Psychology
3.1 Causes of stress
Psychology
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).
Psychology
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.
Psychology
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.
Psychology
Design
• An independent design with participants
already working in one of the two categories,
so no manipulation of the independent
variable.
Psychology
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 selfreports 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.
Psychology
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.
Psychology
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.
Psychology
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.
Psychology
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.
Psychology
Participants
• 100 people from California.
Design
• A repeated design as participants completed
both self-reports.
Psychology
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.
Psychology
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.
Psychology
Conclusions
• Hassles are a more powerful predictor of
psychological symptoms than life events.
• Hassles contribute to psychological symptoms
whatever life events have happened.
Psychology
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.
Psychology
Participants
• 60 psychology undergraduates from New York
University.
Design
• Independent design as participants were
randomly assigned to one of three conditions.
Psychology
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.
Psychology
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.
Psychology
Conclusions
• It is likely that having the control to terminate
aversive stimuli reduces the stressful impact of
those stimuli.