Methods of Measuring and Stress
The Theories/Studies
1. Geer & Maisel (1973) Physiological Measures
2. Holmes & Rahe (1967) Self-report
3. Johannson (1978) Combined approach
There are various ways in which psychologists measure stress which we have
touched on in the last section: using physiological measures to assess the
biological reaction; asking people to assess their own stress levels or stressors
is also used. Of course there are methodological problems with both of these.
Here we are going to look at them in more detail, examining the physiological
approach against the social approach, investigate their methodological issues
and then ask whether a better way may be to combine them to create a more
holistic approach.
1.Geer and Maisel (1972)-Physiological Measurements of Stress.
Background: Physiological measures of stress can overcome the subjectivity of the selfreport by relying on scientific measurements of hormones, chemicals, heart rate and
blood pressure etc. the main problem with these is the validity. How can we be sure that
we are truly measuring stress levels. Think about other factors which can cause
physiological changes which can mimic stress reactions, caffine, recreational drugs or
alcohol.
Stress can be measured physiologically by any device that measures levels of arousal.
Adrenaline causes increased blood pressure which can be measured. Goldstein (1992)
found that paramedics had higher blood pressure during ambulance runs compared to at
home.
Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) measures the electrical resistance of the skin which is an
indicator of the level of arousal in the nervous system. Good for labs but not normal life.
Sample tests of Blood or Urine which can test the hormone level on the body secreted
through these. Lundenberg (1976) commuters on train higher levels of hormone secreted
on crowded short journey than long less crowded ride.
Aim: To see if perceived control or actual control can reduce stress reactions to aversive
stimuli (photos of crash victims).
Approach: Physiological
Type of Data: Quantitative
Method: Laboratory experiment 60 psychology undergraduates from New York University.
Independent design as participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions.
Details: Each participant was seated in a sound-shielded room and wired up to galvanic
skin response (GSR) and heart-rate monitors. The machine was calibrated for 5 minutes
while the participant relaxed and a baseline measurement was then taken. Instructions
were read over an intercom. Each photo was preceded with a 10 second tone and then
flashed up for 35 seconds (only the one group could terminate the photo and move on).
The GSR was taken at the onset of the tone and during the second half of the tone and in
response to the picture.
Group 1: were given control over how long they looked at the images for. They could press
a button to terminate the image and were told a tone would precede each new image.
Group 2: Were warned the photos would be 60 seconds apart they would see the picture
for 35 seconds and a 10 second warning tone would precede each photo. The group had no
control but did know what was happening.
Group 3: were told that from time to time they would see photos and hear tones but were
not given timings or any control.
•
•
•
•
A Beckman Model RB polygraph was used to collect psycho-physiological data.
The data was converted from a voltmeter to a printout.
Each recording was performed in a sound and electrically-shielded room to ensure
no audio or visual input from the projector would interfere with the data collection.
The heart monitors were attached in standard positions, and the GSR electrodes
were placed between the palm and forearm of the participants’ non-preferred arm
e.g. left arm for right-handed people.
Results; 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: Participants showed less GSR reaction, indicating less stress, when they
had control over the length of time they could look at the disturbing photographs. It
is likely that being able to terminate aversive stimuli reduces the stressful impact of
those stimuli.
2. Holmes and Rahe (1967) Self–Report Measures: Life Events as
Stressors.
Background: Self-report methods include questionnaires, interviews and diary keeping.
Holmes and Rahe used self-report measure with their Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS).
This looked at life events that have occurred in a person’s life and rates their importance. The
readjustments need to cope with these life events causes stress, so the more life events you
have to cope with the more stressed you are.
Aim: Creating a method that estimates the extent to which life events are stressors
Approach: Social
Type of Data: Quantitative
Method: In the correlation there was an independent design. A questionnaire designed
to ascertain how much each life event was considered a stressor with 394
participants’ 179 males and 215 females, from a range of educational abilities, races
and religions.
Details:
 Holmes and Rahe examined the medical records of 5,000 patients (all American
service men). From these, they put together a list of 43 life events which seemed
to precede (come before) illness.
 394 subjects (179 males and 215 females) from range of educational abilities and
ethnic groups and religions took part.
 Each participant was asked to rate the series of 43 life events. Rating should be
based on personal experience and perceptions of other people’s experience. The
amount of readjustment and the time it would take people to readjust were to be
considered
 They were told that ‘marriage’ had been given an arbitrary value of 50. The
participants then had to give a number to each of the other life events, indicating
