PsychExchange.co.uk Shared Resource

Area One Stress

Health and Clinical Psychology

G543

Three Sections

Causes Of Stress

Measuring Stress

Managing Stress

Work Johansson

Sawmill Study

Hassles and Life Events Kanner

Lack Of ControlGeer & Maisel

Car Crash Victims

Combined ApproachJohanssonSR & Urine

Physiological Approach

Geer & MaiselGSR

Self Report Approach

Holmes and Rahe

Cognitive Approach

MeichenbaumSIT

Behavioural ApproachBudynski

Biofeedback

Social ApproachWaxler -Morrison

Social Support

Section One : Causes of Stress

Work Johnansson

Hassles and Life Events Kanner

Lack of Control Geer and Maisel

Having any job means that you would experience more stress, however the type of job could make you more stressed.

Aim: Whether work stressors increase stress – related physiological arousal and stress related illness.

Procedure:-Natural Experiment with Independent measures design.- 24 Workers at a Swedish Sawmill. – 14 “finishers” (work at a set

pace, complex, isolated) 10 cleaners/maintenance (low risk stress).- 5 urine samples a day – measures stress hormone levels. - Body temperature and self report about mood, alertness, caffeine

and nicotine.- Also reading taken at home.- Records of stress – related illness and absenteeism.

Study One: Work Johansson

Study One: Work Johansson

Results and Findings- 1st urine sample of the day – More adrenaline in

finishes and continued to increase.- Lower well-being in finishers.- Finishers felt more rushed and irritated than the

control.Conclusions- Repetitive machine paced work – demanding in

attention to detail and highly mechanised –contributed to the higher levels of stress in the high risk group.

Evaluation:

Study One: Work Johansson

Two methods used: Self Report and urine tests. This allows more data to be collected to prove the aim. It also means that if the self report shows some thing different you will be able to tell the participant was not telling the truth.

Ethnocentrism: Swedish sawmill – stress may be different in different cultures like Britain or American. It is also outdated as it was done in 1978. Jobs use computers more so making stress different.

Generalisabilty: Only 24 participants used and this may not be representative of how others experience stress. Also people have other jobs than working in a sawmill. Different jobs may come with different stress in comparison... Although different jobs showing different stress is what Johansson proved.

Study Two: Daily Hassles and Uplifts Kanner

The Hassles Scale being with the minor annoyances (bus being late) and major problems (not enough money for food). Also have Uplifts Scale to make the hassles more bearable. Kanner compared these with the Life Events Scale.

Aim: to compare the hassles and uplifts scale and the Berkman life events scale as predictors of psychological symptoms of stress.

Procedure:- Repeated measures design- Each participant completes a hassle rating and life events

scale.- Assessed psychological symptoms of stress using Hopkins

Symptom Checklist (HSCL) and Bradburn Moral Scale.

Procedure continued:- 100 people from California (white) protestant with good income

and at least 9th grade education.- All tests sent by post one month before study started participants

asked to complete – the hassle rating for 9 months; life events for 10 months and HSCL and Bradburn every month for 9 months.

Findings:- Hassles consistent.- Hassles frequency correlated positively with HSCL symptoms.- More hassles the more negative symptoms.- Hassles correlated positively more with psychological symptoms

than life events.Conclusion:- More daily hassles mean more stress which means more likely to

become ill through stress related symptoms.

Study Two: Daily Hassles and Uplifts Kanner

Evaluation:

Study Two: Daily Hassles and Uplifts Kanner

Ethical: consented as they agreed to complete the 4 scales for approximately 9 months as they were sent them in the post.

Social Desirability: Self report to measure the level of stress and hassles – which only gets quantitative data [doesn’t tell you why they are stressed just know how much because 4 rating scales] from HSCL, Bradburn Morale Scale and Daily Hassles Scales and Life Events Scale – Only put what makes them look good!

Not Generalisable: White Protestant people from California that have a good income with at least a 9th Grade education. Cannot generalise to any one else whose not from California and have less than a 9th Grade education and not on a good income.

Study Three:Lack of Control Geer and Maisel

There might be two reasons why someone is stressed in a situation. This may be because of the actual situation but another reason can be the lack of control on the situation.

Aim: Too see if perceived control or actual control can reduce stress reactions to adverse stimuli. See the effect of control reducing stress reactions.

