FINAL EXAM STRESS Flashcards
(35 cards)
How would you define health?
a positive state of physical, mental, and social well being that moves over time along a continuum
what is stress?
stress occurs when we experience a threatening stimulus (stressor) that we can’t cope withand it results in an emotional, behavioral, and biological stress response
why is it important to study stress?
Stress is a determinant for both health and wellness, risk factor for obesity, substance abuse and other diseases
Persistent activation of the HPA axis
High Blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure, and levels of cortisol
Buildup of plaque in the arteries, leads to heart attacks, strokes, heart disease
what are two ways to explain stress with a biological approach?
evolutions/genetics (COMT) and neurotransmitters/HPA axis
explain how evolution/genetics (COMT) can explain stress
COMT enzyme breaks down neurotransmitters in the in the synapse
Depending on which variation of gene you have changes the levels of enzymes, therefore changes the levels of neurotransmitters in your brain
Warrior worrier hypothesis → response to stress is linked to COMT genotype
met/met (worrier, more stressed) or val/val (warrior, less stress)
Mets have higher levels of stress because they have lower COMT activity, less breakdown of noradrenaline in the synapse
Also linked to the hippocampus and the amygdala
Vals have a larger hippocampus compared to mets
Mets with ACEs also have smaller hippocampus
Mets have higher levels of amygdala activity → activates HPA axis and stress response
Talk about how these genes are passed down, and there may be an evolutionary/epigenetics aspect where people have had to adapt their genes to survive
What is the study to use to support the evolutionary/genetic explanation of stress?
Walder et al (2010)
63 adolescents ages 12-18
Genetic testing using saliva samples revealed which variation of the COMT gene they had: Val/Val, Met/Met or Val/Met
Cortisol measured at 3 points throughout the year
After a year, mets had a higher average cortisol level than the val
Biggest increase between baseline cortisol levels compared to a year later, vals were quite stable
Supports worrier/warrior hypothesis
Evaluation of study:
Only looks at the biological aspect of stress
Does not take into account individual perceptions and differences when dealing with stress
Not generalisable to other age groups, only done on adolescents
explain how neurotransmitters/HPA axis can explain stress
Fight or flight is linked to the HPA axis
Encounter environmental stressor
Hypothalamus stimulates pituitary gland to release hormones to adrenal gland on top of kidneys
Cortisol and adrenaline (norepinephrine) are released into the bloodstream
Adrenaline stimulates the sympathetic nervous system (difference between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system)
Cortisol provides energy for fight or flight by breaking down glycogen in liver and converting to glucose → energy
Physiological effects of stress
Muscles tense
Shortness of breath
Increased heart rate
Release of cortisol
Stomach discomfort
Slow down of reproductive system
study to support the neurotransmitter/HPA axis theory to explain stress
Newcomer et al (1999)
Investigate whether high levels of stress hormones interfere with verbal memory
All participants were employees/students at a university
Given a clinical interview with a physician, and were excluded from study if they were pregnant, or had a history of illness/mental illness
Double blind laboratory experiment, participants matched for age and gender in one of three conditions
High level of cortisol tablets → major stress event
Low level of cortisol tablets → minor stress event
Placebo group → placebo tablets to have a control group
Tested three times: asked to listen and recall a paragraph. Difference paragraph each time, same level of difficulty.
Tested before and after to establish baseline to eliminate the confounding variable of individual differences
High cortisol levels impair memory → highest level of cortisol, worst performance
Effect was not permanent
Moderate levels may have assisted in the recall → Cortisol receptor on the hippocampus
Evaluation of study:
Lab experiment → cause and effect established
Baseline test to eliminate confounding variables
Did not have control over external stressors over the course of the few days
Memorizing a text is not how memory would be displayed in real life contexts
Ethical considerations, but no permanent damage and consent forms signed
evaluate the biological approach to explaining stress
Limitations:
Most studies done in labs, very artificial, lack ecological validity
Would these be scenarios that would happen in daily life?
Reductionist, without the consideration of cognitive and sociocultural factors
Does not account for personal differences between individuals
Need a more comprehensive understanding
Bidirectional ambiguity → does the biological factor cause the stress response or does the stress response cause the biological symptoms?
Strengths:
Scientific basis: empirical evidence, reliable and valid
Can lead to potential biological treatments of chronic stress/stress related health problems
what are the two ways in which stress can have a cognitive explanation?
transactional model of stress and optimism/pessimism model
explain how the transactional model of stress can explain stress
When studying stress, we must take into account how different people interpret stress
Stress is due to a transaction between the stressor and the individual that is confronted to the stressor
Cognitive appraisal how one interprets a certain situation, the relevance of a stressor and the ability to cope with it
Order of the transactional model, developed by Lazarus: stimuli → primary appraisal → secondary appraisal → stress response → coping → reappraisal
Primary appraisal stage: how we interpret the situation in terms of personal relevance (this is different for everyone). Five types of stressors
Irrelevant: will not cause a stress response
Harmless: will not cause a stress response
Dangerous
Threatening
Challenging (anticipated, may cause motivation to overcome the stressor)
Secondary appraisal stage: if we deem the stressor to be dangerous/threatening, in this stage we consider our ability to cope by assessing available resources (material, financial, emotional)
If there are not enough resources there will be a stress response
Individuals with low self esteem are more likely to appraise a situation as stressful rather than not
Cognitive reappraisal: when we re-appraise the stressor again, it is important because it can reduce your levels of stress
what is the study to support the transactional model of stress?
