Phd monthly report february 2014

STRESS, APPRAISAL, COPING AND EMOTIONS PhD Monthly Report Student : Lawrence Farrugia Supervisor : Prof. Jonathan C. Borg Date: 31.02.2013

CONCURRENT ENGINEERING RESEARCH UNIT

Report Number

UNIVERSITY OF MALTA

EMPD – LF02/2014

PhD – December 2013

Table of Contents List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 2 List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Book 1: Stress, Appraisal and Coping ............................................................................. 3 2.1 Basic Concepts............................................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 Primary Appraisal .................................................................................................. 3 2.1.2 Secondary Appraisal ............................................................................................. 5 2.1.3 Reappraisal ........................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Factors Influencing Appraisal....................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Person Factors Influencing Appraisal .................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Situational Factors Influencing Appraisal ............................................................... 9 3.0 Book 2: Stress and Emotion .......................................................................................... 14 3.1 Stress and Emotion ................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1 The Unity of Stress and Emotion ......................................................................... 14 3.1.2 The Unity of Stress, Emotion and Coping ............................................................ 15 3.2 Psychological Stress and Emotion ............................................................................. 15 3.2.1 Stress and Individual Differences ........................................................................ 16 3.2.2 A Relational Approach for Stress ........................................................................ 17 3.2.3 Antecedent Conditions of Appraisal..................................................................... 19 3.3 Emotions and Appraisal ............................................................................................. 20 3.3.1 Emotions and Irrationality .................................................................................... 21 3.3.2 Appraising and Appraisal in Stress theory ........................................................... 22 4.0 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 22

Page 1 of 28

PhD – December 2013

List of Figures No table of figures entries found.

List of Tables Table 1 ................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 2 ................................................................................................................................ 19

Page 2 of 28

PhD – February 2014

1.0 Introduction The research so far has been directed at the process concerning the elicitation of emotions.

This report will summarize the work by Lazarus, in two books, who pioneered the concept of stress, appraisal, coping and emotions. This report will outline in detail, the concept of appraisal and how stress and emotions are interdependent on each other.

2.0 Book 1: Stress, Appraisal and Coping 2.1 Basic Concepts A cognitive appraisal (since appraisal is a cognitive process), reflects the unique and changing relationship between a person, who possesses distinctive characteristics, and the environment which also posses distinctive characteristics, which are however subject to the interpretation by the human person. The last point is very important, because it explains why different people appraise the same identical environment in a different manner.

The cognitive appraisal can be immediate or intuitive (e.g. when a fire alarm rings a person appraises it as an immediate danger) , but also at a high level (e.g. prior to an examination, pupils are constantly appraising and re-appraising their situation and potential coping strategies). A note about immediate appraisals is that these are possible because of prior knowledge or tacit knowledge which a person already posses. Hence when you hear a fire alarm ringing, you do not assess the significance of the fire alarm even if it is a novel situation. Through assimilation with previous experiences you already know the significance of the sound emitted by the fire alarm.

As it has already been stated, for an appraisal to take place there has to be the mediation/exchange/relationship between a person and the situation/environment. In essence there are two cognitive appraisals which take place: primary and secondary appraisal. It should be pointed out that the term primary and secondary do NOT infer to the chronology in which the appraisals occur.

2.1.1 Primary Appraisal This is the appraisal of the significance of the situation to one’s concerns. There are 3 ways in which a situation may be appraised as: i. ii. iii.

Irrelevant Benign-positive Stressful a. Harm/loss b. Threat c. Challenge

2.1.1.1 Irrelevance When an encounter carries no implication for a person’s well being it is considered to be irrelevant. In this case the person has no stake in the possible outcome from the transaction between him/herself and the situation. In this case nothing has to be gained or lost from the transaction. In essence there is really no emotion related to this appraisal as nothing has to be gained or lost from a transaction with the situation.

Page 3 of 28

PhD – February 2014 2.1.1.2 Benign-positive These are appraisals that occur whenever the outcome of an encounter/transaction is interpreted as being positive, that is, if it preserves or enhances well-being. These appraisals are characterised by emotions such as joy, happiness, love and exhilaration.

It should be pointed out that benign-positive emotions may also be connoted with stress and hence stress-emotions. This is the case for people who believe that there is always the possibility that a positive state may sour. Thus for example while one appraises a situation as being benign-positive, there may be the anticipation that the good feeling may in fact turn to a negative one.

For example a person who is promoted to a high ranking position at work will experience joy, however at the same time he/she will feel anxious that they have now got to stand up to the addition responsibility.

Another case is when a person is experiencing love by relating with an old relative, but at the same time the person experiences sadness knowing that the relative may soon die.

