CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This Chapter presents the theoretical orientation and review of related
literature and studies by the researchers that are relevant to the present
investigation.
According to Joyce M. Black and Hawk (2009) stress is a particular
relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the
person as taxing and or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or
her well-being. In addition to external stressful events, people may define stress
in different ways because it is the perception of the event, not the event itself that
stimulated the response. Physical demands for adaptation are compounded by
the adaptive response required by the volume of information and the decisions
required for existence in today’s society. Stress is result of an imbalance
between the demands placed on a person and one’s ability to adapt.
Stress is a complex reaction that affects one’s physiology, behavior,
thinking and emotions. It arises in situations where people believe that the
demands they face are greater than their abilities to handle those demands
(Hiebert, 2000, cited in Malec et al.,2000). Stress can result from environmental
factors (task difficulty) and internal factors (repertoire of coping skills,
perceptions, and genetic predisposition) or from an interaction between the two
(Hiebert, 1983). The external environmental factors are generally termed
"stressors," while a person's reaction to an external stressor is termed "stress"
(Albrecht, 1979; Hiebert, 1983). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) use an outcome
neutral way to describe people's attempts to deal with the demands or stressors
that they encounter. They suggest that stressors have the potential to elicit
different reactions among individuals due to their subjective experience of the
stressor. These different reactions are based on individuals using two forms of
cognitive appraisal: primary appraisal, which involves evaluating the threat of the
situation (e.g., irrelevant, benign, threatening), and secondary appraisal, which
involves evaluating one's available resources for coping with the stressful
situation (e.g., seek more information, control impulsivity).
Stress arises not from the demands people face per se, but from people's
perceived inability to deal with those demands to their own satisfaction (Hiebert,
1983; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Sometimes a person's coping attempts are
successful and the demand is handled satisfactorily. Other times, coping
attempts are not as successful as one desires and, if the demands or stressors
persist, the person begins to feel stressed. When an individual engages in a
situation, there is an initial appraisal, or in some cases a mis-appraisal, of the
demand characteristics of the situation, the individual's resources for coping with
the demand, and the consequences likely to result from the way in which the
situation is handled. As the individual remains engaged in the situation, there is
subsequent ongoing appraisal regarding the continuing nature of the demand
and the adequacy of the individual's coping attempts (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Regardless of the accuracy of the person's appraisal of the situation and the
coping resources available, a perceived inequity between demand and coping
resources produces an increase in stress level (Hiebert, 2002, p. 228). For
example, an athlete who makes a mental or physical error during competition
may appraise the stressor as threatening to self-esteem, while another athlete
experiencing the same stressor may appraise it as merely challenging. If an
athlete has appraised a situation as stressful, his or her coping processes then
work to manage the stress reaction. These processes influence the athlete's
subsequent appraisal and, therefore, the type and intensity of the stress reaction.
Studying the relationship between perceived stress and burnout among high
school basketball coaches, Kelley and Gill (1993) found that lower perceived
stress and reduced burnout were correlated with greater social support and more
years of coaching experience.
Lazarus described the stress reaction as having three components:
behavioral, physiological and cognitive (Lazarus, 1974). Recent work by Hiebert,
as described in Malec, Hiebert, Young, Rose, Blackshaw, Felsky-Hunt, and Lea
(2000), includes an emotional component to the stress reaction.
The behavioral component of a stress reaction can be demonstrated
through random tics and tremors along with hyperactivity (Hiebert, 1983). The
increase in muscle activity that accompanies stress tends to be demonstrated in
more "hyper" types of behavior. According to Malec et al. (2000), individuals tend
to speed up when they are stressed. Examples of "hyper" or speedy behaviors
demonstrated when individuals are under stress include walking, talking and
eating fast, using punctuated hand gestures when talking, turning events into
competitions, and getting impatient with people who are slower (Malec et a l ,
2000).