Procedure:- Lab experiment [Independent Measures Design] with 60

students who were randomly assigned to each group.- Shown photographs of dead car crash victims. - Stress levels measures with GSR (Galvanic Skin Response)

and heart rate with EEG

Procedure Continued :

- Group One Given control – can terminate image by button.

- Group Two Warned photos 60 seconds apart, see photo for 35 seconds all with a warning tone. No control but knew what was happening.

- Group Three No control just hear tones and see pictures.

- Machines calibrate for 5 minutes for baseline measurement.

- GSR taken onset tone, halfway and response to Photo.

Results:

- EEG discarded – appeared inaccurate.

- Group One – least stressed.

- Group Two – higher stress

- Group Three – highest stress.

Conclusion:

Having control over your environment reduces the stress you suffer.

Study Three:Lack of Control Geer and Maisel

Evaluation:

Study Three:Lack of Control Geer and Maisel

No qualitative data – they only collected quantitative through the machine readings but did not get qualitative date from the participants like ask them about the stress they suffered and how they felt about the lack of control in a self report.

Reliable method [consistent] – acting the same way – machinery which took 3 readings from the GSR machine – they all experienced the same.

Lacks Validity – the GSR can read emotional arousal but it doesn't just include stress – Not as accurate – not measuring what it set out to measure.

Section Two : Measuring Stress

Physiological Measures Geer And Maisel

Self Report Kanner

Combined Approach Johansson

Study One:Physiological Geer and Maisel

Physiological because of GSR machine that measures skin conductance and a EEG machine to measure heart rate, and they used urine samples to measure adrenaline cortisol this all gets reliable scientific quantitative data.

Aim: Too see if perceived control or actual control can reduce stress reactions to adverse stimuli. See the effect of control reducing stress reactions.

Procedure:- Lab experiment [Independent Measures Design] with 60

students who were randomly assigned to each group.- Shown photographs of dead car crash victims. - Stress levels measures with GSR (Galvanic Skin Response)

and heart rate with EEG

Procedure Continued :

- Group One Given control – can terminate image by button.

- Group Two Warned photos 60 seconds apart, see photo for 35 seconds all with a warning tone. No control but knew what was happening.

- Group Three No control just hear tones and see pictures.

- Machines calibrate for 5 minutes for baseline measurement.

- GSR taken onset tone, halfway and response to Photo.

Results:

- EEG discarded – appeared inaccurate.

- Group One – least stressed.

- Group Two – higher stress

- Group Three – highest stress.

Conclusion:

Having control over your environment reduces the stress you suffer.

Study One:Lack of Control Geer and Maisel

Evaluation of the approach within the study:

Study One:Physiological Geer and Maisel

•Very Scientific as it measures the electrical current to the skin (difference in resistance). GSR collects objective data.

•Reliable because it can be repeated again and again and it is consistent in giving the same or similar results as the ones before if the machine takes the reading every time. •Used the GSR machine 3 times per person.

•GSR doesn’t just measure stress it can measure anger, sexual arousal and startle response therefore is isn't valid.

•Lack of qualitative data therefore do not understand why as GSR machine just measures how stressed and not why they are stressed by looking at the car crash victim.

Study Two: Self Report Holmes and Rahe

Its a self report as it gets both qualitative (open and interviews) and quantitative data (rating scale). It finds differences in how people judge stress with this data.

• Devised the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) which measured life events as predictors of stress.

Procedure:- Looked at medical records to come up with a list of 43 life

events e.g. Pregnancy, Divorce and Christmas.- Asked 100 people to rate each of these as to how much

readjustment they would involve after experiencing each one.- The higher the number the more stressful the event was and

the more readjustment would be needed to cope with this event.

• The values attached to each event are Life Change Units (LCUs).

• They then used this scale to see how many of these life events a person has experienced with a given time period (e.g. The last 12 months).

• Those that score 300 LCUs have an 80% chance of becoming ill through stress related life events.

• Might have missed some important life events.• Are life events seen the same by everyone?• Over 12 months – can miss a lot in a month

before or after.

Study Two: Self Report Holmes and Rahe

Evaluation of the approach within the study:

Study Two: Self Report Holmes and Rahe

.

•Tells people why they are stressed not verbal.•Raises awareness of the risk of illness with stress (above 300 = more chance of illness)•Self report scale devised not just by Holmes and Rahe. They were from different ethnic backgrounds (Less Ethnocentric).

