190 likes | 426 Views
3.1 Causes of stress. Learning outcomes. Understand the following three studies on causes of stress: Work (Johansson et al. (1978) ‘Social psychological and neuroendocrine stress reactions in highly mechanised work’, Ergonomics 21 (8), 583–99);
E N D
Learning outcomes Understand the following three studies on causes of stress: • Work (Johansson et al. (1978) ‘Social psychological and neuroendocrine stress reactions in highly mechanised work’, Ergonomics 21 (8), 583–99); • Hassles and life events (Kanner et al. (1981) ‘Comparison of two modes of stress measurement’, Journal of Behavioural Medicine 4 (1), 1–39); • Lack of control (Geer, J. and Maisel, E. (1972) ‘Evaluating the effects of the prediction-control confound’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23 (3), 314–19).
Work Key study: Johansson et al. (1978) Aim • To measure the psychological and physiological stress response in two categories of employees. Method • A quasi-experiment where workers were defined as being at high risk (of stress) or in a control group.
Participants • 24 workers at a Swedish sawmill. • The high-risk group was 14 workers who had to work at a set pace. Their job was complex and they were responsible for their own and their team’s wages. • The control group was 10 workers who were cleaners or maintenance men.
Design • An independent design with participants already working in one of the two categories, so no manipulation of the independent variable.
Procedure • Each participant was asked to give a daily urine sample when they arrived at work and at four other times during the day. They also gave self-reports of mood and alertness plus caffeine and nicotine consumption. • The baseline measurements were taken at the same time on a day when the workers were at home.
Procedure (cont.) • Catecholamine (adrenaline) levels were measured in the urine. • Body temperature was measured at the time of urine collection. • Self-rating scales of words such as ‘sleepiness’, ‘wellbeing’, ‘irritation’ and ‘efficiency’ were made on scales from none to maximal (the highest level the person had ever experienced). • Caffeine and nicotine consumption were noted.
Findings • The high-risk group had adrenaline levels twice as high as their baseline and these continued to increase throughout the day. The control group had a peak level of 1½ times baseline level in the morning and this then declined during the rest of their shift. • In the self-report, the high-risk group felt more rushed and irritated than the control group. They also rated their wellbeing lower than the control group.
Conclusions • The repetitive, machine-paced work, which was demanding in attention to detail and was highly mechanised, contributed to the higher stress levels in the high-risk group.
Hassles Key Study: Kanner et al. (1981) Aim • To compare the Hassles and Uplift Scale and the Berkman Life Events Scale as predictors of psychological symptoms of stress. Method • Longitudinal study using self-report and psychometric tests.
Participants • 100 people from California. Design • A repeated design as participants completed both self-reports.
Procedure • All tests were sent out by post one month before the study began. • The participants were asked to complete: • The Hassles rating every month for nine months. • The Life Events rating after ten months. • The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) and the Bradburn Morale Scale every month for nine months.
Findings • Hassles were consistent from month to month. • For men, life events positively correlated with hassles and negatively with uplifts. • For women, life events positive correlated with hassles and uplifts. • Hassle frequency positively correlated with psychological symptoms on the HSCL.
Conclusions • Hassles are a more powerful predictor of psychological symptoms than life events. • Hassles contribute to psychological symptoms whatever life events have happened.
Lack of control Key study: Geer and Meisel (1972) Aim • To see if perceived control or actual control can reduce stress reactions to aversive stimuli (photos of crash victims). Method • Laboratory experiment.
Participants • 60 psychology undergraduates from New York University. Design • Independent design as participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions.
Procedure • Each participant was seated in a sound-shielded room and wired up to galvanic skin response (GSR) and heart-rate monitors. • Group 1 were given actual control over how long they saw each photograph for. • Group 2 were yoked to the actual control group, warned how long the photos would be shown for and that a noise would precede them. • Group 3 were also yoked to actual control group, but were told that that from time to time they would see photographs and hear tones.
Findings • The predictability group (Group 2) were most stressed by the tone as they knew what was coming, but did not have control over the photograph. • The control group (Group 1) were less stressed by the photograph than the predictability group and no-control group (Groups 1 and 2) as they had control.
Conclusions • It is likely that having the control to terminate aversive stimuli reduces the stressful impact of those stimuli.