STRESS: Causes of stress

Question 1

Name 4 areas in which stress can occur in the work place?

Answer 1

Role conflict- have to express one emotion whilst feeling another.
Interpersonal factors- relationship with colleagues, customers etc.
Physical environment- conditions in the work place e.g. Heat, noise.
Control- how much control do you have over how you do your job.

Question 2

Describe Kobassa’s research under the causes of stress?

Answer 2

People with a hardy personality cope better with stress therefore, we can all learn the key traits of a hardy personality: have a strong sense of personal control, a strong sense of commitment and have the ability to see problems positively, as a challenge to be overcome.

Question 3

What is the aim of Johansson’s study?

Answer 3

To measure the psychological and the physiological stress response in two categories of employees.

Question 4

Describe the method and design of Johansson’s study?

Answer 4

A quasi-experiment where workers were defined as being in a high risk job or in a less stressful control group. There was no manipulation of an independent variable and it was an independent measures design. Self report and urine samples were used.

Question 5

Give an overview of Johnasson’s study?

Answer 5

Researched the workers of a Swedish sawmill and found that people with a job involving responsibility for meeting targets and lack of social contact were more stressed than those who weren’t working in these conditions. However, even those with less stressful jobs were found to be more stressed at work than at home suggesting, work is a cause of stress.

Question 6

Participants of Johansson’s study?

Answer 6

24 workers

• 14 high risk production line workers
• 10 cleaners/ maintenance men whose work was more social and less demanding of attention to detail

Question 7

Johansson procedure?

Answer 7

Caffeine and nicotine noted as it could be confounding upon the results.
Participants gave a daily urine sample when they got to work and at 4 other times during the day.
Also gave self report of mood and alertness, self rating scales based on words like sleepiness.
Baseline measurements taken at home and body temp taken with urine.

Question 8

Johansson findings?

Answer 8

• High risk group had adrenaline levels twice as high as their baseline at start of the day and increased during the day.
• Control group had a peak of 1 1/2 of their baseline and this decreased during the day.
• From self report, HR group felt more rushed and irritated and also rated their wellbeing lower than control group.

Question 9

Johansson conclusion?

Answer 9

The repetitive machine paced work which was more demanding in attention to detail and was highly mechanised, contributed to higher stress levels in the HR group.

Question 10

Johansson evaluation?

Answer 10

• Validity: no cause and effect
• Ethnocentrism: Swedish sawmill
• Small sample
  + Reliable: biochemical measurements
  + Low in reductionism: psychological and physiological measures

Question 11

What are the three causes of stress and their studies?

Answer 11

Work- Johansson
Hassles- Kanner
Lack of control- Geer & Maisel

Question 12

What are major life events?

Answer 12

Significant events that change the way we live our daily lives, they disrupt our normal routine e.g. Marriage

Question 13

Why do major life events cause stress?

Answer 13

They disrupt our ‘auto-pilot’ mode where we do everything without thinking. We have to use more mention energy to adapt which leaves use feeling exhausted.

Question 14

What criticism did Kanner make of Holmes and Rahe’s research?

Answer 14

They focused too hard on major rare events when doing the SRRS and didn’t consider small but frequent hassles as an important source of stress.

Question 15

Kanner aim?

Answer 15

To compare the daily hassles and uplifts scale to the life events scale as predictors of psychological symptoms of stress.

Question 16

Kanner method and design?

Answer 16

12 month longitudinal study using self report and psychometric tests. Repeated measures was used as participants completes two self reports.

Question 17

Kanner participants?

Answer 17

100 (52 women, 48 men)
Aged between 45 and 65
Predominantly white, all from California and had similar incomes and at least 9th grade education.

Question 18

Kanner procedure?

Answer 18

All tests were send out by post, a prearranged time of the month was set to fill out the questionnaires in order to encourage uniform monthly intervals between each administration, she variation in dates of completion still occurred but participants filled out the following: hassles rating scale every months for 9 months, life events rating scale after 10 months and the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist and the Bradburn morale scale every month for 9 months.

Question 19

Kanner findings?

Answer 19

• Self reported hassles were consistent month to month.
• For men, life events positively correlated with hassles and negatively with uplifts.
• For women, life events positively correlated with hassles and uplifts.
• Hassles frequency positively correlated with psychological symptoms on the HSCL.

Question 20

Kanner conclusion?

Answer 20

Hassles are a more powerful predictor of psychological symptoms than life events. Hassles contribute to psychological symptoms of stress whatever life events have occurred.

Question 21

Kanner evaluation?

Answer 21

• Order effects: repeated measures means order effects could have had a confounding effect on the results.
  + Longitudinal studies allow us to assess changes over time which is a more valid measure of human behaviour.
  + Useful: shows which events cause more stress so appropriate coping strategies can be put into place.

