321435_Print.indd

(やまだぃちぅ) #1

understanding of the causes and effects of psychosocial stress have been limited by


the difficulty in coming to an agreement on just what stress is. Hans Selye’s classic


definition of stress as“the non-specific response of the body to any demand made


on it”(Selye 1973 , p. 692) allows an understanding of the basic concepts implicit in


the scientific conception of general stress: non-specificity, reliance on responses as


opposed to stimuli for identification of the existence of stress, and generality of the


response to many stimuli.


Selye ( 1956 ) conceptualized general stress, which he referred to as the“general


adaptation syndrome,”as occurring in three phases: an initial“alarm reaction,”a


stage of resistance, andfinally a stage of exhaustion. The alarm reaction, focused on


by many in identifying stress, is often anticipatory, preparing the individual for the


coming stressful conditions. The stage of resistance occurs after one has identified


the stressor and made specific adaptive responses to deal with it. In many cases, the


physiological conditions in the stage of resistance are much different than responses


during the alarm reaction. Finally, if the stressful conditions persist, one may reach


the limits of resistance, with the loss of the adaptive responses. This stage of


exhaustion invokes a response much like the alarm reaction; if a new means of


adapting is not found, the organism’s survival is in peril.


The“alarm reaction” stage of the process that Selye outlined is sometimes


conceptualized as“acute stress,”with the later stages associated with chronic stress
exposure. Alternatively, frequent experience of the alarm reaction may constitute


chronic stress. The alarm reaction may be the only stage in a given circumstance.


For instance, Sapolsky ( 2004 ) has noted that many prey species such as zebras react


with a strenuous alarm reaction when confronted with a nearby predator. However,


if the zebra is not eaten in the encounter, it quickly goes back to its usual mode of


what could be described as watchfulness without anxiety.


Many theories about stress focus on the alarm reaction phase of the stress


process. This phase has been defined variously by the type of stimulus (stressor),


type of response, or the“intervening”variable that links stimuli with specific


responses. Psychological theories of stress often implicate cognitive processes


specific to individuals as the intervening variable in determining whether a given


circumstance is stressful or not. For instance, Lazarus’theory (Lazarus 1966 ) states


that general stress occurs only when two conditions are met: there is a cognitive


appraisal that a given situation is potentially harmful, and there is a second appraisal


that this situation cannot be coped with routinely. Lazarus ( 1993 , p. 15) has noted


that these appraisal processes are“often non-volitional and unconscious.”Thus, one


must separate the conscious experience of stress from the cognitive appraisal that


leads to a physiological stress response.


Lazarus’conception of stress is one example of a theory that defines psy-


chosocial stress as an intervening variable, and also shows the importance of


individual differences based on knowledge and experience for determining if a


given situation is stressful or not. Other theories have similar characteristics; for


example the cognitive activation theory of stress states that stress is triggered when


there is a cognitive appraisal of a discrepancy“between what should be and what
is”(Ursin and Eriksen 2004 , p. 567). The importance of individual knowledge and


118 D.E. Brown

Free download pdf