2165721
Description
Flashcards by Gurdev Manchanda, updated more than 1 year ago
|
|
Created by Gurdev Manchanda
over 9 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Freidman and Rosenman | Type A/B personalities A: Whether heart disease is dependant on individual differences in vulnerability to stress P: followed 3154 healthy men, aged between thirty nine and fifty nine for eight and a half years. P: Divided into personalities and watched the correlation between who developed coronary heart disease and their types F: 70% of men who developed heart disease, were assessed as having type A personalities, so those with type A personalities were twice as likely to get coronary heart disease than type B personalities. |
| Evaluation of Freidman and Rosenman | + longitudinal study= showed the long term effects of personality fectors on stress related illness - didn't clarify which aspect of type A personality is responsible for the development of heart disease { counter w/ Matthew et al research } - this is a natural study so there were only correlating findings, so cause and efffect cannot be inferred |
| Matthew et al | Further investigation upon Freidman and Rosenman found that the main component of the Type A personality that correlated highest with Coronary Heart Disease was hostility |
| Kobasa et al | Hardiness A: to support her theory that some people cope w/ stress better bc they posses the traits to do so = a 'hardy' person P: 100 business executives experiencing stressful life events P: assessed them against the 3C's and compared against illness scores at the time and one year later F: on both occasions the level of illness was lower for hardy individuals |
| Evaluation of Kobasa et al | - natural experiment = research only showed correlation, so cause and effect cannot be deduced, IV cannot be manipulated - wasn't clarified whether each component of hardiness are equally important - most of research was carried out on white middle class, so research may be biased and find it hard to generalise, lack external population validity - ethnocentric and androcentric {Klag and Bradley found that the effects of hardiness are generally weaker in women than men} |
| Keicolt- Glaser et al | stress and immune system A: the effect of stress on the functionality of the immune system P: 75 medical students before important exams P: took blood samples a month before exams and on the first day of exams assessed functioning of immune system by comparing the no. T cells completed questionnaires on how stressful their lives are e.g. loneliness and life events, to assess psychological variables F: natural killer cell activity decreased between the first and second sample, showing that stress is related to a reduced response of the immune system immune responses were especially weak in those students who experienced most lonely and life events showing that psychiatric symptoms were also involved |
| Evaluation of Keicolt- Glaser et al | - sampling bias= the external validity of the study is compromised bc it only involved medical students + natural experiment=high ecological validity - cannot establish cause and effect - possibly lacks internal validity bc doesnt take into account extraneous variables e.g alcohol, drugs, diet, nicoteine or caffine... |
| Cohen, Tyrell and Smith | A: are stressed individuals more likely to develop a common cold P: mixed individuals experiencing stress P: the ppts stress is assessed [LCU &SRRS, perceived stress & -ve emotions] and then they are exposed to a common cold virus. they are quarantined for approx seven days, in which they take regular nasal samples and observe no. tissues used per day as measures of the development of the cold F: a clear relationship between levels of stress and rate of infection |
| Evaluation of Cohen, Tyrell and Smith | - do not provide conclusive link - cause and effect, may be due to another, unexamined factor - Not sure if it may be the other way around, stress caused development of illness or illness caused stress- lacks internal validity |
| Rahe et al | Life events and illness A: to find a link between life events and illness P: 2500 US naval personnel over a period of a 6 month tour P: assessed no. life events using a self report questionnaire & find LCU correlational analysis carried out between the stress scores and the health record kept for each ppt over the course F: significant but small correlation of +0.118 between total LCU's and occurance of illness |
| Evaluation of Rahe et al | - sample bias= lacks external, population validity bc the ppts were male (androcentric), american(ethnocentric) and specifically sailors (same job) - cause and effect cannot be inferred - events may be the other way around- it is likely that illness caused certain life events instead, e.g change is eating and sleeping habits - weak association bc even though it was a significant correlation, the sample size was so large that it questions the strength |
| Holmes and Rahe | SRRS A: to develop a measurement of how much readjustment each major life event incurs, which in turn estimates the level of stress (score) that should be experienced P: 5000 patient records & 400 ppts who gave ratings that contributed to stress values P: examined patient records to choose 43 life events that commonly preceded illness 400 ppts rated the amount of stress experienced for each & average rate gave the stress value for that life event stress score/10 = LCU value F: development of SRRS & LCU |
| Evaluation of Holmes and Rahe | + strong agreement on ratings across different groups - gender, marital stature, race, age... {counter= this research only involved American ppl(ethnocentric) external population validity? BUT McAndrew et al asked Germans, Indians and South Africans to rate the stress experienced, showed high level of agreement} - +ve and -ve life events- didn't differentiate between desirable and non desirable life events, and -ve life events are significant in causing stress - individual differences arent considered, bc life events have different meaning to individuals, impacting the LCU |
| Kanner et al | Daily Hassles A: whether daily hassles are more stressful than life events P: 100 middle class, white, well educated, american ppts P: for ten months, once every month the ppts would select the events on both scales that occurred, and on the daily hassles scale, they would rate the hassles based on severity and uplifts based upon frequency they would also complete a psychological well being tests F: the hassles scale tends to be a better predictor of stress related problems than the SRRS |
| Evaluation of Kanner et al | - unethical to make ppts think about their stresses on such a regular basis - carried out on white americans (ethnocentric) which may be a sample bias and question the validity of the experiment, especially the external validity -correlational data - cannot infer cause and effect - social desirability may influence the answers given in the questionnaire, ppts may want it seem as though they cope w/ stressors well or as though they are more stressed to gain sympathy and attention |
| Johansson et al | stress and workload- workplace stress A: investigate the link between workload and stress P: 14 finishers - high stress workers- in sawmill & 10 low stress workers (less workload, more control) P: compared urine samples between those taken when at work and in free time. illnesses and absences were also recorded. F: finishers' urine samples contained higher levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline than low stress workers. illnesses and absenteeism were higher too |
| Evaluation of Johansson et al | + higher internal validity than if used other measures of stress ( self reports) bc objective and quantitative - sample may be culturally biased (ethnocentric) bc swedish people may perceive this job to be more stressful + supported by Karasek's demand control model- combination of high workload and low job control produces easily the highest levels of stress |
| Marmot et al | . |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.