Introduction
One of the most important theories in stress research today, the 'transactional model' (or 'approach') is important because it takes account of cognitive factors in stress. It is primarily the work of Lazarus and Folkman (1984).
General points
The GAS can be described as a a physiological model of stress, as it focusses on what happens inside the body - the outcomes of stress. The approach of Holmes and Rahe (1967) focusses on the stressors themselves - how they add up to make an individual stressed and ill. The transactional model is different because it focusses on the thought processes of individuals, such as how they view a stressor, and how they view themselves.
The details
The model proposes that a two part mental evaluation of a stressor occurs. This involves:
- Primary appraisal: assessing the stressor to judge how much of a threat it is.
- Secondary appraisal: assessing one's own ability to cope with the stressor. For example, does the person feel up for the challenge, or do they feel tired and overwhelmed?
Once these processes are complete, the person proceeds to tackle the stressor, and the outcome (good or bad) follows.
Evaluation
The transactional model is more realistic that some older models, in that it allows for different people to react to the same stressor in different ways. It can explain why some people find exams stressful, and others don't. Unlike the GAS, the research has been done on humans. It us a current theory which is proving very useful for research.
A negative side of the theory is that it assumes that people are rational in their thought processes, which may not always be true.
Monday, 27 April 2009
The 'GAS'
Introduction
One of the main theories in the area of stress, the 'General Adaptation Syndrome' or 'GAS' is based on the work of Hans Selye and colleagues. It presents the idea that a person proceeds through a series of stages as they fight stress.
Key Ideas
The GAS suggests that all animals including humans react to all stressors in a similar way. The response to stressors is presented as a 'syndrome', a medical term for a group of symptoms that appear together.
The details
The reaction to stress is presented as adaptation or resistance, for Selye believed that this is an important part of how the body fights stressors, including illness. Not all stressors will cause the full range of stages to be experienced, but if they are, then the person progresses throught three main stages:
- Alarm: the body's reactions and heightened and a 'fight or flight' reaction is experienced. The body releases adrenalin and glucose enters the bloodstream. Symptoms include sweating, a raised heart rate. Internally, the adrenal glands enlarge, and stomach ulcers may be present. The immune system is damaged, with a shrinking of the lymph (white blood cell) system.
- Resistance: if the stressor persists, the body adapts to find some way of coping. Stress hormones such as cortisol are released, and the body obtains energy by burning fats. Even though the stressor is still present, symptoms from the alarm stage disappear.
- Exhaustion: if the stress is prolonged for weeks without being overcome, the body may become
exhausted. Symptoms from the first stage reappear. Ultimately this results in 'diseases of adaptation' such as heart disease, and psychological problems such as depression are also likely.
Evaluation
The GAS is a thorough biological theory of stress, based on a large body of experimental evidence. However, a lot of the research has been done on animals (especially rats and birds), making it harder to apply to humans. The theory is based on sound knowledge of biological systems. However, it does not always take account of psychological factors. The idea that all organisms react to all stressors in the same way is certainly an oversimplification.
One of the main theories in the area of stress, the 'General Adaptation Syndrome' or 'GAS' is based on the work of Hans Selye and colleagues. It presents the idea that a person proceeds through a series of stages as they fight stress.
Key Ideas
The GAS suggests that all animals including humans react to all stressors in a similar way. The response to stressors is presented as a 'syndrome', a medical term for a group of symptoms that appear together.
The details
The reaction to stress is presented as adaptation or resistance, for Selye believed that this is an important part of how the body fights stressors, including illness. Not all stressors will cause the full range of stages to be experienced, but if they are, then the person progresses throught three main stages:
- Alarm: the body's reactions and heightened and a 'fight or flight' reaction is experienced. The body releases adrenalin and glucose enters the bloodstream. Symptoms include sweating, a raised heart rate. Internally, the adrenal glands enlarge, and stomach ulcers may be present. The immune system is damaged, with a shrinking of the lymph (white blood cell) system.
- Resistance: if the stressor persists, the body adapts to find some way of coping. Stress hormones such as cortisol are released, and the body obtains energy by burning fats. Even though the stressor is still present, symptoms from the alarm stage disappear.
- Exhaustion: if the stress is prolonged for weeks without being overcome, the body may become
exhausted. Symptoms from the first stage reappear. Ultimately this results in 'diseases of adaptation' such as heart disease, and psychological problems such as depression are also likely.
Evaluation
The GAS is a thorough biological theory of stress, based on a large body of experimental evidence. However, a lot of the research has been done on animals (especially rats and birds), making it harder to apply to humans. The theory is based on sound knowledge of biological systems. However, it does not always take account of psychological factors. The idea that all organisms react to all stressors in the same way is certainly an oversimplification.
