limitations of the approach (which are discussed above) stem from the fact that it is
essentially atheoretical (Lazarus, 1990).
Lazarus (1966; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) suggested a new approach to stress based
on his own transactional theory of stress. Central to this theory and to his definition
of stress (see above) is the notion of appraisal. Lazarus takes the view that stress is not
a property of the environment (as suggested by the life events approach), nor is it a
property of the individual (as implied by research into physiological markers discussed
in Chapter 2), rather it is a transaction between the individual and the environment
(Lazarus, 1990). The focus is therefore on the process of appraisal and coping. In any
potentially stressful transaction or encounter, a person may appraise the situation
as involving harm or threat of harm, or alternatively they may see it in a positive, opti -
mistic light and view it as a challenge. The type of appraisal will then determine the
person’s coping processes, which will in turn determine subsequent appraisals (see
Chapter 5 for further discussion of the role of coping in this theory). Lazarus is therefore
describing a constantly changing relationship between the person and the environment.
Furthermore, he suggests that stress is a complex phenomenon that involves many
variables in terms of inputs, outputs and mediating factors associated with appraisal and
coping.
This approach clearly has implications for the way stress is measured. In particular,
Lazarus (1990) suggests that the search for a single satisfactory measure is ‘doomed to
failure’. He argues that stress needs to be assessed by a series of different measures, which
each capture different aspects of the stress process. Relevant measures therefore might
include environmental inputs (e.g. daily stressors as well as life events), measures of
individual differences, coping, and physiological and psychological responses. A critical
feature of this approach is that, because stress is a process, assessments should be repeated
over time. This theory led to the development of a measure of daily stressors known
as the Hassles Scale (e.g. Kanner et al., 1981) and subsequently a shorter Hassles and
Uplifts Scale (DeLongis et al., 1982). In this measure 53 items are listed, for example,
‘your children’, ‘your fellow workers’, ‘your health’ and respondents are asked to rate
separately the extent to which each item is a hassle or an uplift. A number of studies
have examined the extent to which both daily hassles and major life events predict ill
health and these have tended to suggest that hassles are more predictive (e.g. Kanner
et al., 1981; DeLongis et al., 1982). Research based on the transactional theory has
been associated with a growth in daily assessment to tap the stress process. This typically
uses ‘daily diaries’, which contain rating scales, such as the Hassles and Uplifts Scale.
In addition, they may also offer scope to provide qualitative descriptions of daily events
(see Research methods 3.2).
Inevitably, Lazarus’ approach has not been without critics. Criticisms have primarily
focused upon the notion that by including appraisal of the stressful nature of transactions
within measures of hassles, items may be inadvertently measuring psychological
distress. If correct, this would inevitably lead to positive correlations between stressors
and strains (Dohrenwend et al., 1984; Dohrenwend and Shrout, 1985). Dohrenwend
et al. (1984) suggested that while life events measures may also sometimes include items
that are symptoms rather than causes of distress, this is much more of a problem for
Lazarus’ measures. Here the mere instruction to rate the severity of hassles implies a
level of distress. Thus all items are potentially confounded with psychological distress.
Dohrenwend and Shrout (1985: 782) argue that environmental events should be
54 STRESS AND HEALTH