User:99.178.172.110/sandbox

Developing a PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS CONSTRUCT -- 1890 to 1984

In psychology, stress is a global term describing the body’s reactions to situational conditions and demands with which we cannot easily cope (1. page 508 ). Small amounts of stress play a role in motivation, adaptation, and reaction to the environment and can be beneficial or even healthy (2 ). Positive stress can help improve athletic performance, work related outcomes, and overall self-efficacy (3 ). The history of stress in psychology shows an unfailing movement from an event-focus to a study of adaptation and coping. The formal development of the stress construct in psychology can be traced back to end of the nineteenth century.

William James (4 ) developed the first comprehensive theory of the relationship between psychological functioning and physiological reactivity in the late nineteenth century. James proposed that the ability to identify and label emotional states was based on an ability to interpret internal bodily change. The common sense interpretation of the time was that subjective emotional states preceded physiological arousal. If happiness was experienced, it was assumed that laughter would follow the experience. If sadness was experienced, it was assumed that crying would follow the experience. James' comprehensive theory was in direct opposition to this common sense interpretation.

In 1890, James (4) proposed a theory of emotional activation that was opposite of the common sense interpretation of the time. He wrote:

''My theory, on the contrary is that bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion. [p. 358]   ''

In essence, James suggested that happiness occurred because individuals found themselves laughing. Sadness, according to James, occurred because individuals found themselves crying. According to this view, individuals interpreted their bodily change, for instance, laughing or crying, and then attached the appropriate emotional label. Danish psychologist Carl Lange (5 ) introduced a similar interpretation of emotions at about the same time as James. Thus, James' theory of emotion became known as the James‑Lange theory.

The primary position of this theory was that the perception of a stimulus triggered a pattern of changes in the body. It was further proposed that these changes caused sensory messages to be sent to the brain. These sensory messages were then thought to produce emotions (5 ). The James‑Lange Theory emphasis on visceral reactions stimulated a great deal of research. Investigators worked to verify an internal bodily source of the emotional experience. Other researchers, however, did not subscribe to this somatically-driven view of emotional expression.

Walter Cannon (6 ) presented an alternative view of emotion. He stated that the anatomy of the autonomic nervous system did not allow for the patterned visceral arousal described by the James‑Lange theory. In Cannon's view, the autonomic nervous system was designed in such a way that only a generalized state of activation was possible in any emotional situation. In other words, emotions like happiness, sadness, fear and anger caused the autonomic nervous system to act in a similar fashion and, therefore, patterned visceral arousal could not be the basis of emotional arousal.

Cannon proposed that it was the cognitive awareness of the emotional significance of an object or event that led to an emotional reaction. He further postulated that information from an emotion‑provoking event was initially relayed from the sense organ to the thalamus. Next, the information was relayed over the autonomic nervous system to produce both visceral activity and conscious emotional experience in the cerebral cortex. Cannon demonstrated that if he cut the nerves linking the brain to specific parts of the body in animals, the animals still behaved as if they were experiencing an emotion. Whereas James‑Lange emphasized visceral organs, Cannon emphasized the brain as the driving force behind emotional reaction. Cannon stated that fear would be the result of the cognitive appraisal of a situation. In a like fashion, the expression of anger, happiness, sadness and other emotions would be the result of a situational cognitive appraisal. Cannon contributed more to the study of psychological stress than the physiological insights provided by cutting the nerves of animals. In addition, he introduced the concept of stress into modern psychological research.

Cannon was the first researcher to elucidate the relationship between stress and bodily functioning. He was primarily interested in an organism's response to environmental stressors such as cold temperature and the lack of oxygen. Cannon believed there was a threshold for stress. He further believed that the organism could withstand stressors to a point; prolonged or severe exposure, on the other hand, could lead to a system breakdown. Cannon did not emphasize this system breakdown as a prelude to illness in the organism. Hans Selye (7 ), building on the work of Cannon, expanded stress research into the area of illness.

The psychological basis of such symptoms as headaches, accelerated heartbeat, sweaty palms, fatigue, and many others can be attributed to the (8 ) research of Hans Selye. Cannon's research dated back to the early part of the twentieth century. Selye's work, on the other hand, began about a generation later. Building upon Cannon's work, Selye defined stress as a stereotypical reaction of the body to any force or demand acting upon it. He described this stereotypical reaction in terms of a process he labeled the General Adaptation Syndrome (9 ).

The GAS consisted of three stages. The first stage was called the Alarm stage and it involved an activation of the bodily system in what was called the "fight or flight" response. The second stage was called Resistance stage and it involved a process by which the body attempted to withstand the stress placed upon it. If this attempt was unsuccessful a system breakdown could follow. Stress related disorders were thought to occur during this stage. The last stage was described as an Exhaustion stage. During this stage, the individual could suffer a total system shut down. Prolonged exposure to this stage was thought to result in the death of the organism.

