Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Resourcd File

56 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Resourcd File

  1. 1. Measuring stress Geer and Maisel Physiological measurements of stress.
  2. 2. Background: • Physiological measures of stress can overcome the subjectivity of self-report measures. • They rely on hormones, chemicals, heart rates and blood pressure. • The main issue is the validity as other issues can cause physiological changes which can mimic stress responses- drugs/caffeine/alcohol.
  3. 3. Physiological measures of stress: • Stress can be measures physiological by any device which measures arousal. – E.g. Adrenaline can cause an increased heart rate. • Galvanic skin response: Measures the electrical resistance of the skin which is an indicator of the levels of arousal in the nervous system. • Blood or urine tests: Can test the hormone levels of the body.
  4. 4. Aim: • To see if perceived or actual control can reduce stress reactions to adverse stimuli, (car crash victims).
  5. 5. Methodology: • Laboratory experiment • 60 psychology undergraduates from New York University. • Independent measures design. • Participants randomly assigned to one of three conditions.
  6. 6. Procedure: • Each participant was seated in a sound-proof room and wired up to the GSR and ECG machines. • The machines were calibrated for 5 minutes whilst the participants relaxed and a baseline measurement was taken. • Instructions were read over an intercom. • Each photo was preceded by a 10 second tone and the image lasted for 35 seconds, only one group could terminate the image. • The GSR was taken at the onset of the tone, during the second half of the tone and in response to the image.
  7. 7. Procedure: • Group 1: Had full control over the length of time they viewed each image for. They could press a button to terminate each image and knew that a tone would precede each image. • Group 2: Were warned that the images would be 60 seconds apart and that they would see the image for 35 seconds and a 10 second tone would precede each image. No control but knew what was happening. • Group 3: Were told that from time to time they would see images and would hear a tone.
  8. 8. Procedure: • A Beckman Model RB polygraph was used to collect psych-physiological data. • This data was converted to a voltmeter and to a printout. • The soundproof room was used so that sounds from the projector would not interfere with readings.
  9. 9. Results: • Group 2 were most stressed by the tone as they knew what was coming and had no control over the photograph. • Group 1 were the least stressed because they had control.
  10. 10. Conclusions: • Participants showed less GSR reaction when they had control over the length of time they could view the image for. • Being able to terminate aversive stimuli reduces the stressful impact of it.
  11. 11. Issues: • Ethics – Looking at car crash victims • Reliability – Objective measures – Standardised • Generalisability – Only from one university • Lacks ecological validity
  12. 12. Debates: • Psychology as science – Objective measures make it scientific • Ethnocentric • Individual vs Situational • Reductionism vs Holism – Only looks at the biological causes and measures of stress
  13. 13. Holmes and Rahe Self-report measures: Life events as stressors
  14. 14. Background • Self-report measures include questionnaires, interviews and diary keeping. • Holmes and Rahe used self-report with the Social Readjustment Rating Scale, (SRRS). • They looked at the life events which occur in a persons life and rates them of their importance. • The readjustments needed to cope with these life events is what causes stress, so the more events, the more stressed you will be.
  15. 15. Aim: • To create a method that estimates the extent to which life events are stressors.
  16. 16. Methodology: • Correlation • Independent measures design • A questionnaire to see how much each life event was considered a stressor.
  17. 17. Participants: • 394 participants, 179 males and 215 females • Range of educational abilities, religions and races.
  18. 18. Procedure: • Examination of 5,000 medical records- all American service men. • A list of 43 life events was put together of the events which seemed to precede illness. • Each participant was asked to rate each life event based on personal experience and the perceptions of other peoples experiences. • The amount of readjustment needed and the time taken were to be considered. • Marriage was given an arbitrary value of 50 and then participants were asked to base their ratings on this idea. • Resulting values became the numerical data of each event.
  19. 19. Procedure: • The amount of life stress a person has experienced in a given period, for example 12 months, is measures in Life Change Units, LCU’s. • These are calculated by adding the mean values associated with the events the person has experienced during that time.
  20. 20. Results: • Death of a spouse was on average judged to require twice as much readjustment as marriage. • Most life events were judged to be less stressful than getting married. • 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.
  21. 21. Results: • Correlations between groups were tested and found to be high between all but one group. • Males and females agreed on scores, as did different ages, religions and educational levels. • There was less correlation between black and white participants.
  22. 22. Conclusions: • The events chosen were ordinary events, but do lean towards a western way of life. • There are some socially desirable events which reflect western values of materialism, success and conformism. • Stress can be measures objectively as an LCU score, predicting the persons chances of becoming ill following the period of stress.
  23. 23. Issues: • Subjective – Does not use scientific measures • Usefulness – Can use the LCU scores to determine and predict illness • Response bias – Questionnaire so may not get all responses back – Reliability • Social desirability – Questionnaire- may not want to be seen as stressed – May not want to give a value which is to high or too low compared to the perception of other peoples opinions
  24. 24. Debates: • Psychology as science – Subjective and not scientific • Reductionism vs Holism – Takes into account many events • Individual vs Situational – You become stressed because of the situations you experience
  25. 25. Johansson Combined approach: Measurement of stress response
  26. 26. Background: • The combined approach uses both physiological and self-report measures to give the objectivity of physiological and the rick, qualitative data from selfreport.
  27. 27. Aim: • To measure the physiological and psychological stress response in two categories of employees.
  28. 28. Methodology: • A quasi-experiment where workers were defined as being at high-risk of stress or low-risk, (control group). • Independent measures design with 24 participants. • High risk were 14 participants and classified as having repetitive, constrained and isolated jobs with little or no control of pace or work routine.
  29. 29. Procedure: • Each participant was asked to give a daily urine sample when they arrived at work and 4 other times throughout the day, to measure adrenaline levels. • Body temperature was measures at the same time and both gave a measure of how alert the participant was. • These measures were combined with a self-report questionnaire where they 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, well-being, calmness and irritation. • Baseline measurements were taken at the same time when they were at home.
  30. 30. Results: • The high-risk group had adrenaline levels twice as high as their baseline measurements which continued to rise throughout the day. • The control group had a peak level of 1½ time baseline level in the morning and this decreased throughout the day. • In the self-report, the control group felt more rushed and irritated than the control group and rated their well-being as being lower.
  31. 31. Conclusions: • The repetitive and machine-paced work of the high-risk group contributed to the higher stress levels.
  32. 32. Issues: • Physiological measures – A universal, accurate measurement of stress • Generalisability – Biological responses measured which should happen in everybody • High ecological validity – Workers were in their natural setting – However, urine samples and temperature measurements are slightly out of the ordinary • Self-report – Social-desirability and not wanting to seem too stressed
  33. 33. Debates: • Psychology as science – Combining research makes it more objective – Objective measures from the use of physiological measurements • Reductionism vs Holism – Takes into account more physiological measures alone • Ethnocentric – All from one sawmill in Sweden variables than self-report or

×