These two examples illustrate the idea that stress may also be experienced with benignpositive appraisals.

2.1.1.2 Stress The stress appraisal is subdivided into harm/loss, threat and challenge.

Harm/Loss In this appraisal some damage to the person has already been sustained. Examples of harm/loss are an incapacitating physical injury, recognition of some damage to the selfesteem or loss of a loved one. The important point is that the harm/loss event has already taken place.

Threat The harms or losses have not yet taken place but are anticipate. Even when harm/loss has occurred it is always fused with threat with respect to the future implications. For example a burn victim (where the harm/loss has already occurred), may still feel threatened on how the person will function within society with this incapacitation.

Challenge The main difference between challenge and threat is that with the former, the appraisals focus on the potential for gain or growth, inherent in an encounter. The challenge, unlike threat, is also characterized by pleasurable emotions such as eagerness, excitement and exhilaration.

The main difference between threat and challenge is that the judgment of challenge entails the potential of mastery or gain, while the judgement of threat entails the potential for harm or loss.

While challenge and threat are two different appraisals, these may also be experienced at the same time. For example, a job promotion is considered to hold the gain of responsibility and financial reward. However the person promoted may fee, threatened by the risk of not Page 4 of 28

PhD – February 2014 performing as expected. Hence, a job promotion may be appraised as a challenge and a threat.

It should be noted that the extent to which a situation is appraised as being challenging or threating depends on the characteristics of the person and the environment which in turn shape the person-environment relationship.

2.1.2 Secondary Appraisal When we appraise the environment as being a threat or a challenge, it is then necessary to evaluate what might and can be done. The secondary appraisal is a crucial feature of every stressful encounter because it determines what can be done on what is at stake.

The secondary appraisal takes into consideration: i. ii.

iii.

Which coping options are available The like-hood that a given coping option will accomplish what it is supposed to. This is what we call outcome expectancy which refers to the person’s evaluation that a given behaviour will lead to certain outcomes.

The like-hood that a given coping option can be effectively implemented. This is often referred as efficacy expectancy, which refers to the person’s conviction that he/she can successfully execute the behaviour required to product the outcomes.

Note: The secondary appraisals of coping options and primary appraisal is what determine the degree of stress and determine the strength and quality of the emotions reaction. In essence the mix of primary appraisals and secondary appraisals together determine the degree of stress and the emotional reactions which flows as a result of stress.

Secondary appraisals are important in determining whether a person perceives a situation as a challenge or threat. This is due to the fact that challenge occurs when the person has a sense of control over the person-environment relationship. It should be pointed out that challenge will not occur if what must be done does not call for substantial effort.

2.1.3 Reappraisal This refers to a changed appraisal on the basis of new information from the environment and the person’s own reactions. For example : A person anger affects not only the other person (to whom anger is directed) but also the initiator of the anger (i.e. the person who is angry).

As such, the person who is angry may re-appraise his/her reaction as shameful, thus elicit the emotions of shame and guilt or it may generate a feeling of righteous ness or even fear.

2.2 Factors Influencing Appraisal The appraisal process consists of the evaluation of the significance of the relationship with the environment to his/her well-being. Hence there are two ‘players’ whose factors/properties influence the appraisal process: i. ii.

The person him/her self The environment

Page 5 of 28

PhD – February 2014 This section will outline the factors pertaining to the human person and the environment that influence the appraisal process and the elicitation of emotions. This is a very important point, since as we know, the same identical situation is very often evaluated differently from different people. This is due to the fact that both the personal and environmental factors play an important role in appraisal and the elicitation of emotions.

2.2.1 Person Factors Influencing Appraisal There are two person characteristics that are important determinants of appraisal: commitments and beliefs. These two factors are important because of the following reasons: i.

ii.

iii.

Determine what is salient for well-being in a given encounter. Basically these factor are analogous to criteria which are used in order to determine what is threatening and challenging.

Shape the person’s understanding, or to use a better word, interpretation of the environment. In essence the personal characteristics play an important role in the way the person interprets, in a very subjective manner, the environment. In turn this primary appraisal elicits specific emotions. This explains why two people, subjected to the same conditions will manifest different emotions.

These provide a basis for evaluating outcomes. The commitments determine which strategies a person will make to maintain them.

For further information about commitments and belief refer to the extract in Appendix A. 2.2.1.1 Commitments Commitments express what is important to the person and what has meaning for him/her.

Thus, any encounter that involves a strongly held commitment will be evaluated as meaningful. The meaningfulness of a commitment depends on the extent that the outcome harms or threatens the commitment. In addition the commitments determine the choices people make to maintain or achieve the desired goals.