Increased heart rate, respiration rate, and muscle tension are common
indicators of the physiological component of a stress reaction. Other
physiological reactions demonstrated by individuals when under stress include
increased sweat gland activity and increased blood pressure (Hiebert, 1983;
Malec et al., 2000). People's hands get cooler when they are under stress, due to
the shunting of the blood away from the extremities and towards the large muscle
groups, which is indicative of the fight or flight response. Lastly, blood in the brain
is shunted away from the rational problem-solving centers of the brain towards
the parts of the brain that control the muscle movement. This causes individuals
to think less clearly when under stress (Malec et al., 2000).
The cognitive component of a stress reaction often exaggerates the
degree of threat or demand involved and minimizes the individual's coping
attempts (Hiebert, 1983; Lazarus, 1974). Typically, as stress levels increase,
there is increasing interference with people's abilities to engage in accurate
cognitive appraisal. For example, when people feel stressed, they tend to
exaggerate the nature or intensity of the demands they face, catastrophize about
the consequences of not responding optimally in that situation, and thus lessen
their coping abilities. Excessive negative thinking and negative self-talk often
accompany this unproductive thinking, a combination that tends to interfere with
performance and result in less-than-optimal performance. This in turn feeds into
the cycle of exaggeration and catastrophization being experienced by the
individual.
The cognitive, physiological, behavioral, and emotional components of a
stress reaction tend to occur simultaneously as one integrated response
involving heightened arousal, inappropriate cognitive activity, and hyperactivity
(Hiebert, 1983; Malec et al., 2000). According to Malec et al., one component of
the stress reaction is often more exaggerated than the rest. Some people tend to
notice their stress physiologically, while others may tend to notice their
behavioral or cognitive reactions to stress more readily. Because we react to
stress differently, Malec et al. argue that it is possible for individuals to pay
attention to their stress reactions, discover which component seems to be the
most reactive, and use that as an early warning of stress. If stress is recognized
early, steps can be taken to manage or control the stress reaction. Once a
person encounters a demand, reacts, and perceives the coping attempts as to
work, or the demand decreasing, the system returns to normal with very little
harm done to the person (Hiebert, 1983). If the coping attempts are perceived as
inadequate, the arousal is sustained or even increased, and over exaggerated
cognitive activity occurs along with hyperactivation of the motor system. These
stress responses indicate that the demand has become a stressor and that the
person is experiencing stress.
At this point, if the demand decreases and/or if the person's coping
attempts are perceived as adequate, the stress response will begin to decrease
and the system will return to normal. If the demand persists, however, and/or if
the person's coping attempts are perceived to be inadequate and continue to be
perceived as inadequate, a chronic stress reaction will develop.
According to Krames (1993), if someone is under stress, the body’s
response can be harmful. The body releases hormones that trigger many
changes in the body: heart pounds, blood pressure rises, stomach becomes
tense, and muscle clench.
He also said that frequent stress can affect the well-being. That’s why
there is a need to learn to manage stress well. According to Nan Little that stress
has a negative and positive ramifications of the body .Positively, it may be the
driving force for improvement and negatively it may show the following
symptoms: Physical- frequent colds or flu, headaches, difficulty sleeping, muscle
tension, skin problem, trouble with digestion, poor concentration, forgetfulness,
learning problems, frequent negative thoughts, speech problems , anxiety,
depression, anger, irritability, feelings of helplessness, lack of purpose,
relationship troubles , poor appetite, reckless driving, alcohol or drug use,
susceptibility to accidents, and aggression.
With the many potential detriments that stress can induce in a person, an
individual is coerced to utilize his faculties and abilities in order to cope with the
demands that the stress is imposing upon him; this event is central to the
process called stress management.
Stress management is defined by Black and Hawks (2009) as the ability to
cope with the adaptive demands of the external phenomena effectively. A
comprehensive description on stress management found in Webster’s Dictionary
states that stress management are methods of controlling factors that require a
response or change within a person by identifying the stressors, eliminating
negative stressors, and developing effective coping mechanisms to counteract
the response constructively. Examples include progressive muscular relaxation,
guided imagery, biofeedback, breathing techniques, and active problem solving.”
