A Dynamic Conceptual Framework of Generalized Adaptation to Stressful Stimuli

Abstract

This paper reviews the currently popular definitions and theoretical arguments of the so-called "stress" perspective with the purpose of integrating this material into one general paradigm. The literature has been concerned primarily with two parallel processes which purport to account for the individual's coping and adaptive behavior, one characterized by the interplay of internal, psychological forces, and the other by external, environmenml factors. These rwo general processes have been integrated in this paper by expanding upon the general models presented by Dohrenwend ( 7 ) to include imporcant feedback processes. It is argued that adaptation to stress is a dynamic process and that the failure to adapt is often the result of a continuing process of past failures by the organism effectively to cope with less severe stressful stimuli, each failure feeding back to affect future attempts to cope with new environmental demands. The implications of the approach presented in this paper for future empirical investigation are discussed. Definitional PreliminariesThe concept of stress has received considerable attention in recent years from both a conceptual and research as evidenced by two relatively recent conferences devoted exclusively to the subject ( 2 , 19). Although stress research has been prolific, one is struck when reviewing the stress literature by the lack of continuity of basic theoretical and operational constructs (19). Dispersed throughout the literature are bits and pieces of a potentially coherent model, but in few studies is there an attempt to develop a truly specific and dynamic stress-response model. Notable among exceptions to this are the researches of Kahn and his colleagues (16) concerning role conflict and ambiguity as sources of organizationally induced stress; the conceptual formulation of Dohrenwend ( 7 ) emphasizing the role of various types of internal and external mediating factors in the stress adjustment process, the subsequent work applying the same model to an investigation of mental disorder (8) ; and the research of Mechanic (20, 21) of students taking Ph.D. qualifying examinations and the stress-adaptation process which that event triggered. Although these models are notable in their attempts to identify salient elements of the stress-response process they all tend to lack a certain degree of dynamism in that important feedback mechanisms are often left vague and unspecified ( 7 ) . Further, the various definitions of stress employed in these and other studies have tended to em-'Special thanks are given to Walter Buckley for his valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.

A Model of Teacher Stress

“…1 Marshall, 1976;Warr & Wall, 1975;Wild & Hanes, 1976), it is readily apparent that although terms may be used differently, the underlying models are very similar, and, mutatis mutandis, may be reducible to each other. The model of teacher stress presented here is an attempt to present a model that incorporates the current approaches to stress.…”

“…Secondly, that teacher stress itself may also affect appraisals either directly, loop (b), in that a teacher highly dissatisfied with his job may increasingly perceive demands as threats to his selfesteem or well-being, or indirectly, loop (c), by causing ill health which in turn becomes a potential non-occupational stressor itself. Finally, Wild & Hanes (1976) have argued that a feedback loop should be included in a model of stress to represent the fact that failure to meet or cope with demands in the past may affect the individual's future appraisal of his ability to meet or cope with new demands. This is shown by loop (d).…”

“…The first usage, that of stress as pressure exerted by the environment, has been labelled the engineering model (Cox, 1975;Hinkle, 1974;Wild & Hanes, 1976), since engineers also use the term stress to refer to environmental forces acting upon a body. This model has been widely employed (e.g.…”

Dynamics of Stress

“…It is in the process of experiencing a stress situation that its dimensions unfold as a functiDn Df the sequential testing of perceptions through covert or overt coping, and the sequential changing of coping requirements as perceptions are modified. Wild and Hanes (1976) emphasized yet another aspect of stressor evaluation. Although parallel processes arising from the interplay of internal psychological forces and external environmental factors had been supplemented by the concept of feedback loops to account for coping and adaptive behavior, there still was need, they pointed out, to emphasize the dynamic nature of adaptation, where feedback from past failures contributes to failure in new situations, even those with less stressful stimuli.…”

“…Fur-ther, the model would anticipate the parallel decrease in confidence associated with decrease in physiological capability in later years. Hence, the suggestion is that psychological resources have their optimum time for development and utilization, before a final waning, even as do the physiological resources (Wild & Hanes, 1976). Once again, we must admit the difficulty of the task before us as we delineate these psychological resources and establish their functional histories.…”