Mechanisms through which Commitments Influence Appraisal

1. Commitment guide people into and away from situation that can challenge or threaten benefit or harm them. For example the athlete who is committed to winning will engage in rigorous training and give up pleasures that diminish his chance of success.

2. Commitments influence the sensitivity of a person to a person-environment transaction. In essence the values and commitments that a person embraces, determine the relative importance we give to certain aspects of the personenvironment relationship.

For example: A person who is committed at promoting gender equality will be extremely upset to a situation which portrays gender inequality. This is due to the fact that the commitment of gender equality renders her particularly sensitive to this aspect.

3. Commitments can be a factor in vulnerability. The greater the strength of a commitment the more vulnerable the person is to psychological stress in the area of that commitment.

Page 6 of 28

PhD – February 2014 Psychological Vulnerability: the relationship between the individual’s pattern of commitments and his/her resources for warding off threats to those commitments.

Psychological vulnerability only occurs when the deficit in resources, refers to something that matters. Commitments can directly point out areas of psychological vulnerability.

If a person is extremely committed at succeeding in an exam, the he/she is more likely to undergo psychological stress whereby the person will be appraising and reappraising the situation and his/her coping potential of succeeding. On the other hand a person who does not care about becoming a lawyer will not be psychologically vulnerable during the examination period.

Note: When a person is afraid of giving up n a demanding commitment e.g. writing an article, stopping smoking, sometimes people will add pressure on themselves in order to carry on with that commitment by announcing their commitment to others. In this manner the person will increase the pressure on themselves by putting their social esteem at stake.

2.2.1.2 Beliefs Beliefs are personally formed or culturally shared cognitive configurations. These are preexisting notions about reality which serve as a ‘lens’ through which we perceive reality.

Hence for a person who believes in god, the occurrence of an improbable event is perceived as an act of God. In essence a person may generate several interpretation of an event, depending on which facets of the event are encountered and the degree of clarity of the available information concerning demands and coping resources.

Beliefs play an important role because they determine, in a subjective manner, what is fact i.e. “how things are”. Hence beliefs are important as these are used to understand the meaning of the environment, which in turn determines the way it is appraised. In essence belief is the lens which we use to look and interpret reality.

Once again this is a personal factor, which explains why under the same conditions two people may experience completely different emotions. In general, beliefs may be divided into two major categories, (i) beliefs that have to do with personal control and (ii) beliefs that have to do with existential concerns such as God, fate and justice.

Beliefs about Personal Control The extent to which people feel confident of their power of mastery over the environment affects whether the encounter will produce threat or challenge appraisals. There are two concepts with regard to general beliefs about control.

Personal Belief 1 – An internal locus of control, which refers to the belief that events are dependent upon one’s own behaviour Personal Belief 2 – An external locus of control, which refers to the belief that events are not dependent upon one’s actions but upon luck, chance, fate or powerful others.

Page 7 of 28

PhD – February 2014 Beliefs about control over the environment are particularly important under conditions of ambiguity. A condition of ambiguity refers to lack of clarity in relation to the environment and the extent to which the outcome from the person-environment relationship can be controlled.

In these situations of ambiguity, person factors such as the beliefs of control have a significant influence in determining the meaning of the environment i.e. whether the ambiguous situations is a challenge or a threat.

It follows that when a situation is highly ambiguous, a person with an internal locus of control might be expected to appraise the situation as controllable. On the other hand another person with an external locus of control might appraise the situation as uncontrollable.

However, if the situation is extremely ambiguous the judgments about controllability would be influenced by situational characteristics rather than general beliefs.

An important distinction has to be made between efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy. Efficacy expectancy refers to the belief that one can execute the behaviour necessary to obtain the required outcome. On the other hand outcome expectancy is the degree to which the person estimates that a given behaviour will in fact lead to a certain outcome.

Fear is the manifestation of a stressful appraisal. However as the efficacy expectancies increase and the person judges his or her resources more adequate for satisfying task demand, the relationship is evaluated as being more controllable hence less threatening. As a result the fear level decreases. In this case the belief that one can execute the behaviour necessary to obtain the required outcome.

It should be pointed out though, that the reduction in fear is not determined by the increase in efficacy expectancy itself, but rather because of the impact of the increased efficacy expectancies on the person’s appraised relationship with the environment.

The Darker Side of Control The general notion is that control contributes in reducing stress, since control provide a means of coping. However there are cases where having control over the personenvironment relationship does not decrease stress. Consider for example a patient who is told that there is the potential for controlling malignancy through chemotherapy (control has been provided). While exercising control the malignancy will be contained BUT, often this is at an additional cost such as physical and psychological well-being, nausea and hair loss.