Various authors and researches have presented different methods and
strategies for dealing with stress. Krames (1993) of Health today proposes a
stress management that includes recognizing stress, managing day to day
pressures and little hassle, and identifying stressors. He also added that how one
perceives the threat affects how the way he deals with stress. This includes
putting a positive spin on stress, forming a network like friends, family members,
or mentors, living a healthy lifestyle to face stressors, get enough sleep, eat right,
exercise, and nourishing the spirit.
Woolfolk and Lehrer (1984), added stress management technique that
could be applied; this includes progressive relaxation to eliminate unnecessary
tension by relaxing and thereby reduce or eliminate headache, neuralgia,
excessive physiological arousal, or other stress related disorders .Modified
progressive relaxation by using of a relaxing environment, deep breathing, and
cycles of tensing and relaxing muscles. Another is yogic therapy which includes
progressive relaxation combined with meditation. The technique often contains
elements of the Hindu religion. The therapeutic benefits the therapy helps
alleviate muscle tension, excessive autonomic arousal, and hypertension. People
who like the yoga exercises especially enjoy it.
Furthermore, Elizabeth Scott (2011), in her article Have a Truly Relaxing
Staycation, offered a new method of stress management which she described as
one of the stress management which underscores rest and relaxation, and
enjoying the place that one is “often too stressed and busy to really enjoy: home”.
She states:
“The key to a refreshing staycation is the same as the key to a restful vacation, though somewhat trickier to pull off: “don't overdo it, and don't let work creep in”. That means no cleaning, office work, or dealing with regular responsibilities. Can turn off the phones, ignore email, and make it a point to both rest and play, or go to a nearby hotel to make it easier.”
In addition Dworetzky, John P.also emphasized other coping strategies
such as: trust in time, trying not to be alone much of the time, think positively and
rationally, and think as relaxed person. Selected stress management also
includes autogenic training which teach the body and mind to respond to verbal
command, allowing the person to achieve a deep state of relaxation through self-
suggestion (or self hypnosis), affirmation to have a feeling- rich statement about
a desire change to reinforce and increase the effectiveness of visualization,
meditation, biofeedback, therapeutic touch, massage and yoga.
Black and Hawks (2009) also cited that stress management has three
components: stress resistance, cognitive reappraisal, and effective coping skills
and provided a detailed description of each component and its role in stress
management. Stress resistance involves decreasing the body’s response to
stress: adopting healthy eating patterns. Engaging in physical activity and using
relaxation techniques can help reduce the stress response. Physical activity a
positive stressor that is activity requires an adaptive response and when
performed properly, it result in physical changes that counter the normally
negative effect of stress. Physical activity helps improve mental function,
decrease depression and increase physical endurance.
Cognitive reappraisal or restructuring is to change the perception or
interpretation of events as stressors. Cognitive reappraisal is based on the
assumption that major factoring stress is the individual’s perception of the events
or experience as a stressor. Effective Coping Skills involves recognition of the
problem causing stress and, through problem-solving skills, development and
implementation of an effective strategy to cope with or solve the problem.
Effective coping skill includes time management, assertiveness, solution-oriented
therapy and development of a support system.
In the broad discussion of coping with stress, a dominant model that is
widely used today is the transactional perspective of stress. In this perspective,
stress results from the interaction of people’s physiological, cognitive, and
behavioral systems and occurs when people perceive that the demands of a
situation exceed their coping resource (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). The
stressor or demand itself does not cause stress; rather, individual’s resources for
handling the demand satisfactorily will determine the stress that they will
experience within that situation. If the demand is intense but people believe they
can handle the demand, they will experience little stress. If, however, people
think that they cannot handle the demand, no matter how trivial it is, their stress
levels may be quite high (Spriddle, 2004).
Furthermore, Malec et. al. (2000) emphasized the self-efficacy theory of
stress management which states that self-efficacy is one factor that affects
individual’s perceptions of a situation. He stated that individuals make judgments
about the nature and intensity of the demands required of them in stressful
situations. Individuals with high self efficacy may perceive a stressful situation as
non-threatening due to their confidence in their ability to perform or to meet the
demands of the situation.
