STRESS

Stress can be defined as a state of worry or

mental tension caused by a difficult situation. Stress is a
natural human response that prompts us to address
challenges and threats in our lives. Everyone
experiences stress to some degree. The way we respond
to stress, however, makes a big difference to our overall
wellbeing.

How stress affect us

 Stress affects both the mind and the
body. A little bit of stress is good and can help us
perform daily activities. Too much stress can cause
physical and mental health problems. Learning how
to cope with stress can help us feel less
overwhelmed and support our mental and physical
well-being.

Signs of stress
 Stress makes it hard for us to relax
and can come with a range of emotions, including
anxiety and irritability. When stressed, we may find
it difficult to concentrate. We may experience
headaches or other body pains, an upset stomach
or trouble sleeping. We may find we lose our
appetite or eat more than usual. Chronic stress can
worsen pre-existing health problems and may
increase our use of alcohol, tobacco and other
substances.
Stressful situations can also cause or exacerbate
mental health conditions, most commonly anxiety
and depression, which require access to health care.
When we suffer from a mental health condition, it
may be because our symptoms of stress have
become persistent and have started affecting our
daily functioning, including at work or school.

Theories of stress
Theories that focus on the specific
relationship between external demands (stressors)
and bodily processes (stress) can be grouped in two
different categories: approaches to systemic stress
based in physiology and psychobiology (among
others, Selye 1976) and approaches to psychological
stress developed within the field of cognitive
psychology (Lazarus 1966, 1991, Lazarus and
Folkman 1984, McGrath 1982).

Systemic Stress: Selye’s Theory

 The popularity of the
stress concept in science and mass media stems
largely from the work of the endocrinologist Hans
Selye. In a series of animal studies he observed that
a variety of stimulus events (e.g., heat, cold, toxic
agents) applied intensely and long enough are
capable of producing common effects, meaning not
specific to either stimulus event. (Besides these
nonspecific changes in the body, each stimulus
produces, of course, its specific effect, heat, for
example, produces vasodilatation, and cold
vasoconstriction.) According to Selye, these
nonspecifically caused changes constitute the
stereotypical, i.e., specific, response pattern of
systemic stress. Se lye (1976, p. 64) defines this
stress as `a state manifested by a syndrome which
consists of all the nonspecifically induced changes in
a biologic system.' This stereotypical response
pattern, called the `General Adaptation Syndrome'
(GAS), proceeds in three stages.
Psychological Stress: 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 wellbeing 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.

Resource Theories of Stress: A Bridge

between Systemic and Cognitive
Viewpoints
Unlike
approaches discussed so far, resource theories of
stress are not primarily concerned with factors that
create stress, but with resources that preserve
wellbeing in the face of stressful encounters.
Several social and personal constructs have been
proposed, such as social support (Schwarzer and
Leppin 1991), sense of coherence (Antonovsky
1979), hardiness (Kobasa 1979), self-efficacy
(Bandura 1977), or optimism (Scheier and Carver
1992). Whereas self-efficacy and optimism are
single protective factors, hardiness and sense of
coherence represent tripartite approaches.
Hardiness is an amalgam of three components:
internal control, commitment, and a sense of
challenge as opposed to threat. Similarly, sense of
coherence consists of believing that the world is
meaningful, predictable, and basically benevolent.
Within the social support field, several types have
been investigated, such as instrumental,
informational, appraisal, and emotional support.
The
recently offered conservation of resources (COR)
theory (Hobfoll 1989, Hobfoll et al. 1996) assumes
that stress occurs in any of three contexts: when
people experience loss of resources, when
resources are threatened, or when people invest
their resources without subsequent gain. Four
categories of resources are proposed: object
resources (i.e., physical objects such as home,
clothing, or access to transportation), condition
resources (e.g., employment, personal
relationships), personal resources (e.g., skills or self-
efficacy), and energy resources (means that
facilitate the attainment of other resources, for
example, money, credit, or knowledge). Hobfoll and
co-workers outlined a number of testable
hypotheses (called principles) derived from basic
assumptions of COR (cf. Hobfoll et al. 1996).

