psychology unit 2 stress
- Created by: shannonamielia
- Created on: 26-03-14 18:45
View mindmap
- STRESS
- body's stress response
- SAM
- stressor
- sympathetic branch of ANS
- adrenal medulla
- adrenaline & noradrenaline
- fight or flight reponse
- adrenaline & noradrenaline
- adrenal medulla
- sympathetic branch of ANS
- stressor
- HPA
- stressor
- hypothalamus
- piturity gland
- adrenal cortex
- cortisol
- converts fat into energy
- supresses immune system
- cortisol
- releases ACTH
- adrenal cortex
- piturity gland
- hypothalamus
- stressor
- SAM
- research into stress related illness
- Cohen et al
- 394 P'S
- questionnaires on stressful life events in previous year
- rated degree of stress & negative emotions
- combined scores and exposed P's to common cold virus
- rated degree of stress & negative emotions
- questionnaires on stressful life events in previous year
- found: 82% of Ps got a cold
- positive correlation between p's stress index and likelihood of having a common cold
- so: higher stress index = more likely to get infected
- positive correlation between p's stress index and likelihood of having a common cold
- conclusion: high levels of stress & negative emotions reduce immune function
- criticisms: no manipulation of IV
- cant determine which aspect of stress index increases vulnerability to infection
- strengths: clinical, high ecological validity
- high levels of control
- sceintific value counterbalances any psych. or physical distress to P's
- 394 P'S
- Keicot-Glaser et al
- 75 med students
- took bloods in time of high and low stress (before and during exams
- measured cell activity to check immune functioning
- given questionnaire to assess psych. values as life events e.g. loneliness
- took bloods in time of high and low stress (before and during exams
- found cell activity significantly reduced in high stress compared to low stress
- cell activity lowest in P's who reported loneliness and high levels of life events
- conc: short term stressors reduce immune function increasing vulnerability to illness
- immune function affected by psych. variables, long term stressors may make individuals more vulnerable to effects of short term stress
- took advantage of naturally occurring events, thus ethical. no harm done due to study
- similar studies with other p groups found similar results
- only used med students small unrepresentative sample. hard to generalise
- 75 med students
- Cohen et al
- stress in everyday life
- life changes
- SRRS developed to measure how life changes can lead to health problems due to readjustment needed
- developed a scale of 43 life events. with each event having a set LCU score
- LCU: LIFE CHANGE UNITS
- Less than 150 LCU = low risk of SRI
- 150-300 LCU = 30% increased risk
- 300+ = 50% increased risk
- developed a scale of 43 life events. with each event having a set LCU score
- Rahe et al
- aim: to see if there was a +ve correlation between no. of life events & illness
- gave SRRS to 2700 navy personnel before T.O.D & asked to list events from last 6 months. then gave LCU score
- then obtained illness score during T.O.D
- gave SRRS to 2700 navy personnel before T.O.D & asked to list events from last 6 months. then gave LCU score
- found: +ve correlation of 0.118 between LCY score & illness score
- readjustment is the important factor not the nature of the change
- large sample
- correlational study cant determine cause and effect relationship
- self report technique used, no suggestion whcih illness should relate to which life event
- culturally relative findings, conudcted in USA with male navy personell
- distress in recalling traumatic life veentss
- culturally relative findings, conudcted in USA with male navy personell
- self report technique used, no suggestion whcih illness should relate to which life event
- aim: to see if there was a +ve correlation between no. of life events & illness
- assumes all change is stressful
- doesn.t have all life changes on SRRS eg death of child
- life events aren't daily occurrences, doesn't take daily hassles into consideration as a cause of stress related illness
- doesn.t have all life changes on SRRS eg death of child
- SRRS good effective measure for effects of stress
- daily apllications of SRRS - stress management to reduce stress related illness
- SRRS developed to measure how life changes can lead to health problems due to readjustment needed
- daily hassles
- the more minor stresses that can occour in day to day life, such a missing the bus or waking up late
- there's also daily uplifts, good things that happen over a course of a day, such as a compiment or an unexpected visit from a friend
- DeLongis et al
- compared hassles and life events to predict later health issues
- studied effects of uplifts
- 100 p's 45-64 did questionnaires monthly for a year
- studied effects of uplifts
- found: correlation between health problems were greater for hassles than life events
- daily uplifts have little effect on helath
- daily hassles have greater impact on health than life events
- uplifts unlikely to counteract -ve effects on health
- compared hassles and life events to predict later health issues
- Bouteyre et al
- investigated relationship between daily hassles & mental health of students from transition from school to uni
- 1st year psych. students at french uni completed a hassles questionnaire
- 41% of students showed depressive symptoms
- +ve correlation between hassles scores & likelihood of depressive symptoms
- transition to uni fraughtt with daily hassles & is a significant risk factor for depression
- investigated relationship between daily hassles & mental health of students from transition from school to uni
- reasearch has practical application, useful in consideration of daily hassles linking to health issues. allows us to address the issue
- 2 explanations of why daily hassles lead to health problems
- accumalation effect: daily hassles produce stress, effects build up over time resulting in serious stress reactions e.g. depression
- amplification effect; major life events make people less able to deal with daily hassles, leading to SRI
- retrospective data & questionning
- correlational research\: cant determine a cause and effect relationship.
- the more minor stresses that can occour in day to day life, such a missing the bus or waking up late
- workplace stress
- no. of factors can contribute to workplace stress,
- Marmot et al, CONTROL
- 7372 male & female civil service employees, high demand and low demand jobs, all p's did a questionnaire to asses level of job control and social support and examined for signs of aCHD
- p's reassessed 5 years later
- -ve correlation, between jo control and stress related illness
- p's with least job control were 1.5-2.2 x more likely to suffer cardiovascular symptoms,
- people in low control jobs more likley to suffer CHD those in high demand jobs least likely to suffer, applies to males and females
- individual differences were controlled bevausre same p's were compared at beginning and end of study
- v. large sample of men and women.