This notion is supported by Scott (2012) who stated that optimism and
positive frame of mind provide huge benefits; accordingly, optimists enjoy better
health, stronger relationships and more productive experience and less stress
among other things. This is because optimists tend to take more risks, and blame
external circumstances if they fail, maintaining a 'try again' mindset; this makes
them more likely to succeed in the future, and less upset by failure in general.
Hiebert’s (2000) framework for stress recognizes that mediating factors
affect individual’s appraisal of a situation. One important personal factor that
mediates appraisal in a competitive or threatening sporting environment is self-
efficacy. If individuals are confident that they have the resources to handle a
particular situation, they may view it as challenging and exciting. If they do not
perceive themselves to have the resources to cope with the situation, they may
perceive it as very stressful.
According to Bandura, people fear and tend to avoid threatening situations
that they believe exceed their coping skills, yet they get involved in activities and
behave with assurance when they judge themselves capable of handling
situations that would otherwise be intimidating (Spriddle, 2004).
Hiebert (1983) maintains that stress control is best approached by
developing a wide range of coping skills, some aimed at dealing with the
demands people face (stressor management strategies) and others aimed at
helping people calm their stressful reactions (stress management strategies).
According to Hiebert (2002), stressor management strategies can be used in a
preventive manner. For Hiebert, people with good skills, or other resources for
dealing with the demands they face, are less likely to be overtaxed and will
experienced less stress.
Successful coping requires a set of skills and knowledge that are
adequate for dealing with a variety of situations (Hiebert, 2002). In addition,
people need to be able to feel they are in control of their personal situations,
rather than victims of circumstance with no feelings of control over the situations.
Numerous literatures have presented evidence that the means by which
an individual copes with stress varies from person to person. This is because
people view the same situation differently thus, their reactions to the same
stimulus may not necessarily be the same but instead differ, in terms of their
assessment of the situation as either threatening to their integrity or challenging
to them. Thus, the use of any form of coping management is influenced by a
multitude of factors.
Many researchers today study possible factors that affect stress
management which includes: age, sex, ordinal position, year level and monthly
income.
Nwamaka (2011), in her study The Mediating Impact of Personality and
Socio-Economic Status in the treatment of Stress in Adolescents emphasized
that the coping styles of an individual to stress is influenced primarily by his/her
personality. She presented an extensive literature in this context citing various
authorities.
“Eysenck (1970) in Cole (1995) and Larsen & Buss (2005)
described personality as the more or less stable and enduring
organization of person’s characteristics, temperament, intellect and
physique which determine his unique adjustment to the environment.
Adolescents that have stable, enduring and united characteristics are
able to device coping strategies in a given situation. On the other hand,
adolescents with less enduring traits are quick to perceive an event or
situations as stressful. Herbert and Cohen (1994) agreed that stress is a
person’s perception of environment events. The perception may include
the appraisal of a situation or events as being dreadful, harmful,
threatening and challenging (Chen, Langer, Raphaelson, and Mathews,
2004, Naughton, 1997; Okorodudu, 2004). . . “
“Personal characteristic or traits are commonly referred to as
stress-buffering resource because they can protect or buffer people from
the pathogenic effects of stress. Cole (1995) also features Cattell’s (1950)
view of personality as the organization, which permits a prediction of what
a person will do in a given situation. Some researches carried out
indicated that coping is a complex process, influenced by both personality
characteristics and situational demands (Friedman, Nelson, Baer, Smith,
& Dworthkin, 1992).”
Aldwin, et.al (1996) conducted assessed the age differences in Stress,
Coping, and Appraisal and came with the following findings:
“We examined age differences in stress, appraisal, and coping . . .
in middle-aged, young-old, and old-old men. Despite extensive probing,
nearly a quarter of the old-old reported having had no problems and they
expended less coping effort even when they did have problems. The
types of problems reported varied systematically with age. Middle-aged
men were more likely to appraise their problems both as challenges and
as annoyances than the older men. . . However, there were no age
differences in perceived stressfulness of the problem, appraisals of
harm/loss, or helpless appraisals, number of emotions reported, or coping
efficacy. One interpretation of these results is that the nature of stress
changes with age, from episodic to chronic, which in turn affects appraisal
and coping processes.”
