Stress in everyday life. Define what is meant by a life change Consider stress in terms of external events i.e.

potential stressors. Describe and evaluate Holmes and Rahes work on life changes and stress Describe and evaluate the social readjustment scale. Define what is meant by a daily hassle Describe and evaluate research into daily hassles and stress, including the use of the daily hassles scale as a measurement. Define what is meant by workplace stress and give examples of work-related stress. Describe and evaluate studies into the effects of workload and lack of control on work place stress. Discuss how personality factors influence the experience and effects of stress (including type A and type B personality and hardiness) Evaluate Type A and Type B behaviour and hardy personality research. Demonstrate an understanding of correlational technique and its strengths and weaknesses.

Life changes: Awareness of Holmes and Rahes theory that life changes are a source of stress. o Life events events that require some degree of social readjustment to an individuals usual pattern. o Stone et al had married couples fill in daily checklists of events for 3 months. If undesirable events increased, illness often occurred. Awareness of the SRRS scale. o Social readjustment rating scale. o Designed by taking 43 life events generated from 5000 patients medical records and then asking 400 participants to rate their psychological impact in terms of how much adjustment they require. Two criticisms of the SRRS. o Rahe et als study and two criticisms. o Rahe et al wanted to see whether the scores on the SRRS could predict the future onset of illness. A sample of 2500 male American sailors completed the scale to assess how many life events they had experienced in the previous six months. Then, over the following six month tour of duty, detailed records of each sailors health was kept. o Positive correlation of +0.12 between life change scores and illness scores. Stress cannot be the only factor contributing to illness. Awareness of daily hassles as a source of stress. o Daily hassles erode our coping resources: Many researchers think that daily hassles are a better explanation of stress than the relatively infrequent life changing events measured by the SRRS. The effect of relatively minor but persistent stressors accumulates over time and thus makes any further hassles more stressful because our ability to

cope is depleted. This could result in more serious conditions such as anxiety disorders and/or depression. (Lazarus) Daily hassles are amplified by existing chronic stressors: Alternative viewpoints reverses the pathway of events by proposing that the presence of more serious chronic stressors may in themselves create hassles, but also make other daily hassles seem more serious than they really are. For example, breaking a leg and having to use crutches to get around, causes everyday practical difficulties but may make missing a bus more frustrating than normal.

Research supporting the daily hassles approach: Daily hassles and students transition to university (Bouteyre) Tested 233 French, first year psychology students using a depression inventory and the Hassles scale. It was found that, during the initial transition from school to university, 41% of students had depressive symptoms and that hassles score correlated positively with these. Transition to university can be thought as a life-changing, critical event, but it only comes with many hassles, such as money worries and feeling lonely, stressors which could contribute to depression.

Daily Hassles and illness (Delongis) Found that the hassles scale predicted illness well; indeed when compared to the relationship between life changes and illness, it was found that the Hassles scale was superior. This is surprising given the magnitude of some events, so perhaps everyday stress has a greater effect on us than we perceived it does. It seems, however, that daily uplifts are not closely linked to illness as are the hassles. Their effect is probably more to moderate (or reduce) the effect of the hassles rather than to function independently.

Awareness of daily hassles scale. o Kanner et al complied a scale that measures stress based on day to day problems, such as having too much to do or being late for something. This is known as the hassles scale. It measures stress by working on the theory that the more daily hassles you encounter in life, the more stressful it seems. o Daily life is not necessarily always a struggle. We also experience pleasant everyday occurrences that could lessen stress. For this reason, the scale was further developed to take into account uplifts. An example is that, although the daily practicalities of bringing up children can be stressful hassles, these can be offset by rewarding aspects of parenting.

Evaluation of life changes as a source of stress with Delongis et als daily hassles. o Evaluation of the life changes approach: Social desirability bias: self-report techniques such as the SRRS are open to bias in that people may want to present themselves in a positive light rather than an accurate one, making their responses untrustworthy. Individual differences in resilience: the reaction to a life change depends on individual differences. People react differently depending on their personal characteristics. (hardiness) Correlation not cause: there is a relationship between life changes and illness, and can predict the chance of illness. However this is not experimental evidence so it cannot be said that life changes cause illness. Perception of life events: On the SRRS it assumes all life changes are stressful. This is not always the case; if an event is perceived as positive, then the chance of it actually being stressful are reduced, which should reduce its physical effects. An incomplete account: the work on daily hassles illustrates that there are sources of stress other than life changes, so the latter can be seen as a narrow approach to measuring stress. However, life changes are important, so it could be seem as merely an incomplete approach, not an incorrect one. o Evaluation of the daily hassles approach: Cultural differences: Kim and Mckenry found that there are cultural differences in the extent of social support available to individuals from family, friends and religious groups. Greater support with African Americans and Asian Americans compared to Caucasians and was associated with lowered stress in difficult situations. Correlation vs cause: as with the SRRS, there is distinction between saying that daily hassles predict illness levels and that they can actually cause them. There are many other factors that can influence mental and physical health in addition to daily hassles. Daily hassles stimulate the SAM pathway often, which can weaken resistance to further stress. Two limitations of the daily hassles scale.

