Stress And Coping Chapter 4

Stress And Copingchapter 4copyright 2021 By Jones Bartlett Learnin

Stress and Coping chapter 4 examines the historical development of stress theory, including key models and concepts such as the general adaptation syndrome (GAS), event-based models, coping strategies, and personality types related to stress. It discusses various theories like the transactional model, generalized unsafety theory of stress (GUTS), and adaptive calibration model (ACM), detailing different types of stressors, coping mechanisms, and their applications in healthcare and daily life. Also included are the limitations of traditional models and recommendations for effective stress management techniques.

Paper For Above instruction

Stress and coping are fundamental aspects of human psychology and physiology, influencing health outcomes and overall well-being. The understanding of stress has evolved significantly over the decades, beginning with early physiological models and progressing toward complex, transactional, and biopsychosocial frameworks. This essay explores the historical perspectives, theories, types of stressors, coping strategies, and practical applications of stress management, providing a comprehensive overview of the field.

The concept of stress was virtually unknown until 1932, when Walter Cannon described it as a “fight-or-flight syndrome,” emphasizing the physiological response to perceived threats (Cannon, 1932). Cannon’s work laid the groundwork for understanding the body’s acute stress reactions. Soon after, Hans Selye (1936) further advanced the study by introducing the general adaptation syndrome (GAS), which describes the three stages of stress response: alarm, resistance, and exhaustion. Selye’s model demonstrated the biological basis of stress, implying that prolonged exposure to stressors could lead to health deterioration.

In the 1960s, the development of event-based models such as Holmes and Rahe's (1967) Social Readjustment Rating Scale marked a shift toward understanding external life events as sources of stress. This model quantified stress by assigning weights to various life events, enabling clinicians and researchers to assess stress levels based on recent experiences. However, these models often failed to account for individual differences in stress perception and response, leading to limitations.

The 1970s saw a focus on individuals' coping mechanisms, with Norma Haan (1977) distinguishing between defense mechanisms and coping. While defenses are involuntary and rigid, coping is purposive and involves conscious choices directed at managing stress. The transactional model of stress, proposed by Lazarus and Folkman, further refined this understanding by framing stress as a person-environment transaction that involves appraisal processes. According to this model, stress occurs when an individual perceives a threat and evaluates their capacity to manage it through primary and secondary appraisal stages, followed by coping efforts that may be problem-focused or emotion-focused (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Different personality types influence stress responses, as evidenced by Friedman and Rosenman’s (1974) classification of Type A and Type B personalities. Type A individuals, characterized by time urgency and competitiveness, tend to experience higher stress levels and related health risks such as cardiovascular disease, whereas Type B personalities are more relaxed. This differentiation illustrates the importance of personality in stress vulnerability and resilience.

Contemporary theories like the generalized unsafety theory of stress (GUTS) posited that stress responses are often driven by unconscious perceptions of unsafety, rather than external stressors alone (Brosschot & van der Doef, 2018). According to GUTS, prolonged stress can occur even without direct threats, emphasizing the role of perception and underlying feelings of safety. Worry and rumination, common cognitive responses, perpetuate stress cycles, and social learning of safety signals is a key component in stress management programs.

The adaptive calibration model (ACM), integrating evolutionary and developmental perspectives, suggests that individuals vary in their stress responses based on environmental conditions (Del Giudice et al., 2017). The model emphasizes the importance of reducing sympathetic nervous system activation and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity through techniques such as biofeedback, mindfulness meditation, yoga, and tai chi. These interventions foster resilience and adaptive responses.

Different types of stressors include life events, chronic stressors, role strains, daily hassles, and nonevents. Life events, such as bereavement or job loss, can produce immediate stress reactions, whereas chronic stressors like ongoing discrimination or living in a high-crime neighborhood exert persistent pressure. Role strains from multitasking or conflicting responsibilities often compound stress levels. Daily hassles may seem minor but cumulatively impact mental health, indicating that stress assessment should consider both acute and chronic factors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Coping strategies, classified into problem-focused and emotion-focused, are critical in managing stress. Problem-focused coping involves logical problem solving, time management, and seeking social support (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). For example, an individual might join a smoking cessation program or adhere to a medical regimen to directly address stressors. Conversely, emotion-focused coping aims to regulate emotional responses, such as denial, avoidance, or positive reframing, which can provide short-term relief but may neglect underlying issues (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004).

Application of these theories extends across numerous domains, such as cardiac rehabilitation, mental health treatment, elderly care, and workplace stress management. For example, the integration of problem-solving and emotional regulation techniques has proven effective in helping patients with chronic illnesses like diabetes or psoriasis adapt to their condition. Additionally, stress management programs at workplaces can reduce absenteeism and improve productivity by teaching relaxation techniques and promoting social support networks.

Despite the advancements, existing models face limitations. Response-based models often lack specificity and fail to account for individual psychological differences. Event-based models overlook physiological mechanisms and causality issues, as disease can both result from and contribute to stress. Transactional models, while comprehensive, often lack objective measures of coping and neglect personality factors that influence stress responses (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

In conclusion, the evolution of stress theories reflects a growing understanding of the complex interplay between physiological, psychological, and social factors. Modern approaches favor a biopsychosocial model emphasizing perception, appraisal, and adaptive responses. Effective stress management requires tailoring interventions to individual needs, considering personality traits, environmental conditions, and psychological responses. Integrating these insights into healthcare practices and workplace policies can significantly enhance resilience and improve quality of life.

References

  • Brosschot, J. F., & van der Doef, M. (2018). The generalized unsafety theory of stress: Stress, health, and aging. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 92, 1-13.
  • Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(2), 267.
  • Del Giudice, M., Ellis, B. J., & Shirtcliff, E. A. (2017). The Adaptive Calibration Model of stress responsivity. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 74, 161-180.
  • Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745-774.
  • Hans Selye (1936). The general adaptation syndrome. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1(3), 471–481.
  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing company.
  • Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Type A behavior and your heart. Knopf.
  • Walter Cannon (1932). The wisdom of the body. Norton & Company.
  • Holmes, T., & Rahe, R. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11(2), 213–218.
  • Northouse, P. G. (2018). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. Sage Publications.

Related Assignments