how much readjustment they’d involve relative to marriage.
 Death of a spouse was judged (on average) to require twice as much readjustment
as marriage.
 The resulting values became the weighting (numerical value) of each life event.
 The amount of life stress a person has experienced in a given period (e.g. 12
months) is measured by the total number of life change units (LCUs).
 These units are calculated by adding the mean values (in the right hand column of
the table on the next page) associated with the events the person has
experienced during that time. The ranks (left hand column) simply denote the
order in which the life events appear in the SRRS.
Most life events were
judged to be less
stressful than getting
married.
But 6, including death
of a spouse, divorce and
personal
injury
or
illness were rated as
more stressful.
Holmes
and
Rahe
found that people with
high LCU scores for
the preceding year
were
likely
to
experience some sort
of physical illness the
following year.
For example, someone
scoring over 300 LCU s
had about an 80%
chance of becoming ill.
Results: Correlations between groups were tested and found to be high
in all but one group.
Males and females agreed. Participants of different ages, religions,
educational level agreed.
There was less correlation between white and black participants.
Conclusions: The events chosen are mostly ordinary (although some are
extraordinary. E.g. going to jail, but they do pertain to the western way
of life). There is also some socially desirable events which reflect
western values of materialism, success and conformism. The degree of
similarity between groups is impressive and shows agreement in general
at what constitutes a life event and how much they cause stress.
Holmes and Rahe concluded that stress could be measured objectively as
an LCU score. This, in turn, predicts the person’s chances of becoming ill
(physically and / or mentally) following the period of stress. Stress and
illness are not just correlated. Stress actually makes us ill.
3.Johansson et al.(1978) Combined Approach: Measurement of
Stress Response.
Background: The combined approach used both physiological and self-report can give us the
objectivity of scientific measurements and rich qualitative data that helps understand
behaviours such as stress.
Aim: To measure the psychological and physiological stress response in two categories of
employees.
Approach: Physiological and Cognitive (psychological)
Type of Data: Quantitative and Qualitative
Method: A quasi-experiment where workers were defined as being at high risk (of stress) or
in a control group. An independent design with participants (24) already working in one of
the two categories, so no manipulation of the independent variable. The high-risk group (14 )
were classified as having jobs which were repetitive and constrained, little control of pace
or work routine, more isolated and having more responsibility
Details: Each participant was asked to give a daily urine sample when they arrived at work
and at four other times during the day so that their adrenaline levels could be measured
This is a physiological measure. Body temperature was also measured at the same time.
These measures gave an indication of how alert the participants were
These measures were combined with a self-report where each participant had to say how
much caffeine and nicotine they had had since the last urine sample. They also had to rate
a list of emotions and feelings such as sleepiness, wellbeing, calmness, irritation and
efficiency. These were on a continuum from minimum to maximum and on a mm scale. The
score was how many mm from the minimum base point they had marked themselves to be
feeling. The baseline measurements were taken at the same time on a day when the workers
were at home.
This combined method of physiological measures and self-reports gave some good
qualitative and quantitative data, which enabled Johansson et al. to compare the two
groups, but have some understanding of the impact of higher stress levels on the
participants
Results; 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 1 ½ 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.
Activity
Fill in the following table: Explanation
Self-Report
Physiological
Combined
Strengths
Limitations
Summary: Measurements of Stress

As with measuring any behaviour, each method has its strengths and
weaknesses, yet if psychology aspires to be accepted as a science we must
acknowledge the objectivity of scientific methods.

Just measuring chemicals or physiological responses will yield less
information than the more qualitative data that self-report techniques can
give us.

Rich qualitative data can help us understand behaviours such as stress.

Perhaps the combined approach is the most useful, though it may be most
costly in terms of resources and time.
Comprehension questions for Measurements of Stress
1.Geer & Maisel (1973) - Physiological Measures

What is a galvanic skin response?

What is the link between stress and galvanic skin response?

Why were the heart rate monitors placed in a standard position?

What are the strengths of obtaining Objective data?

What variables could affect the validity of the results?
2.Holmes & Rahe (1967) - Self-report

What are the strengths and limitations of using self-report?

Consider why these may be particularly relevant to asking people about their
stress?

Consider how valid these results will be?

How will individual /situational debate link with this method?
3.Johannson (1978) - Combined approach

What is the combined approach when measuring stress?

Which two measures did Johansson use?

How valid were these results?

How does this methods link to the reductionism/holism approach?