Stress Overload: A New Approach to the Assessment of Stress

Abstract

The link between stress and health has not received strong empirical support, possibly due to problems in the stress measures used. Here, the first wholly empirical development of a new "Stress Overload Scale" is described. A pool of 150 items was formed to reflect "overload", a common denominator in stress theories. Then, the results of five sequenced studies, conducted in heterogeneous community samples, were used to pare the item pool. Exploratory (n = 431) and confirmatory (n = 433) analyses revealed two factors (Event Load and Personal Vulnerability) corresponding to theoretical constructs; only the best factor markers were submitted to further construct validity (n = 310) and reliability tests (n = 342). The 24 strongest items were selected for the SOS, which demonstrated criterion validity in predicting who (n = 285) would become sick following a common stressor. The SOS is (1) psychometrically strong, especially in its validity relative to popular measures; (2) appropriate to community research, due to its brevity and fit to a broad demographic spectrum; (3) unique in its ability to cross-section individuals into risk categories. It should prove useful to community psychologists in determining etiology, diagnosing risk for pathology, and evaluating the efficacy of interventions.

Gender, stress in childhood and adulthood, and trajectories of change in body mass

“…We have largely drawn on a stress and life course approach to ground our study of gendered patterns of stress and weight gain. The classic stress and coping model suggests that stress results in psychological (e.g., anxiety, depression) and physiological (e.g., increased heart rate and blood pressure) arousal (Amirkhan, 2012) and individuals may engage in a range of health behaviors, including overeating, in an attempt to cope with or reduce that arousal (Umberson, Liu & Reczek, 2008). Indeed, some studies suggest that eating may help to alleviate arousal and to regulate mood state, at least temporarily (Dallman et al, 2006; Kassel, Stroud & Paronis, 2003).…”

Reconceptualizing Communication Overload and Building a Theoretical Foundation

“…(2010) The availability of electronic communication has created more of an interruption than it has improved communications Speier et al (1999) Interruptions decrease decision accuracy Feeling responsible to respond 5.78% variance Ballard and Seibold (2006); Cho et al (2011) How often do you feel you have to send more information than you wish to? I feel like I have to send many more messages than I want to send Karr-Wisniewski and Lu (2010) I waste a lot of time responding to e-mails and voicemails that are business-related but not directly related to what I need to get done Amirkhan (2012) One component of this scale was perceptions of external demands, pressures, and responsibilities. Multiple items measure these concepts Jensen et al (2013) Different groups at work demand things from me that are hard to combine 2010); a perspective common in the psychological and management sciences (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001;Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000).…”

“…When people are overloaded they feel frustrated, their decision-making ability degrades, they feel burned-out, and they feel a lack of control over their own environment (Burchell, 2015;Eppler & Mengis, 2004;Speier, Valacich, & Vessey, 1999;Sutcliff & Weick, 2008). A flurry of new terms is developing around the concept of overload including connection overload (LaRose, Connolly, Lee, Li, & Hales, 2014), techno overload (Dhir & Midha, 2014), stress overload (Amirkhan, 2012), and technology overload (Karr-Wisniewski & Lu, 2010). Yet people's frustrations with being overloaded illustrate a distinctive communicative concern; one that introduces issues that are highly relevant in a contemporary society that uses a variety of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to be in constant communication (Bayer, Campbell, & Ling, 2016;Burchell, 2015;LaRose et al, 2014;Van Dijck, 2013;Wajcman, 2015).…”

The Intergenerational Impact of Genetic and Psychological Factors on Blood Pressure Study (InterGEN)

“…All other variables are measured on each study occasion using ACASI (T1 = Time 1 (Enrollment); T2 = Time 2 (six months postenrollment); T3 = Time 3 (12 months postenrollment); T4 = Time 4 (18 months postenrollment). ACASI = Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing. a Abidin (1995). b Roberts, Campbell, Ferguson, & Crusto (2013). c Fox (1994). d Robinson, Mandleco, Frost Olsen, & Hart (2001). e Krieger, Smith, Naishadham, Hartman, & Barbeau (2005). f Waelde et al (2010). g Crusto, Dantzler, Roberts, & Hooper (2015). h Amirkhan (2012). i Amirkhan (1990). j Abraido-Lanza, White, & Vasques (2004). k Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus (2000). l Beck, Steer, & Carbin (1988). m Grothe et al (2005). …”