He adds; “it is not coping strategies per se that change, but rather
management strategies. Older adults tend to use more concrete strategies they
tend to use less interpersonal hostility and escapism. It may be that they have
tried these strategies and found them impractical or ineffective.”
On the other hand most teenagers respond to stressful events in their
lives by doing something relaxing, trying positive and self-reliant problem –
solving or seeking friendship and support from others. Common examples
include listening to music, trying to make their own decisions, daydreaming,
trying to figure out solutions, keeping up friendships, watching television and
being close to people they care about. These behaviors are appropriate for
adolescents who are trying to become independent, taking responsibility for
themselves and drawing on their friends and family for support.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/youthdevelopment/da3083.html
According to Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development,
adolescence is the period of identity development. Changes in the adolescent’s
body are taking place rapidly and highly preoccupied with how he looks and how
others view him. While trying to meet the expectations of his peers, he’s also
trying to establish his own identity. Furthermore, conformity to standards is of
utmost importance at this time which may lead to rebellion and questioning of
parental or other adult authority. These changes or development pose a great
amount of stress on the adolescent (Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins (2005).
In addition, Walker ( 1985) points that the primary sources of tension and
trouble for teens and their friends are: relationships with friends and family; the
pressure of expectations from self and others; pressure at school from teachers,
coaches, grades and homework; financial pressures; and tragedy in the lives of
family and friends (described as death, divorce, cancer).
According to Shelley E. Taylor, PhD, a professor of psychology at UCLA
and lead author of the study of behavioral studies, they analyzed the data from
hundreds of biological and behavioral studies (both human and animal), they
concluded that females were more likely to deal with stress by "tending and
befriending" -- that is, nurturing those around them and reaching out to others.
Men, on the other hand, were more likely to sequester themselves or initiate a
confrontation, behavior in line with the "fight or flight" response that's long been
associated with stress.
She also added that men and women's different reactions to stress might
be more than just an interesting observation; it could account for differences in
their longevity and health. "Women enjoy a greater life expectancy than men as
she said. One reason may be that the tend-and-befriend system protects them
from some of the damaging effects of stress."The researchers found out that
oxytocin, a hormone that promotes both maternal and social behavior and
enhances relaxation, as the key factor behind the gender difference.
Initially, women have the same response to stress as men, leaving them
somewhat vulnerable to cortisol and adrenaline. But then women also begin
secreting oxytocin from the pituitary gland, which helps scale back the production
of cortisol and adrenaline, minimizing their harmful effects.
Interestingly, men also secrete oxytocin when under stress, but they
produce it in lesser amounts than women do, and its effects are inhibited by male
hormones such as testosterone.
The more relaxed behavior that oxytocin promotes also seems to offer
some protection of its own. "Hostility has been shown over and over again to be
health-damaging," says Williams. As another example of how women's convivial
nature may be protective, William cites the fact that an older man's chance of
dying after the death of his spouse rises substantially while a woman's risk
increases only slightly. "That's probably because women access a social network
to help them get through the ordeal."
Taylor and her colleagues also believe that men and women's differing
responses to stress may have evolved to suit the needs of earliest ancestors.
The researchers theorize, that females were probably better off laying low and
tending to their offspring in the face of danger than fighting, which would have put
both themselves and their children in harm's way. Likewise, affiliating with others
might have been a more valuable strategy -- a kind of safety in numbers defense
-- than fleeing and leaving their offspring without protection.
Folkman and Lazarus(1988) postulated that gender differences in the
sources of stress may explain different coping styles between men and
women(e.g., hostile reaction, expression of feeling, distraction, passivity, wishful
thinking, and use of sedation) when coping when coping with stressful situation.
Folkman, Lazarus, Pimley,and Novacek (1987) noted that men use more self-
control(e. g., keeping feelings to oneself) that women, while women use more
positive reappraisal than men.
In a 1997 study published in the Journal of Family Psychology, UCLA
psychologist Rena Repetti found that on days that women reported their stress
level at work was highest; their children reported that their mothers had been
especially loving and nurturing.
