The Explanatory Model of Stress (factors, Causes and Effects)

To date, there is still no consensus to offer a concrete and universal definition of the concept of stress. Even so, there seems to be some agreement when it comes to defining it as the set of psychophysiological changes that occur in the organism in response to a situation of overdemand, which mobilizes the activation of the organism.

If this situation continues for too long, the body ends up being damaged, since it is unable to maintain this level of activation permanently due to the overexertion it requires.

Thus, we can differentiate between a punctual or positive stress response (which is adaptive and allows us to face the possible adversities of daily life) and a chronic stress response (which is the cause of certain alterations in the body, both physical and psychological. ). Let’s see what the foundations of this phenomenon are.

Explaining stress

There have been very diverse attempts to provide a theoretical explanation of the concept of stress. Below is the most accepted one and the one that currently offers a more complete explanation: Process Model of Stress.

This integrative model highlights the enormous complexity of the concept of stress, arguing that there are multiple variables that are related to each other in the response emitted by the organism. As reflected in the following linesup to seven types of factors can be differentiated that affect the way in which people emit this type of response.

Determining factors in the stress response

These are the situations and variables (contextual and psychological) that can cause a stressful response.

1. Psychosocial demands

This factor refers to external environmental stressors both natural (for example, temperature) and artificial (pollution) and also psychosocial (interpersonal relationships). Regarding this last phenomenon, it has been observed that its association with a low socioeconomic status can lead to the experience of less social support.

2. Cognitive evaluation

The person’s cognitive appraisal of the situation also influences the stress reaction. Specifically, there are usually five situational aspects that are evaluated when a person is faced with a stressful event:

3. Physiological stress response

When a stress response occurs in the body a series of physiological changes occur that allow the person to increase their state of alertness in reaction to the stressor. Let’s look at some examples in Olivares and Méndez’s proposal.

On the other hand, simultaneously, certain changes also occur in the person on an emotional level. First of all, a feeling of emotional discomfort appears that is called distress which basically consists of a set of negative emotions such as anxiety, anger, fear, etc.

The emotional expression linked to the stress response depends on the person’s assessment of the situation. Thus, the specific circumstances of the situation mark both the thoughts one has when faced with the demand and the feelings aroused subsequently.

4. Coping

On a practical level, it is one of the most important elements of the scheme, since it will depend on the coping style implemented to reduce both cognitive and emotional discomfort caused by the external stressor.

Coping style refers to the person’s general way of thinking and acting in a more or less stable way. face the various stressful situations of their daily lives. Coping depends on the person’s belief about whether or not they can do something to change the situation.

According to the proposal of Lazarus and Folkman, the multiple forms of coping can be included within the following typologies:

These authors have classified these coping styles into two categories: problem oriented style (Confrontation and Problem Solving Planning) and emotion-oriented style (the remaining six types). In several studies it has been observed that people with higher rates of depression, anxiety and emotional distress tend to practice emotion-oriented styles.

Thus, it is concluded that, on an emotional level, The latter do not become adaptive and satisfactory ways of coping with stress. On the other hand, it seems to be demonstrated that the establishment of a well-founded action plan and the subsequent implementation of all the steps that comprise it is a more effective methodology for personal psychological coping.

5. Personal characteristics

Experts have observed that certain personality traits can influence the type of reaction a person expresses to stress.

Hardness

Kobasa has described the concept of Hardiness (“resistance” or “toughness”) as a protective factor against stress. Hardiness is made up of three elements: commitment (believing and recognizing one’s own values), challenge (appreciating situations as a challenge instead of, for example, as a threat) and control (feeling of control of the situation).

Sense of coherence

Antonovsky, similarly to Kobasa, has defined this phenomenon as a stable personality disposition that serves as a resource for coping with stress, as a protective factor for the person. It is made up of comprehensibility (cognitive control over the environment), management (to what degree the person considers they have the resources to face the situation) and significance (evaluation of the situation as a challenge and whether it is worth facing it).

In addition, it has been possible to confirm the relationship between other personality traits and the type of reaction to stress, such as the following:

6. Type of reaction to stress

This concept has been proposed by a group of researchers (Eysenck, Grossarth and Maticek) who They sought to explain the causes of coronary heart disease and cancer.

It consists of a classification that differentiates six types of personal characteristics that tend to be associated with the development of certain physical diseases. More specifically, the following classification shows the six types and the disease with which they are related:

7. Social characteristics

One of the main elements that relates social characteristics and the stress response is social support. More specifically, the evidence of the influence of variables of this phenomenon has been studied, such as the direction (whether it is provided or received), the provision (quantity and quality), the description/evaluation made by the person of the support. perceived, the content (emotional, instrumental, informative or evaluative) and social networks as a source of social support.

Numerous research highlights the importance of social support in maintaining good physical and mental health. Studies show how social support promotes health by inhibiting the onset of the disease (reducing the impact of the stressor) or facilitating its recovery (reinforcing the person’s ability to cope with the disease). On the other hand, It should be noted that the absence of social support can have very negative consequences since its deficiency becomes a very important risk factor for the subsequent development of depression.

For example, married people in a healthy marriage are at significantly lower risk than people who are single, divorced, or married in a troubled marriage.

8. Health status

Most of the factors that have been shown so far (cognitive evaluation of the situation, coping style, personal characteristics, etc.) also are related to the physical health status of the person.

It has been observed, for example, that evaluating the event very negatively or applying an erroneous coping style produces a decrease in the body’s immune response (a reduction in the body’s defenses against external pathogens). ), thus increasing the vulnerability to suffering certain diseases associated with the immune system (cancer, infections, etc.).

By way of conclusion

Since the beginning of research that has attempted to shed some light on the concept of stress and the factors that explain it, Science has managed to reveal the enormous complexity associated with this phenomenon. Therefore, the idea that there is a single element that determines the appearance of this type of symptomatology so present in today’s society is ruled out.

Therefore, it is essential to banish the idea that pathological stress (specific stress, as explained in the article does not present adverse psychological consequences) is derived exclusively from the external environment or from situations outside the person.

In short, The individual himself also plays a very relevant role in the type of experience and how it acts to overcome perceived daily stress.