COPING
 Coping refers to conscious
strategies used to reduce unpleasant emotions.
Coping strategies can be cognitions or
behaviors and can be individual or social.
Coping is to deal with and overcome struggles
and difficulties in life.[1] It is a way for us to
maintain our mental and emotional well-
being.[2] Everybody has a way of handling the
hard events that occur in our life and that is
what it means to cope. Coping can be healthy
and productive, or destructive and unhealthy for
you or others. It is recommended that an
individual copes in ways that will be beneficial
and healthy. "Managing your stress well can
help you feel better physically and
psychologically and it can impact your ability to
perform your best."[3]

 Classification of Approaches
The Lazarus model outlined
above represents a specific type of coping theory.
These theories may be classified according to two
independent parameters: (a) trait- oriented versus
state oriented, and (b) micro analytic versus macro
analytic approaches (cf. Krohne 1996). Trait
oriented and state-oriented research strategies
have different objectives: The trait-oriented (or
dispositional) strategy aims at early identification of
individuals whose coping resources and tendencies
are inadequate for the demands of a specific
stressful encounter. An early identification of these
persons will offer the opportunity for establishing a
selection (or placement) procedure or a successful
primary prevention program. Research that is state
oriented, i.e., which centers around actual coping,
has a more general objective. This research
investigates the relationships between coping
strategies employed by an individual and outcome
variables such as self-reported or objectively
registered coping efficiency, emotional reactions
accompanying and following certain coping efforts,
or variables of adaptational outcome (e.g., health
status or test performance). This research strategy
intends to lay the foundation for a general
modificatory program to improve coping efficacy.
Micro analytic approaches focus on a large number
of specific coping strategies, whereas macro
analytic analysis operates at a higher level of
abstraction, thus concentrating on more
fundamental constructs.
  Macro analytic, Trait-
Oriented Coping Theories
Research on the
processes by which individuals cope with stressful
situations has grown substantially over the past
three decades (cf. Lazarus 1991, Zeidner and
Endler1996). Many trait-oriented approaches in this
field have established two constructs central to an
understanding of cognitive responses to stress:
vigilance, that is, the orientation toward stressful
aspects of an encounter, and cognitive avoidance ,
that is, averting attention from stress-related
information (cf. Janis 1983,Krohne 1978, 1993, Roth
and Cohen 1986). Approaches corresponding to
these conceptions are repression–sensitization
(Byrne 1964), monitoring-blunting (Miller 1980,
1987), or attention-rejection (Mullen and Suls
1982). With regard to the relationship between
these two constructs, Byrne's approach specifies a
unidimensional ,bipolar structure, while Miller as
well as Mullen and Suls leave this question open.
Krohne, however, explicitly postulates an
independent functioning of the dimensions
vigilance and cognitive avoidance.

 Repression–sensitization.
The repression–sensitization
construct (cf. Byrne 1964, Eriksen 1966) relates
different forms of dispositional coping to one
bipolar dimension. When confronted with a
stressful encounter, persons located at one pole of
this dimension (repressers) tend to deny or
minimize the existence of stress, fail to verbalize
feelings of distress, and avoid thinking about
possible negative consequences of this encounter.
Persons at the opposite pole (sensitizers) react to
stress-related cues by way of enhanced information
search, rumination, and obsessive worrying. The
concept of repression–sensitization is theoretically
founded in research on perceptual defense (Bruner
and Postman 1947), an approach that combined
psychodynamic ideas with the functionalistic
behavior analysis of Brunswik (1947).

 Monitoring and blunting.