The GAS described the physiological changes that could occur when an organism experienced environmental or internal stress. Selye used the GAS to describe a typical stress reaction. He believed that stress reactions could lead to a strain on the body. Stress and strain were thought of as conditions which could produce bodily dysfunction. The GAS was developed to describe the course that led to this dysfunction. The GAS was developed from Selye's findings related to the physiological changes that occurred in experimental animals as they were exposed to stressful situations. Selye believed that the GAS was useful in describing the onset of illness caused by exposure to stress. His model demonstrated that if stress was prolonged or of a severe nature, it could eventually lead to exhaustion and the death of the organism (8 ).

Selye's work had many implications in psychological research. The stress reaction described by Selye was related to hormonal secretions and behavioral decisions. The GAS provided a sense of structure that placed the cause and effects of stress into a comprehensive package. The implications of this stress and strain idea provided the impetus for a better understanding of human stress reaction.

STRESS AND HEALTH

Harold G. Wolff (10) investigated the interaction between life stressors and disease endpoints. Whereas both Cannon and Selye regarded stress as a reaction of an organism to environmental pressure, Wolff looked at stress as a state of the body. In this biological view, stress was seen as a process of the body "fighting back". The human organism fought to maintain or restore equilibrium to the body's systems. Wolff emphasized a concept he described as "Dynamic States" (11). This term described human stress as an ever unfolding and dynamic process. Both Cannon and Selye relied on a physical science view of stress. In this physical science view, the body was viewed as an inactive entity which was under attack by environmental overload. For example, bridges that transverses a river can only withstand so much stress and strain. If a vehicle that is too heavy crosses the bridge, the bridge will break. Cannon and Selye described the impact of stress on the organism in a similar fashion. Wolff's concept of "Dynamic States", however, illustrated the importance of adaptation to and coping with stress.

Unlike the purely physiological definition of stress described by Cannon and Selye, Wolff described a human organism that had the ability to adjust and compensate for the strain brought on by stress. Unlike the instinctually-driven passive organism described in the somatic traditions of Cannon and Selye, Wolff described an active organism that adjusted to its situation to maintain a sense of equilibrium. This active process of adaptation to environmental demands led to a more intensive investigation into the nature of the coping process in humans.

Beginning in the nineteen sixties, the emphasis in stress research shifted from a search for static stress thresholds. Instead, investigations of coping and adaptation became the focal point of research. The publication of Psychological stress and the coping process, (12 ), ushered in a new era in stress research. The hallmark of this new era was an understanding of the importance of personality factors in the manifestation of the stress reaction. Personality factors such as motivation and coping became a focal point of stress research. Researchers started to look at stress as a multidimensional process with many possible mediating factors. Lazarus (12, p. 5 ) stated that the importance of personality factors in producing stress reactions required that stress be defined in terms of a series of transactions between individuals and situations, rather than either one in isolation. In making this statement, Lazarus pointed out the need for stress researchers to break away from the physical science tradition of static stress and strain. By focusing on the interaction of persons and situations, Lazarus provided insight into the importance of the balance between environmental demand and the individual's ability to adjust. Lazarus suggested that the concept of stress should be treated as an organizing concept for understanding a number of human adaptations processes. He saw stress not just as a variable, but a rubric consisting of many variables and processes (13, p. 11 ). In terms of stress causing illness, Lazarus believed that the onset of disease was the result of various pathogens and a susceptible organism. The multidimensional nature of stress and the importance of the interaction between person and environmental factors were again emphasized by Lazarus and Folkman (13) when they stated:

''Even a bullet minimally capable of wounding or killing a person will not kill most game animals, surely not an elephant or rhinoceros, unless directed at a vulnerable soft spot. Similarly, bacteria do not create illness in species or individuals with high resistance to infection, and even severe pressures of living do not usually result in heart attacks in person with well-functioning cardiovascular systems. In contrast, alcohol will have far more serious consequences for a person with existing liver damage than for a person whose liver is healthy; to a diabetic, sugar in the diet can mean disaster, whereas to a healthy person it is readily handled through the release of insulin. [p. 16 ]''

Again, the problems with a unidimensional view of stress and illness were illustrated. What could be considered a stressor for one individual at one point in time may not be classified as such in a different situation. The potential for confusion is great when events are labeled as stressors without any interpersonal contextual consideration. The work of Lazarus and Folkman stimulated a great deal of research into the benefits of cognitive and behavioral approaches to coping and adaptation.