Be able to evaluate supporting research for life changes as a source of stress in more depth identifying several limitations. Be able to evaluate SRRS and daily hassles scale in more depth. E.g. consider the validity of such scales by discussing the lack of consideration of individual differences. Consider criticisms of daily hassle research. Be able to compare and contrast life changes and daily hassles as sources of stress.

Workplace stress: Brief procedure, findings and two criticisms of three studies e.g. o Low control marmot et al. Carried out a three-year longitudinal study over 3000 civil servants, those with low autonomy in their work were four times more likely to die of a heart attack than those with high autonomy. This negative correlation was also apparent in a review of the effects of highly demanding jobs with little control, suggesting that low control is a stressor that could contribute to poor health. o Workload Schultz Used data from a survey of 16000 workers in the USA and found that, as expected, work overload was associated with a higher proportion of reported negative health outcomes. However, they also showed that work underload, where workers felt bored and insufficiently valued or challenged, was almost as damaging. The least affected workers were those whose workload matched their expectations. This demonstrates that: Work overload is associated with poorer health. How the worker perceives their workload could influence how well they cope. o Job demand Johansson et al. A high risk group of ten finishers, whose jobs involved repetitiveness and high levels of responsibility, was compared with a low-risk group of 10 cleaners. Stress related hormones in urine samples were recorded on work days and rest days. Stress related illnesses and amount of days absent from work were also recorded. They found that the high-risk group had higher stress hormone levels, they were higher on work days than rest days, they also had more stress related illnesses and absentees. Consider other points of analysis for these studies. o Correlation vs causation. o Individual differences.

Personality factors: Be able to describe what is meant by Type A and Type B personality. o Type A: Time pressure working against the clock, doing several things at once, irritation and impatience with others, unhappy doing nothing. Competitive always playing to win at games and at work, achievement measured as material productivity. Anger self-critical, hostile to the outside world, anger often directed inwards. More likely to get CHD. o Type B: More relaxed

Positive outlook on life, Lower stress levels. Lower incidence of CHD. Brief procedure, findings and two criticisms of two studies. o Friedman and Rosenman Type A and B Carried out an 8 year longitudinal study of 3200 healthy Californian men aged 39-59 and identified a constellation of hurry-sickness tendencies, which they called Type A behaviour. They described it as an actionemotion complex that can be observed in any person who is aggressively involved in a chronic, incessant struggle to achieve more and more in less and less time, and if required to do so, against the opposing efforts of other things or other persons. The absence of type A behaviour was known as type B behaviour. Behavioural type was assessed by carrying out structured interviews about typical behaviour patterns. 257 men developed CHD, and 70% if these were Type A. Type A leads to a more stressful lifestyle and a greater susceptibility to stress related illnesses. o Kobasa hardy personality Found that there were certain individuals who seemed to be generally better equipped than others to resist the effects of stress. She described them as having a hardy personality, and claimed that this consists of three key factors that help keep stress at a minimum: Control internal locus of control. Commitment individual gets involved in life and engages with those around them. This means they are less likely to give up when the going gets tough, especially if they have gathered social support around themselves. Challenge changes are a positive challenge. This leaves them feeling less vulnerable to stressful feelings of being unable to cope. Hardiness training: Focusing able to notice stressors. Reliving stressful encounters how could you deal with it differently to reduce stress levels? Self-improvement learns to avoid stress in the future. See things as a challenge rather than overwhelming. You SHOULD consider further points of analysis for these studies. o Refining the concept of Type: Type A higher levels of hostility hypertension leads to CHD. o Evidence for physiological/biological differences: Genetic. o Applicability across genders: Friedman and Rosenman only used male participants. Men are more likely to get CHD than men anyway?! Fair generalisation?

o Correlational studies o Consistency of personalities You COULD consider other additional studies into personality and stress. o Morris et al Type C Susceptible to cancer o Type D personality. Susceptible to depression