Jamieson et al
50 participants (25M, 25F) from Cambridge in the USA
Participants with hypertension or heart problems were excluded from the study
a baseline cardiovascular recording was taken for all participants
Participants were assigned to one of three conditions
Reappraisal: participants read a script about the benefits of reappraising, asked to think about stress as adaptive
Ignore stress condition: read a script where it was said that the best way to overcome stress is to ignore it
No intervention: not asked to read anything, carried out a non demanding task
After reading article, asked questions to guarantee that they had read and understood
Completed the trier social stress test: gave a speech and do some mental arithmetic while being videotaped, and with evaluators providing negative feedback
Cardiovascular responses were recorded, and after the test were asked to fill a questionnaire to record subjective level of stress
Findings: participants instructed to think their stress as helpful exhibited better cardiovascular stress responses (more efficient and lower blood pressure)
Shows how cognitive reappraisal can shift stressful situations and show potential health benefits
Evaluation of study:
highly controlled with high internal validity. Not generalizable to all forms of stress. Studies acute stress, not chronic stress. No indication of long term effectiveness
Not clear how reappraisal would affect people with mental disorders
evaluate the transactional model of stress
Doesn’t really consider physiological responses to a stressor
Argues that if we don’t have the resources, we automatically experience stress
Does not account for individual differences in our perception of stress
Assumes that everyone has the same ability to cognitively reappraise stressors
Biological and social factors might affect this process
explain how pessimism/optimism can explain stress
psychological aspects of stress are bidirectional
Our cognition can impact our stress, and our stress can impact our cognition
Where things like optimism/pessimism come in, essentially our beliefs about stress and how we think about ourselves
Negative beliefs about stress affect our health because it changes our cardiovascular response to stressors
Appraising stress as being harmful → restrict arteries, lead to poor physiological and cognitive performance
Appraising stress as being beneficial → dilates arteries, increases blood flow, more beneficial response
On the long term, can have significant effects on our health
Optimists → more likely to recall positive strategies, greater belief in their ability to change negative situations
Optimisms make more efforts to maintain their health, lower stress levels
Pessimists also have higher levels of cortisol
what is the study to support the pessimism/optimism model of stress
Study: Fischer et al (2016)
Aim: To see how stress beliefs (positive or negative) can affect physical symptoms of health.
Quasi experiment, sample of 216 students from a german university (mostly females of high economic status)
2 questionnaires measuring stress beliefs, stress levels, and somatic (physical) symptoms
Data gathered in april (low stress period) and again in september (high stress period)
Results show that negative stress beliefs (stress is bad for you) → more physical symptoms during a stressful period
Positive stress beliefs resulted in lower percepted levels of stress, with less manifestation of somatic symptoms
Longer activity of HPA axis → more cortisol → more health problems
Evaluation of study:
Low population validity
Quasi experiment, what changed was the time that the data was collected at
The high levels of stress might have been due to something else
Only considers one aspect of stress → academic stress
Doesn’t take into account individual differences, genetic predispositions etc
evaluate the pessimism/optimism approach
Being an optimist/pessimist can have different meaning in different cultures
Hard to get empirical evidence
Perceived levels of stress are very subjective, does not take into account individual differences
Does not take into account genetics
how does culture affect stress
Culture affects:
The types of stressor to which one is likely to be exposed
The way these stressors are perceived and understood
The extent of the physiological stress response produced
The coping mechanisms available to deal with the stressor
social status and stress
Social status refers to someone’s rank in a social hierarchy. Socioeconomic status (SES) is a type of social status which is measured by income, education, and occupation.
People with higher social status have fewer health problems. They live longer and have lower rates of stress, cardiovascular disease and obesity.
Subjective social status (SSS) is a person’s individual evaluation of their social rank. It is used in studies of social status and stress in teenagers because SSS is a better predictor of health for teenagers compared to SES.
Generally speaking, higher SSS is associated with better health.
SSS is measured using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Status. involves showing the participant a ladder with 10 rungs and asking them to place themselves on the ladder as compared to their peers.
People with low SSS tend to be exposed to more stressors like poverty, abuse and violence
They need a faster and more reactive fear response because they have to be more alert to potential threats. But this could cause long-term health problems because of the excess cortisol in the body.