In an earlier study, published in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Repetti found that fathers who had conflict at work were likely to
also have conflict at home on the same day. Likewise, when the fathers had
highly stressful days, they tended to withdraw from their families.
An article in the American Psychological Association presented disparities
in the way men and women deal with stress. Accordingly, men are more likely
than women to say they play sports as a way of managing stress. Furthermore,
women are less likely to exercise frequently (usually once a week) than men
saying that they are too tired to engage in any form of physical activity.
Additionally, women are far more likely than men to say they read to manage
stress and overall, tend to report more stress management activities that connect
them with other people, like spending time with friends or family
(http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/gender-stress.aspx.)
Kottan & Johnson (1993) who conducted a study on birth order dynamics
and stress stated that birth order is one also of the factor that influence stress
management. Family roles govern the perceived expectations and
responsibilities placed on children by parents and siblings. Children's perception
of their place in the family constellation influences how they feel about
themselves, and how they interact with others. Components of family structure
during formative years that reflect emotional and affiliative ties are implicated in
the psychological status, coping and relating styles of mature individuals
(Fullerton, Ursano, Wetzler&Slusarcick, 1989).
Although many genetic and environmental factors contribute to differences
between siblings, some differences in behavior of siblings have been attributed to
the effects of birth order (Claxton, 1994), an individual's rank by age among
siblings (Steelman, 1985 in Claxton, 1994). The place of the individual within the
family, the first social structure encountered, has been suggested as a
contributing factor in shaping human personalities (Gould, 1997), and influencing
interactions in subsequent social structures.
Although the view that birth order is the sole predictor of development
across the lifespan has never been widely accepted, an individual's birth order is
a possible influence on relationships with parents and siblings, which may affect
personality formation and social behavior across the lifespan (Buckley, 1998).
Socialization differences experienced by individuals due to their ordinal position
of birth may result in overt personality and behavior differences. In the absence
of siblings, first borns tend to be socialized by adults, whereas later borns are
exposed to the socializing influences of older siblings (Claxton, 1994). Adults
socialized as first borns, are sometimes theorized to be more achievement
oriented, while their younger siblings are often believed to be more successful in
social endeavors, experience greater enjoyment during risk taking behavior and
be more independent of authority (Claxton, 1994). It is acknowledged that such
characterizations are general and imprecise at best (Claxton, 1994).
Birth order research has always been controversial. One of the first
modern psychologists to address the influence of birth order on personality
development across the lifespan was Alfred Adler in the 1920's. Since his
description of the effects of ordinal position of birth on personality (Claxton,
1994), many theories have been suggested to explain apparent differences.
These include dethronement of the first born, parental anxiety, economic factors,
intrauterine conditions (Claxton, 1994) and historical cohort effects. Much of the
debate of possible effects of birth order has focused on intellectual abilities,
academic achievement (Bohmer & Sitton, 1993; Morjoribanks, 1997), economic
resources (Travis & Kohli, 1995) and family intellectual environment (Travis &
Kohli, 1995).
The transient enthusiasm with which birth order research is investigated is
partly caused by the accompanying revival of the nature versus nurture in the
formation of human personality debate, and partly by inconsistent and conflicting
findings in this area (Claxton, 1994).
Walter Toman analyzed different patterns of sibling order and gender
stressors encountered in relationships in adult life may replicate those
experienced in the first and most significant relationships of childhood - those
between family members. Some adult relationships closely mirror the dynamics
of those from childhood. The more closely facets of an adult interpersonal
relationship mirrors sibling, or parent and child relationship dynamics, the greater
the chance that the individual will apply the coping skills learnt in the childhood
scenario (Buckley, 1998).
In the book McEwen 2002&Clarke 2008, it states that academic stress
among college students has been a topic of interest for many years. College
students are prone to stress due to the transitional nature of college life. For
example, many college students move away from home for the first time, which
can necessitate leaving all previously learned support systems such as parents,
siblings and high school friends.
