stress in everyday life

Stress in everyday life

Objectives

You should be able to distinguish between:Life eventsAnd hassles

Life changing events

Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS)Holmes and Rahe found a way to measure the

influence of life events43 common life eventsAny 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It’s a bit out of date – why?It relies on accurate recall.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 1988.

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 differentlyIt 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

observationsTo assess personality.They found:Type AType BType X a mixture of bothThere are also Types C and D but you don’t

need to know them.

Type A

Excessive competitive driveImpatient and hostileFast movementsRapid speechVery intenseMore 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: 3.154 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 competitiveLess hostile and more patientEasygoingTolerantSlower speechSlower movementsLess 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.