The conception of monitoring and
blunting (Miller 1980, 1987) originated from the
same basic assumptions formulated earlier by
Eriksen ( 1966) for the repression–sensitization
construct. Miller conceived both constructs as
cognitive informational styles and proposed that
individuals who encounter a stressful situation react
with arousal according to the amount of attention
they direct to the stressor. Conversely, the arousal
level can be lowered, if the person succeeds in
reducing the impact of aversive cues by employing
avoidant cognitive strategies such as distraction,
denial, or reinterpretation. However, these coping
strategies, called blunting, should only be adaptive
if the aversive event is uncontrollable. Examples of
uncontrollable events are impending surgery or an
aversive medical examination (Miller and Mangan
1983). If control is available, strategies called
monitoring, i.e., seeking information about the
stressor, are the more adaptive forms of coping.
Although initially these strategies are associated
with increased stress reactions, they enable the
individual to gain control over the stressor in the
long run, thus reducing the impact of the stressful
situation. An example of a more controllable
stressor is preparing for an academic exam. The
general relationship between a stressor's degree of
controllability and the employment of monitoring
or blunting strategies can be moderated by situative
and personal influences. With regard to situation,
the noxious stimulation may be so intense that
blunting strategies, such as attentional diversion,
are ineffective with respect to reducing stress-
related arousal. Concerning personality, there are
relatively stable individual differences in the
inclination to employ blunting or monitoring coping
when encountering a stressor.

The model of coping modes.

Similar to Miller's monitoring-
blunting conception, the model of coping modes
(MCM) deals with individual differences in attention
orientation and emotional- behavioral regulation
under stressful conditions (Krohne 1993). The MCM
extends the (largely descriptive) monitoringblunting
conception (as well as the repression–sensitization
approach) in that it relates the dimensions vigilance
and cognitive avoidance to an explicative cognitive-
motivational basis. It assumes that most stressful,
especially anxiety evoking, situations are
characterized by two central features: the presence
of aversive stimulation and a high degree of
ambiguity. The experiential counterparts of these
situational features are emotional arousal (as being
primarily related to aversive stimulation) and
uncertainty (related to ambiguity). Arousal, in turn,
should stimulate the tendency to cognitively avoid
(or inhibit) the further processing of cues related to
the aversive encounter, whereas uncertainty
activates vigilant tendencies. These two coping
processes are conceptually linked to personality by
the hypothesis that the habitual preference for
avoidant or vigilant coping strategies reflects
individual differences in the susceptibility to
emotional arousal or uncertainty. Individuals who
are especially susceptible to states of stress-induced
emotional arousal are supposed to habitually
employ cognitive avoidance. The employment of
avoidant strategies primarily aims at shielding the
person from an increase in arousal (arousal-
motivated coping behavior). Individuals who are
especially affected by the uncertainty experienced
in most stressful situations are supposed to
habitually employ vigilant coping. Thus, the
employment of vigilant strategies follows a plan
that is aimed at minimizing the probability of
unanticipated occurrence of aversive events
(uncertainty-motivated coping behavior).

. Future Perspectives
Although the fields of stress and
coping research represent largely explored
territory, there are still fertile perspectives to be
pursued in future research. Among the promising
lines of research, two perspectives will be
mentioned here. 1. Compared to the simplistic
stimulus-response conception of stress inherent in
early approaches on stress, the `psychological' (i.e.,
cognitive transformation) approach of the Lazarus
group clearly represents progress. However, in
advocating a completely `subjective' orientation in
conceptualizing stress, Lazarus overstated the
`cognitive turn' in stress research. In stating that
`we might do better by describing relevant
environments and their psychological meanings
through the lenses of individuals' (Lazarus 1990, p.
8) he took a stand that is at variance with the
multivariate, systems- theory perspective proposed
in his recent publications on stress and emotions
(Lazarus 1990, 1991). First, the stress process
contains variables to be assessed both subjectively
and objectively, such as constraints, temporal
aspects, or social support networks, as well as
responses to be measured at different levels (cf.
Lazarus 1990, Table 1)