- longitudinal
- v. large sample of men and women.
- some measures of CHD could lack validity, based on self report not doctors diagnoosis
- civil servants may not be representative of non civil servants
- 7372 male & female civil service employees, high demand and low demand jobs, all p's did a questionnaire to asses level of job control and social support and examined for signs of aCHD
- Marmot et al, CONTROL
- Johansson et al
- compared 2 groups of swedish sawmill employees,
- group 1- sawyers with high WORKLOAD stressful, repetitive job. pay of whole company determined by their work
- group 2- maintenance workers, lower workload and more felxibility withiin their work
- group 1- sawyers with high WORKLOAD stressful, repetitive job. pay of whole company determined by their work
- sawyers with hgih workload had higher levels of adrenaline than maintenance workers
- sawyers also had high stress keves on work days compared to resr dyas, also took more sick days
- practical application, employers need to be aware of mpact of high workload,
- study doesnt identify which aspects of jobs were stressfuk
- some variables not controlled, some workers who are vulnerable to stress are attractes to high workload such as sawyers
- compared 2 groups of swedish sawmill employees,
- research has given insight into range of factors which cause stress un the workplace, can be used to work on methods to reduce stress relates illness
- individual differences qignored, type a's more susceptible to work stress than others etc.
- finding may soon become out of date.
- no. of factors can contribute to workplace stress,
- life changes
- stress management
- physiological/biological
- benzodiazepines/ BZ'S
- anti anxiety drugs, reduce serotonin and noradrenaline produced by the body as a stress response
- cross the blood brain barrier which means physiological addiction as well as psychological addiction can occour
- can lead to side effects such as body tremors and drowziness
- easy to use
- readily available
- cost effective
- no commitment needed
- cost effective
- readily available
- cross the blood brain barrier which means physiological addiction as well as psychological addiction can occour
- Kahn et al: 250 PS over 8 weeks dound Bzs more effective than placebo
- anti anxiety drugs, reduce serotonin and noradrenaline produced by the body as a stress response
- beta blockers
- reduce adrenaline activity by binding receptors of heart to be less stimulated by stress response
- lower blood pressure resulting in calm less stressed individuall
- work quickly
- effective
- dont cross blood-brain barrier so no physical addiction can occor
- proven to be effective in calming performers, music often sounding better with a musician on beta blockers
- dont cross blood-brain barrier so no physical addiction can occor
- effective
- treats symptoms not the cause
- reduce adrenaline activity by binding receptors of heart to be less stimulated by stress response
- benzodiazepines/ BZ'S
- psychological treatments
- hardiness training
- 3 step process,
- 1:focusing, teaching stress response to client so they can spot it
- reconstructing stressful situation; relive stressor. analyse, understand and learn coping mechanisms
- 3: self improvement: life application, client applies teachings to real life and with commitment to therapy continues to learn to managae stress
- deals with symptoms and cause
- research supports effectiveness
- importance of 3 C's critisised
- 3 step process,
- stress innoculation therapy
- 3 stage process: deals with stressor and symptoms
- 1: conceptualization: relive stressor
- 2: skills aquisition: learning coping mechanisms
- 3: life application, apply new techniques to real life
- 2: skills aquisition: learning coping mechanisms
- 1: conceptualization: relive stressor
- 2 pronged attack
- good for short and long term stress as mechanisms learnt
- time consuming
- expensive
- few research studies, one by meichenbaum himself. observer bias?
- commitment reliant
- few research studies, one by meichenbaum himself. observer bias?
- expensive
- time consuming
- good for short and long term stress as mechanisms learnt
- 3 stage process: deals with stressor and symptoms
- hardiness training
- physiological/biological
- personality factors:
- type a & b behaviour
- type a traits; hostile. competitive. work against clock. want to win. strive for success. anger directed inwards
- friedman & rosenman: aimed to see if theres a link between TAB and CHD risk
- 3453 californian men 39-54 free from chd signs, sampled and labelled type a or b exxamined for CHD after 8 year observation
- type a heart attacks: 12.8% type b heart attacks; 6%
- fatal heart attacks: a: 2.7% b: 1,1%
- conc: possible link between TAB and CHD
- type a heart attacks: 12.8% type b heart attacks; 6%
- 3453 californian men 39-54 free from chd signs, sampled and labelled type a or b exxamined for CHD after 8 year observation
- friedman & rosenman: aimed to see if theres a link between TAB and CHD risk
- type b traits: relaxed laid back attitude. internal recognition. patient. focus on positive. self encouraging.
- type a traits; hostile. competitive. work against clock. want to win. strive for success. anger directed inwards
- HARDY PERSONALITY
- 3 c's: control of your life
- commitment
- challenge
- commitment
- KOBASA: Measured 3 c's via questionnaire and found those woth high hardiness scores less likely to suffer stress related illness
- 800 business execs used SRRS to measure stress, some had high illness record and some low ilness record.
- found people in highstress/lowilness group scored high on all 3 c's whilst highstress/lowillness scored lower
- people with a hardy personality more resillient ro STI when under stress
- found people in highstress/lowilness group scored high on all 3 c's whilst highstress/lowillness scored lower
- 800 business execs used SRRS to measure stress, some had high illness record and some low ilness record.
- 3 c's: control of your life
- type a & b behaviour
- body's stress response
Comments
No comments have yet been made