One reason why people with lower social status (SES and SSS) have more health problems is because their stress responses are more reactive. This causes chronic release of stress hormones like cortisol which negatively affects health.
study for social status and stress
Marmot et al for social status and stress
The aim was to investigate the impact of a range of stressors on biological, psychological and sociocultural outcomes.
The participants were 10,000 civil servants with different socio economic backgrounds.
Longitudinal design, over 3 years
7 questionnaires, each relating to a different stressor in the participant’s life, for example stress at work
This variable was also assessed by looking at job descriptions, responsibilities and work environment.
Researchers kept records of stress related and also checked for signs of any cardiovascular diseases.
Correlational analysis to test the link between job control and stress related illness
Biological measures were also used (cholesterol levels) as well as sociocultural measures, like environmental stressors (neighborhood, housing, loneliness, social support)
→ link back to say how sociocultural factors are made of multiple things
Results:
Links between particular stressors (low job control, inability to cope with work) with physiological conditions like heart attack, cancer, stroke and gastrointestinal problems
Four times more likely to die from stress related illness for those who were vulnerable participants
→ link back to how this demonstrates that this is truly a health problem
Strengths:
Using correlational study enabled researcher to look for clear link
Can be used by employers to protect their employees forms stress related illnesses
Could help better productivity and happiness in companies
Different methods and factors used
Large sample size
Questionnaires: lots of self reported data
Demand characteristics
No cause and effect, only correlation
risk and protective factors of stress
Meta analysis that found these trends
Focus on where we learn those → socially learned behaviors
Social Coping Factors
We learn our coping strategies and the way we perceive/deal with stress from our parents and our environment, which represents our culture
The buffering model by Cohen and Wills argues that social support acts as a “buffer” against the negative pathological effects of stress.
Social support may prevent the appraisal of stress (prevents us from identifying an event as being stressful)
If the event is deemed as being stressful and there is a physical or behavioral change due to stress, social support can lead to reappraisal, inhibition of harmful responses or help with coping
The main effect model proposes that social integration influences wellbeing in ways that do not necessarily require improved means of coping with stressful events - just being part of a group IS the coping strategy (the “you’re not alone effect”
embeddedness in a social network and social resources that are responsive to perceived stressful events had beneficial effects on well-being
study for risk and protective factors of stress
Coan, Schaefer & Davidson’s
How social support may play a key role in stress reduction.
The sample consisted of sixteen married couples.
recruited by newspapers advertisements
First, participants were given questionnaires to assess their level of satisfaction and happiness in their marriage. In addition, personality traits were assessed. Finally, they were asked to do a test run in an fMRI scanner. This was done to make sure that they were comfortable with the scanner and to show them how it works.
The wives were put in an fMRI with an electrode attached to one ankle. While in the fMRI the women were shown 12 non-threat indicating images (safety cues) and 12 threatening images (threat cues) - that is, images that when shown, indicated that an electrical shock was possible
after the cue was shown, there was up to a 10 second period when a shock could be administered. During the experiment, two shocks were administered. After the threat period was over, there was a rest period
. During the rest period, they were asked for their rate their level of stress and their feelings of unpleasantness on a 1 - 5 scale.
This experiment was a repeated measures design.
Each woman would undergo the tests in the fMRI under three conditions: holding their husband’s hand, holding the hand of a stranger (whom they did not meet until after the experiment), or not holding anyone’s hand.
Results showed that the women’s subjective sense of unpleasantness and arousal was lowest when holding their husband’s hand. In addition, the brain’s “threat response” was lowest when holding their husband’s hand. The threat response was strongest when no hand was held. Not only this, by there was a negative correlation between the reported marital quality and the threat response - that is, the higher the reported marital quality, the lower the brain’s threat response. It appears that social support is key to resilience.
The study was highly controlled. The study was counterbalanced so that order effects such as habituation - that is, getting used to the shocks - was most likely not a confounding variable. This means that the study had high internal validity.
The use of subjective ratings of unpleasantness was used to correlate with brain activity. This helped to improve construct validity.
In addition to the high level of control, the study was highly artificial and thus lacks ecological validity.
Very small sample, low generalizability, done in the USA, low cross cultural generalizability
evaluate sociocultural explanation of stress
Limitations
On the one hand, the sociocultural approach is a more holistic approach to understanding the effects of stress on health; however, it is also the case that it is much more difficult to establish cause and effect relationships.
The use of etic vs emic approaches
The difficulty of measuring stress under naturalistic conditions
Reliance on self-reports rather than physiological measures.
Questionnaires: lots of self reported data
Demand characteristics
No cause and effect, only correlation
How can we distinguish between subjective and objective need and support? Do virtual social networks like Facebook fit into this model? Are these results stable across varying socioeconomic status or culture?
what is prevalence rate
how common a certain phenomenon is in a specific population, expressed as a percentage
what is incidence rate
new cases diagnosed in a certain period of time within a population