Accordingly, stress among nursing students has been well documented; a
study by Trockel, (2000) found that nursing students suffer from long hours of
study, multiple assignments, lack of free time, lack of timely feedback and lack of
faculty response to student needs.(Beck 1999 &Trockel 2000).
During their college years, students experience constant challenges and
demands for adjustment and change. Along with academic pressures, students
must take responsibility for themselves, must seek acceptance from their peers
in a world of mixed values, and begin more intimate relationships. Mahat (1998)
found that negative interpersonal relationships were the most frequently reported
stressful event , while Ross (1999) found that intrapersonal sources of stress
were the most common . Among a cohort of students, the four least frequently
reported stressors were divorce between parents, quitting a job, severe injury,
and transferring schools, in agreement with Ross (1999). In comparison, Evans &
Kelly (2004) found that examinations, the intense amount of work, and finding the
academic work difficult were the most important source of stress. Nigerian
nursing students have high levels of stress, with the most common stressors
including excessive schoolwork, financial problems, inadequate recreational
facilities, and overcrowded accommodations. These findings indicated a need for
counseling and other support services among nursing students.
The researchers found that first-year students experienced greater stress
than students in subsequent years, findings in agreement with those reported
previously (Walton, 2000). In addition, Misra&McKeen (2000) found that students
at the freshman and sophomore levels experienced more stress than juniors or
seniors due to the fact that they are in the alarm stage (Selye’s theory of General
Adaptation Syndrome).In the alarm stage, the body's first stage of response to a
stressor, during which its defenses prepare for action.
Fourth year level students are already capable of adjusting to the
stressors, due to the fact that they have already accumulated many experiences,
learned from it, adjusted to it, and find stress management. The researchers
found that first-year students experienced greater stress than students in
subsequent years, (Walton, 2000).
In another article by Elizabeth Scott, entitled Stress In College: Common
Cause of Stress in College, dated September 24, 2012, she motioned that,
college freshmen face the most obvious social challenges that usually involve
leaving one’s entire support structure behind, creating a new social network,
dealing with being away from home for the first time and finding less parental
support, most students face social stress. Finding and living with a roommate,
balancing friends with school work (and often part-time jobs), and dealing with
the dynamics of young adult relationships can all be difficult, and these
challenges can lead to significant stress
An article featured in the Carnegie Mellon News Service featured an
article written by Psychology Professor Sheldon Cohen showed that a lack of
income can increase stress levels in individuals who do not have enough money
to pay for their expenses. Low income groups suffer from higher stress levels,
followed by the middle class and then the higher income earners. High stress can
cause several health issues, including heart problems, balding and diabetes
complications.
In another study published in Psychosomatic Medicine, mentioned by
Scott (2006) it's those in the lower socio-economic levels who experience greater
levels of stress and experience more stress-related health problems as well.
Higher stress hormone levels were found in those with higher levels of
socioeconomic status. People of lower socioeconomic status may experience
greater levels of stress and poorer health outcomes for several reasons: Higher
paying jobs bring greater personal control thus allowing people in high offices to
have more personal choices in their lifestyles and more resources at their
disposal leading to lower stress levels; those in higher socio-economic levels
make healthier choices while people in lower socio-economic status tend to
make health damaging choices (e.g. smoking, skipping breakfast or
meals).Lastly, higher socio-economic status brings greater resources for health;
those in the lower levels of socio-economic stats tend to have poorer health
outcomes because they are less able to take care of their health and even afford
health care, among other things which consequently contributes to greater levels
of stress. http://stress.about.com/od/stresshealth/a/socioeconomic.htm
In studies concerning the role of socio-economic status to the stress levels
of an individual, it has been noted that people from higher socio-economic
groups differ significantly from those in the lower socio-economic stratum in
terms of cognitive reappraisal particularly because some children from lower
socioeconomic status backgrounds get less training in critical thinking and in
anticipating crises. This is significant, because stress can be managed in large
part by anticipating stressful events and making plans to reduce their stressful
impact. Making healthier choices and planning ahead are behaviors that can be
taught, but they may not be taught as much in every family.
(http://stress.about.com/od/stresshealth/a/socioeconomic.htm)