Stress in everyday life

Objectives You should be able to distinguish between: Life events And hassles

Life changing events Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) Holmes and Rahe found a way to measure the influence of life events 43 common life events Any ideas?

Life Changing Units Each event was given a ‘score’ of stressfulness (LCU) Scores for each event were added up for each person A score of over 300 = 80% chance of stress-related illness in the following year.

EVALUATION OF THE SSRS The impact of a life event is not the same for everyone. Can you think of examples? It’s a bit out of date – why? It relies on accurate recall. In accurate memory of events will have an effect. People tend to over-report past negative events.

Evidence

Rahe et al (1970) To investigate the relationship between stress and illness Procedure: Male US Navy personnel completed the SRRS (giving them an LCU score) Were monitored for illness during a 6-month tour of duty.

Findings There was a positive correlation between LCU scores and rates of illness. The correlation was very weak. This means that if the study were to be repeated there would be a good chance that the results would be different. The sample was very limited so the study lacked population validity. Why is this a problem?

HASSLES The hassles and uplifts scale was designed by DeLongis et al in List your own hassles and uplifts. If the overall score is negative, there is more chance of health consequences than if the score is positive.

Evaluation of the hassles and uplifts scale It’s a correlation so it is not possible to be sure about cause and effect. A measure of daily hassles is a better predictor of day-to-day health than measures of life events Individuals interpret hassles differently It requires accurate recall.

Hassles as predictors of health?

WORKPLACE STRESS

Work overload The quantity of work outweighs the time we have to do it. Or the work is too complex under the work conditions. Lawyers reported increased stress at home when overloaded at work. (Wallace 1999)

Control If there is low ‘decision latitude’ the individual has little control and they are likely to feel more stress.

The Sawmill study Johansson et al (1978) Finishers in a noisy sawmill had little contorl over the pace of their work. The quantity of their work dictated everyone else’s pay.

The Sawmill study Johansson et al (1978) Finishers in a noisy sawmill had little contorl over the pace of their work. The quantity of their work dictated everyone else’s pay.

How did they measure? Stress-related hormones and stress-related absenteeism in finishers were measured and these were compared with other workers in the factory.

Findings There were higher levels of stress-related illness And more stress hormones in the finishers than the other workers.

Conclusion What conclusion do you draw from the findings? A combination of work overload and control leads to greater stress.

Evaluation Individual factors may have been a factor affecting the stress response of different workers, e.g. Personality factors. The study was not a laboratory experiment so there may be uncontrolled variables. This means that a number of factors could be causing stress, e.g. Lack of control, poor environment.

PERSONALITY Friedman and Rosenman (1975) Used questionnaires, interviews and observations To assess personality. They found: Type A Type B Type X a mixture of both There are also Types C and D but you don’t need to know them.

Type A Excessive competitive drive Impatient and hostile Fast movements Rapid speech Very intense More likely to suffer from coronary heart disease

The Western Collaborative Group Study (WCGS) Aim – to see if Type A men were more likely to suffer from CHD than Type B men. Procedure: Californian men assessed as being Type A or B personality. Type X was also identified which was a mixture of both. The men were studied for 8 years (observation, questionnaires and interviews).

Type B Less competitive Less hostile and more patient Easygoing Tolerant Slower speech Slower movements Less likely to suffer fro coronary heart disease.

Evaluation Not all Type A men suffered from CHD (but they might have developed it later). Some of the Type B males suffered from CHD. Personality is difficult to measure. The researchers could not possibly control all aspects of the behaviour of over 3,000 men over 8 years so there may have been other factors which might have contributed to the rates of CHD.

Findings CHD was twice as likely in Type A than Type B.

The Hardy personality Kobasa (1979) identified the personality which is resistant to the effects of stress. The 3 C’s

Commitment A sense of purpose - tackles problems head on. Organised

Control In charge of life, doesn’t depend on others too much. Takes a problem- solving approach.

Challenge Sees problems as a challenge. Gives time and energy to solving them.

Evaluation Hardy personalities suffer less effects of stress in the same situation as people who do not have hardy personalities.

Hardiness training can increase resistance to stress (Maddi et al (1988) This research was done with people in the business community and so it may be difficult to generalise findings.

According to Funk (1992) the 3 C’s are less important than negativity. The effects of stress vary with negativity.

There is some dispute about whether or not hardiness is a personality characteristic that is stable over time. It may fluctuate frequently.