Monday, 30 March 2009
RIs done and dusted at last
!!Well done everybody!!
I have finally got the RIs processed and packed up... You are probably glad to see the back of them and I certainly am too!
Having said that, I hope you look back on it as quite an enjoyable part of the course. Running your own experiment and taking responsibility for research is something many of you will be doing more of when at university, so hopefully you have benefited from the experience. Even when things didn't go well, you can learn a lot...these can be the best lessons, in fact. Try to keep in mind feedback I have given you regarding use of sources, references, backing up your data etc.
Overall, I'd like to post here what I have said to a few of you informally - I thought they were a really good batch of projects, and I am very confident that all of them will get a decent mark. Many are deserving of very high marks indeed.
Please comment here or speak to me if you have any feedback on doing the RIs, e.g. suggestions of things that could be improved.
Well done again on some excellent work.
I have finally got the RIs processed and packed up... You are probably glad to see the back of them and I certainly am too!
Having said that, I hope you look back on it as quite an enjoyable part of the course. Running your own experiment and taking responsibility for research is something many of you will be doing more of when at university, so hopefully you have benefited from the experience. Even when things didn't go well, you can learn a lot...these can be the best lessons, in fact. Try to keep in mind feedback I have given you regarding use of sources, references, backing up your data etc.
Overall, I'd like to post here what I have said to a few of you informally - I thought they were a really good batch of projects, and I am very confident that all of them will get a decent mark. Many are deserving of very high marks indeed.
Please comment here or speak to me if you have any feedback on doing the RIs, e.g. suggestions of things that could be improved.
Well done again on some excellent work.
Monday, 16 March 2009
Friday, 13 March 2009
Citations
Just to add to my previous comments....a couple of issues about citations. The standard format used in Psychology is 'in text citations', where you refer to a previous work with name and year.
A lot of you are writing things in the format:
"...Selye did an experiment in 1936 where..."
This is non-standard. The standard way to express it would be:
"Selye (1936) did an experiment..."
OR
"...rats were stressed (Selye, 1936)."
Use brackets for the years. As well as being the standard format, it is also more accurate, as the year in question is the year of publication, but this might not be the year the research was actually carried out. So to say for example "Milgram did an experiment in 1963..." would be innacurate; his study was actually carried out between 1961-62, even though the citation would be "Milgram (1963)".
All part of correct presentation and style - this is level 2.
A lot of you are writing things in the format:
"...Selye did an experiment in 1936 where..."
This is non-standard. The standard way to express it would be:
"Selye (1936) did an experiment..."
OR
"...rats were stressed (Selye, 1936)."
Use brackets for the years. As well as being the standard format, it is also more accurate, as the year in question is the year of publication, but this might not be the year the research was actually carried out. So to say for example "Milgram did an experiment in 1963..." would be innacurate; his study was actually carried out between 1961-62, even though the citation would be "Milgram (1963)".
All part of correct presentation and style - this is level 2.
RI - one week to go
It's just a week until the deadline for RIs.
By and large I've been very pleased about how punctually you have submitted first drafts, and a majority have also given me an (optional) second draft to mark, which is great.
The standard has also been very good, with some first drafts needing very few changes indeed. Main problems have been missing sections, or sections which have been very short.
All of you should look over your introductions and ask whether you have a suitable amont of background research, and how relevant it is. Also, ensure that your discussion section contains all three parts - comparison of results to previous research, evaluation of methods and ethics, and broader implications/conclusions.
It is important not to forget the smaller sections too. Generally, references have been missing or incorrectly structured. Make sure that your write-ups are neatly presented, and have the correct headings (see the two examples in the textbook if you're unsure). Make sure it looks nice on the page, and again, avoid the use of first-person pronouns, and superfluous capital letters!
Added together, there are 7 marks for references plus presentation/style - compared to 5 for your background research part of the intro. So pay attention to these smaller details, don't let marks trickle away.
By and large I've been very pleased about how punctually you have submitted first drafts, and a majority have also given me an (optional) second draft to mark, which is great.
The standard has also been very good, with some first drafts needing very few changes indeed. Main problems have been missing sections, or sections which have been very short.
All of you should look over your introductions and ask whether you have a suitable amont of background research, and how relevant it is. Also, ensure that your discussion section contains all three parts - comparison of results to previous research, evaluation of methods and ethics, and broader implications/conclusions.
It is important not to forget the smaller sections too. Generally, references have been missing or incorrectly structured. Make sure that your write-ups are neatly presented, and have the correct headings (see the two examples in the textbook if you're unsure). Make sure it looks nice on the page, and again, avoid the use of first-person pronouns, and superfluous capital letters!
Added together, there are 7 marks for references plus presentation/style - compared to 5 for your background research part of the intro. So pay attention to these smaller details, don't let marks trickle away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