•Doesn’t relate to all age ranges, not all people have been married (too young) or not everyone goes to church.•Ambiguous “change in financial state” – could be more or less.•Out of the date (1967) different attitudes, stressors have changed –therefore less valid.•Questions viewed differently for levels of stress (more or less)•Only quanti data as it doesn't collect why or how they feel.

Doesn’t just investigate with physiological or self report. Collects data using both.

Aim: Whether work stressors increase stress – related physiological arousal and stress related illness.

Procedure:-Natural Experiment with Independent measures design.- 24 Workers at a Swedish Sawmill. – 14 “finishers” (work at a set

pace, complex, isolated) 10 cleaners/maintenance (low risk stress).- 5 urine samples a day – measures stress hormone levels. - Body temperature and self report about mood, alertness, caffeine

and nicotine.- Also reading taken at home.- Records of stress – related illness and absenteeism.

Study Three: Combined Approach Johansson

Study Three : Combined Approach Johansson

Results and Findings- 1st urine sample of the day – More adrenaline in

finishes and continued to increase.- Lower well-being in finishers.- Finishers felt more rushed and irritated than the

control.Conclusions- Repetitive machine paced work – demanding in

attention to detail and highly mechanised –contributed to the higher levels of stress in the high risk group.

Evaluation of the approach within the study:

Study Three : Combined Approach Johansson

•Gets both types of data as urine samples shows scientific measurement of adrenaline (quanti data) and from the self report –mood level, alertness and caffeine and nicotine intake (quali)•Urine sample 5 times a day – Check for reliability.•Check if data correlates as they can see if social desirability has occurred as self report would link to their urine samples – more valid.

•Social desirability – lie on self report –less valid.•5 urine samples a day (120) and self reports – Boredom – Fatigue effect –answer wrong - less valid.•A lot of data to analyse for the researcher.

Section Three: Managing Stress

Cognitive SIT Meichenbaum

Behavioural Biofeedback Budynski

Social Social Support Waxler-Morrison

Study One:Cognitive – Sit - MeichenbaumTreatment:

Cognitive – Stress Inoculation Training (SIT)• SIT is an example of cognitive behavioural therapy, and it is a form of cognitive restructuring.• Sit is an attempt to reduce stress through changing cognitions as it assumes people find

things stressful because they think negatively.• It is an inoculation as it is a way of enabling a person to become resistant to a stressor by

exposing them to a “small dose” of it.SIT involves 3 stagesStage One: Cognitive Preparation• The therapist explores with the client how they deal will stressful situations and how

successful they are with coping with them.• Common responses to stressful situations are to make negative self-statements (e.g. I can’t

handle this). This is self-defeating internal dialogue and makes a stressful situation more stressful.

Stage Two: Skill Acquisition and Rehearsal• Helps the client to develop coping techniques – direct and cognitive.• Direct action might include learning physical relaxation exercises.• Cognitive coping might involve the use of preparation statements (maybe what you think is

anxiety is an eagerness to confront it). These are positive, coping statements. The clients will need to practise these.

Stage Three: Application and follow-through• Once learned behavioural and cognitive skills the therapist guides them through increasingly

threatening situations (actual situations not role plays).• Go through some non-threatening situations and then they get more threatening and the

process is repeated.

Aim: Compare SIT to other treatments

Experiment:

• Field experiment and the students (self-selected 21 17-25yr olds) were assessed before and after treatments with self-report and grade averages.

• 3 groups: SIT, Standard systematic desensitisation and waiting list (control group) Matched pairs – Matched on gender and anxiety levels.

• Baseline Score – IQ tests and assessed with anxiety. Adjective checklist – each participant were tested using test anxiety questionnaire .

• SIT group – p’s got 8 sessions – “insight approach” – positive statements and relaxation techniques. Standard systematic desensitisation – 8 sessions with progressive relaxation training –practise at home – worse situations as relaxation continues. Control on waiting list to receive therapy in the future.

• SIT group most improved compared to other 2 groups and p’s said anxiety levels had dropped.

Study One:Cognitive – Sit – Meichenbaum

Evaluation:

• Field experiment – lack of control – participants will be affected differently by the different treatments – less reliable -however because of the high ecological validity students are experiencing real anxiety levels.

• Only collects Quantitative data – only numerical data - does not tell you why they are stressed or why they believe that the treatment is working. However it does make it easy to compare the effectiveness of all the treatments easily.

