effects it has on us. Lazarus and Folkman
suggest these sort of strategies include disclaiming (denial),
escape-avoidance, accepting responsibility or blame, exercising
self control (of thoughts and behaviours related to the
situation) and engaging in positive reappraisals (finding a
positive spin on the situation). Emotion-based coping may be
particularly suitable to situations which cannot actually be
influenced in a meaningful way.

Coping strategies can be classed as adaptive if they help us

manage our stress responses in the long term (for instance,
changing the problem, or focusing on the good in a situation).
In contrast, maladaptive coping behaviours reduce our
experience of stress (the arousal, or the symptoms) in the short
term, but don’t help, or actually exacerbate the problem in the
longer term. ‘Drinking to cope’ is a good example of
maladaptive coping.

Re-appraisal
Our responses to stress and coping are not static. Indeed, as we
try and cope (be it adaptively or non-adaptively) we make re-
appraisals, once again going through the the primary and
secondary appraisal process. In this way, the system is
 transactional – our appraisals drive our response, our response
change something (the situation or ourselves), and this change
itself affects our appraisals. The result of these reappraisals may
be to stop being stressed, or to change our coping style.

How can we use all this to help?

Understanding the transactional model can help us in a few ways if
we can find the space to reflect on how we are feeling and why
(which of course is not always easy!).

1. Recognise stress is a state caused by an interaction of the situation

and your response to it.
2. Examine what how accurate you primary appraisals are – do you
really need to see the situation as self-relevant?
3. Identify the resources and demands systematically -this may help shift
your secondary appraisals.
4. Look at your coping strategies – are you engaging in problem or
emotional based strategies (or, a bit of both?). Ask yourself
(honestly!) if they are (i) appropriate and (ii) adaptive. Sometimes,
taking a step back from things gives you a chance to cope more
creatively, and in a more adaptive way.

STRESSOR

Stressor is a term coined by Selye (1976) t o refer t o response. Stressors

include both physical stimuli sources of potential stress, i.e. the circumstances
(e.g. noise, heat, pain) and psychological and or events (both in the
internal and external occupational upheavals, threats t o self-esteem).
The early notions of stressors advanced the idea that t h e y affect the
individual‟s health status i n adverse ways, and this view, by and large, is
still widely held. Th e following discussion deals with the nature, quality
and type of social experience likely t o be considered a stressor and with
the problems of measurement of stressors and of assessing their relation
t o health status.

I . Physical, psychological and social experiences I t has long been

recognised that exposure t o severe physical stressors of diverse types
adversely affects health status. Such stressors include t r a u ma ,
chemical toxins, extremes of temperature, noise etc. Current notions of
stress focus more on the relation of social and psychological stressors
t o health status.

The major thrust of contemporary research is on objectively verifiable

psychosocial experiences o r life event stressors. This domain of
experiences involves a wide variety of events and situations from areas
including occupation, family, social r e l a t i o n s h i p s , finances,
h e a l t h , t r a n s i t i o n s (marriage, births) and education. The principle
criterion for inclusion, however, is that the event or experience can be
verified by a n objective observer. „Intrapsychic‟ events such as unmet
personal expectations, imagined future threats etc. are usually not
included due t o substantial problems in attribution of causality; they
are as likely to be the result of some emotional disturbance (or
stress response) as they are t o be a cause of i t .