Stress

1. Under-vigilance
   1. Letting infections enter without being dealt with effectively
2. Over-vigilance
   1. The immune system mistakenly attacks cells which are not antigens, creating illness

1. Acute stressors
   1. Kiecolt-Glaser et al
   2. Marucha et al
2. Chronic stressors
   1. Kiecolt-Glaser et al
      1. Blister wounds
      2. Seperation
3. Evans et al

   Nota:

   • They looked at the activity of the antibody slgA which coats the surfaces of the mouth, lungs and stomach. He arranges students to give small talks to other students (mild, but acute stress). He found an increase in slgA in these students, but a decrease in slgA in these students during examination periods stretching several week. He suggests that stress may increase efficiency in the persence of short-term acute stress, but down regulate for chronic stress
4. Segerstrom and Miller

   Nota:

   • Analysed 293 studies conducted over the previous 30 years. They found that short-term, acute stressors can boost the immune system and long term, chronic stressors can suppress the immune system. The longer the stress, the more immune system shifted from potentially adaptive to potentially detrimental.

1. Testing the SRRS

   Nota:

   • Rahe wanted to use 'normal' ppts. To do this, he asked all the men aboard the US Navy Cruiser (2700) to compete the SRRS before completing a tour of duty, noting all the life events they had experienced in the past 6 months. An illness score was calculated based on number, type and severities of illness suffered during the tour. They found a positive correlation between LCU and illness score of +0.118. Whilst this is not a strong correlation, it was a significant one because it was robust and consistent. This implies that life change leads to stress.

Nota:

• As well as questioning the validity of retrospective reports, other psychologists have questioned the reliability of the SRRS. Rahe found that test-retest reliablity of the SRRS depends on the length of time between the test and retest. However, in general, research has found reasonable reliability. Hardt et al asked about childhood experiences with a time lag of 2.2 years and found moderate to good reliability.

1. Correlational data
2. + and - life events
3. Individual differences
4. Daily hassles
5. Validity

1. Bouterye et al
2. Gervais

1. Methodological problems
   1. Retrospective recall

      Nota:

      • Much of the research investigating stress and hassles involves asking ppts to rate the hassles over a certain time period. This is unreliable, as we often forget events, particularly routine or everyday ones, such as losing keys or being stuck in traffic
   2. Cause and effect

      Nota:

      • Although this research identifies a relationship between daily hassles and stress, it doesn't mean that hassles lead to stress. Perhaps there are other factors, such as personality which may affect both hassles and stress. 

1. Friedman and Roseman
2. Evaluation
   1. Ragland and Brand

      Nota:

      • They conducted a follow up to the orignal research 22 years after the start of the study. They found that 214 (approx 15%) of the men died from CHD. This confirms the importance of risk factors associated with CHD (age, smoking etc), but did not confirm the link between type A and morality
   2. Myrtek

      Nota:

      • They conducted a meta analysis of 35 studies into type A personality. They found hosility to be linked to CHD, but no link to the other factors identified in Type A personality. Therefore this undermines the link between Type A and stress-related illness
3. Type B is opposite

1. 3 C's
   1. Maddi et al
   2. Lifton et al
2. Evaluation

   Nota:

   • Hardiness and Negative Affectivity (NA) - What if the 3 C's are not characteristics of a Hardy Personality, but are instead ways of thinking about successes and failures - Some people dwell on failure, report more distress and dissatisfaction and focus on the negative characterisitc. These people are referred to as High on Negative Affectivity - NA and hardy personality are negatively correlated- This suggests that those 'hardy individuals' are really just low in NA
   1. Hardiness and Negative Affectivity

1. Hardiness training
   1. Evaluation
      1. Positives

         Nota:

         • -Hardiness training targets both perception and coping, therefore reducing the gap between demands and abilities - Provides the client with the ability to cope with a variety of stressful situations they may encounter in the future
      2. Negatives

         Nota:

         • Hardiness training takes time, commitment and money. Therefore not available to everyone

1. Evaluation

1. Slows down CNS
2. Evaluation
   1. Positives

      Nota:

      • - Kahn et al followed 250 patients over 8 weeks and found that Bz's were significantly superior to a placebo - Hidalgo et al conducted a meta analysis and found that Bz's were more effective at reducing anxiety than other antidpressants
   2. Negatives

      Nota:

      • - Patients exhibited withdrawal symptoms when they stopped taking the drug, even when they only took low doses. Ashton said that BZ's should be limited to a maximum of 4 weeks - There are side effects of BZ's which include increased aggressiveness and impairment of memory

1. Reduces activity of arenaline and noradrenaline
2. Evaluation
   1. Positives

      Nota:

      • - Effective in reducing anxiety in a variety of stressful situations. This is useful for musicians and in sport where accuracy is more important than physical stamina (e.g snooker and gold) - There are no known side effects
   2. Negatives

      Nota:

      • - There are some studies which have linked BB's with an increased risk of developmental diabetes

1. Positives

   Nota:

   • - Requires little effort from the user
2. Negatives

   Nota:

   • - Although the drugs are effective at treating the symptoms, the effect only lasts while the person is taking the drugs. As soon as they stop taking the drugs, the effectiveness ceases.