• Only 21 students – population validity is low therefore study is unrepresentative of the whole population. However need to do this as both SIT and Standard systematic desensitisation are both really expensive treatments

Study One:Cognitive – Sit – Meichenbaum

Study Two:Behavioural – Biofeedback - Budynski

Treatment:

A technique that trains people to improve their health by controlling certain bodily processes.

• Many scientists believe that relaxation is the key to a successful Biofeedback treatment. When going under chronic stress, your body has high blood pressure, Biofeedback therapy lowers this blood pressure level through a process of relaxation techniques and mental exercises. When successful, the results are shown on a monitor to the patient encouraging their efforts.

• First, electro codes are attached to your skin. They then send information to a monitoring box which translates measurements onto a computer screen. After that, the therapists leads you to do mental exercises- through trial and error you learn to identify the mental activities that will bring about physical changes.

Aim: To review previous research on the affects of biofeedback and placebo on the reduction of tension headaches.

• Methodology: Exp method, electrodes placed on the patients muscles and being monitored using EMG feedback machine, showed muscle tension. Psychometric tests were uses to ascertain levels of depression in ps. Ps asked to complete questionnaire about their headaches.

• Participants: 18 self selected (newspaper article) Americans - 2 males and 16 females aged 22-44 mean age of 36. They were then screened to make sure that headaches were not caused by a medical concern. 3 Groups of 6.

• Group A: had biofeedback with relaxation training and EMG. Group B: had relaxation training with only pseudo feedback, from others sessions. Group C: the control group they were told they were on the waiting list, these ps were asked to attend the lab for appointments to enable them to stay on the study.

• Procedure: to give a baseline for their headache reading patients kept a record of their headaches for 2 week they rated them from mild (1) to severe (5) every hour. They also completed a psychometric test of depression, hysteria and hypochondria. (MMPI). Groups A & B were given 2 sessions each week for 8 weeks -16 sessions of training. Group A were taught relaxation and told that the ‘clicks; of the biofeedback machine would reflect their muscle tension. Slow clicks – lower muscle tension. Group B told to concentrate on varying clicks. Both groups told to practise relaxation at home for 13-20 mins twice a day. Group C received no training - start in 2 weeks time.

• Findings: At the end of the training and after another 3 months Group A’s muscle tension significantly lower than group B’s. Group A; reported headaches were also significantly less than both Groups B & C.

• Conclusions: Biofeedback is effective in managing tension headaches and reducing stress. Relaxation training is also more effective than monitoring alone This is also better when used with biofeedback.

Study Two:Behavioural – Biofeedback - Budynski

• It is effective for a range of health problems

• Lack of side effects

• It also helps relieve abdominal pain in children

•Requires specialist equipment

•Can be more expensive and difficult to use at home than other methods.

•It may be the biofeedback itself that’s important; it may be the person developing a sense of control over their well being, learning simple relaxation techniques, all with a commitment to getting better.

Study Two:Behavioural – Biofeedback - Budynski

Study Three:Social – Social Support – Waxler-

Morrison Treatment:Social Support• There are various categories of social supportEmotional Support:• Can provide comfort and reassurance, by raising self-esteem and

self worth.• Help them feel able to cope with the situation.Practical Support:• Friends and support groups can help practically e.g. Lending money

and help them in a certain situation.Advice:• Sources of information with advice and possible coping strategies.

They would normally have gone through the same situation and can help them through experience.

• Aim: to look at how a woman’s social relationships influence her response to breast cancer and survival

• Participants: 133 pre-menopausal women under 55 referred to a clinic in Vancouver with a confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer

• Methodology: a quasi exp – women with breast cancer. Info gathered using questionnaires and 18 interviews. Also examination of medical records.

• Procedure: self administered questionnaires on their demography and existing social networks. Who they were responsible for, their perception of support from others, marital status. A psychometric test of social network contact with friends and families and church.

• Findings: The 6 aspects of social network significantly linked with survival were:-Marital status, Sup port from friends, Contact with friends , Total support, Social network, and Employment.

Study Three:Social – Social Support – Waxler-

Morrison

Study Three:Social – Social Support – Waxler-

Morrison

• Lacks Validity not measuring what it is meant to measure because there is a chance of social desirability because they might feel embarrassed about their answers to the questionnaires.

• No good for people with high levels of stress.

• Ungeneralisable – only able to generalise to American sufferers of breast cancer.

•

• Good for people with technical illnesses (breast cancer)

• People you are comfortable with so therefore feel more supported from them.

• Study is good because gathered information from 18 interviews and medical records.

• Natural experiment therefore all experiences are real.