Question 22

What is galvanic skin response?

Answer 22

Electrical currents conducted by the skin which varies according to moisture on the skin.

Question 23

What two categories did Rotter propose people’s could be characterised into in terms of control?

Answer 23

1. Internal locus of control: see themselves as responsible for what happens to them. More likely to take action and manage stressful situations.
2. External locus of control: believe good things happen because of luck and and bad things happens because someone else caused them to.

Question 24

Geer & Maisel aim?

Answer 24

To see if perceived control or actual control can reduce stress reactions to an aversive stimuli (photos of dead car crash victims).

Question 25

Geer & Maisel method and design?

Answer 25

Laboratory experiment in which participants were shown photos of dead car crash victims and their stress levels were measured by GSR and HR electrodes. Independent mess aires design, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions.

Question 26

Geer & Maisel participants?

Answer 26

60 psychology undergraduates from New York university, participants randomly assigned to three groups.

Question 27

Geer & Maisel procedure?

Answer 27

Each participant sat in s sound shielded room wired up to GSR and HR monitors, machines calibrated for 5 minutes and then instructions were read out over an intercom and after 1 minute the stimuli were presented. GSR analysis was taken at the onset of the tone, through the second half of the tone and in response to the photo.

Question 28

Geer & Maisel three conditions?

Answer 28

Group 1- given actual control over how long they saw the photo for (pressed a button to terminate), 35 seconds was the maximum they could view it for and there was a 10 second warning tone. Group 2- yoked to group 1. Saw photos for the same amount of time as group 1, warned they were 60 seconds apart and how long they would see the photo. Knew what would happen but had no control. Group 3- yoked to group 1 but were told that from time to time they would hear tones and see photos. This group had no predictability or control.

Question 29

Geer & Maisel findings?

Answer 29

- All data from the HR monitor was invalid. - Group 2 were the most stressed because they knew what was coming but didn't have any control. - The control group (1) were the least stressed than group 2 and 3 as they did have control.

Question 30

Geer & Maisel conclusion?

Answer 30

The results suggest that having control to terminate aversive stimuli reduced the stressful impact of the stimuli.

Question 31

Geer & Maisel evaluation?

Answer 31

- Small sample: hard to generalise. - Ecological validity: cannot generalise to real life as it was an artificial task. + Order effects: controlled by independent measures. + Useful: giving people the belief they are in control may reduce stress.

Question 32

Evaluate the ecological validity of the causes of stress?

Answer 32

Some research investigating the causes of stress may be low in ecological validity. This is because research conducted in a laboratory may not necessarily be applicable to real life as both the tasks and the environment may lack mundane realism. Therefore, the causes of stress identified in a laboratory setting may be different to the causes of stress found in the real world. For example, in Geer & Maisel's study on the effect of control on stress was low in ecological validity as the task was artificial, and was conducted in a laboratory. In addition participants were wired up to a HR monitor and a GSR monitor, therefore, they may not have reacted normally, so we may not have an accurate understanding of how stress is caused in the real world. However, in Johansson's study. Ecological validity is high because it is a quasi-experiment which means the results can be applied to real life.

Question 33

Evaluate the data in relation to the causes of stress?

Answer 33

Research into the causes of stress produces mainly quantitative data. This data is numerical therefore, it lacks rich detail and validity. Data therefore, simplifies the complex human emotions of stress. For example, in Johansson's study on the measurement of stress response, data was collected in the form of rating scaled based on words like 'sleepiness', urine samples were also collected in order to measure catecholamine levels. However, quantitative data is very reliable as it can be easily replicated due to standardised procedures.

Question 34

Evaluate ethics in relation to the causes of stress?

Answer 34

Research investigating the causes of stress isn't ethically sound. This is because they research involves tasks which are artificial and can cause psychological harm, either short or long term. Therefore, the research may not be compatible with the BPS guidelines meaning it is invalid. For example, in Geer & Maisel's study where the participants were shown disturbing photos of dead car crash victims. This is ethically bad because participants could find these pictures upsetting. However, Johansson's study is ethically sound because participants were in their normal day to day conditions and didn't have to undergo any artificial tasks.

Question 35

Evaluate ethnocentrism in relation to the causes of stress?

Answer 35

All research looking into the causes of stress is ethnocentric. Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism refers to a study being culturally bias, meaning the study is also low in validity. This is relevant because when looking at the causes of stress most participants are from a similar area and have a similar background. This makes the research hard to generalise because behaviours of people in different cultures may differ. For example, in Kanners research into the comparison of two methods of measuring stress, all the 100 participants were from California and they all earns similar incomes and had at least 9th grade education. Therefore, we may not have an accurate understanding of the causes of stress in a variety of cultures, the research cannot be generalised.