Hence the person may value controlling the malignancy, yet the potential of control itself can generate distress because of its costs. Hence the patient is in distress because of the potential of executing control due to the associate cost of control.

Another case where control is not desirable is when control leads to negative social consequences. This is the case where a person has the potential to exercise control over an aversive condition, but the exercise of those skills might result in damage to an important interpersonal relationship or an embarrassing interaction. For example an employee may have the ability to fire an unproductive old technician, however doing so will likely have a negative consequence on the interrelationship of the employee with the other employers.

On a more practical level, the exercise of control may be undesirable in the case where the exercise of control requires the expenditure of resources which are needed elsewhere. For Page 8 of 28

PhD – February 2014 example, to cut down aversive noise in the work environment may require money that is needed to buy new equipment elsewhere. A floor manager may find him/herself in a difficult condition where he/she has to choose where to invest the money i.e. where to direct the execution of control.

Existential Beliefs Existential beliefs, such as faith in God or some natural order in the universe are general beliefs that enable people to create meaning out of life, even out of damaging experience (e.g. “It was the will of God that I lose my child”) Although beliefs and commitments appear similar, in reality the two are quite different.

Beliefs concern what one thinks is true whether or not one likes or approves of it. On the other hand commitments reflect values, that is, what one prefers or considers desirable.

Unlike beliefs, commitments do actively motivate and elicit emotions from a person while beliefs are more neutral. This is not to say that beliefs do not give rise to stress emotions. In fact beliefs become emotions when they encounter a commitment to a value/ ideal/ person/ goal or physical well-being.

Beliefs on their own do not elicit emotions, however when beliefs do coincide with commitments then, emotions will be elicited and meaning is derived from a situation. For example a person who suffered the amputation of a foot may say “I believe it was God’s intent for me to suffer this injury [belief] and survive in order to help others [commitment].”

Another example: “I believe that God created us equal [belief] and it angers me [emotion] to see that people like myself are not living in peace [commitment].” The commitment is what renders it possible for the presence of a belief to elicit emotions. The belief on its own does not elicit emotions. With regards to the last statement, had the person not been committed to live in peace he/she would not have been angry because the belief did not impinge on a commitment.

2.2.2 Situational Factors Influencing Appraisal The extent to which an event is stressful is determined by the relationship between the person and the situational factors. This section will outline various situational factors which influence the appraisal of the person-situation relationship.

There are three situational factors which should be considered: 1. The novelty of an event 2. The uncertainty of an event.

In addition to factors attributed to the situation, there are also three temporal factors which have to do with the timing of an event. These three temporal factors are: 1. The imminence of an event 2. The duration of an event 3. The temporal uncertainty of an event.

Page 9 of 28

PhD – February 2014 2.2.2.1 Novelty If a situation is completely novel, where no aspect of it has previous been connected psychologically with harm, it will not result in an appraisal of threat. On the other hand if a situation is completely novel and no aspect of it is connected with mastery or gain, it will not result in an appraisal of challenge.

The previous, existent, connections do not need to be direct i.e. in order for a situation not to be completely novel, there is no need for the individual to have experienced a similar situation first hand. This is because the individual might have seen, heard, read or otherwise inferred it.

Thus for example a person does not have to be bitten by a snake to know that it is dangerous. Watching documentaries about snakes and listening to conversations with friends is sufficient for the snake to be connected with danger. This example indicates that it is rarely the case for a situation to be completely novel. Usually the individual has some basis for inferring meaning from a situation that he or she has not confronted before.

The relevance of all this in the context of emotions is that the more inference that is required in a particular situation, the more likely the possibility of an error interpretation. If a person is consciously aware that there is possibility of an error in the interpretation of a novel, ambiguous situation he or she is likely to experience a high degree of uncertainty and threat.

Thus if a worker is performing work on a new assembly jig, and becomes aware that his inference to similar operations might lead to errors, then he is likely to feel threatened by his work.

While general and existing knowledge might be sufficient to interpret a novel event in primary appraisal, this inference to knowledge may be inadequate for coping.

2.2.2.2 Event Uncertainty Event uncertainty refers to the likehood of a stress inducing event’s occurrence, thus introduces the notion of probability. There are two intuitive hypotheses with regards to event uncertainty.

Hypothesis 1 - As certainty (of a stress influencing event occurring) increases, there will be a corresponding increase in arousal. Studies have shown this hypothesis to be false, that is as the maximum arousal occurred under conditions of lowest certainty of shock.

The reason provided is that each person makes subject probability estimates of an objective probability regarding the occurrence of an event. Thus when subject to a shock, the subjects that were told they had 50% chance of getting a shock, assumed that the likehood for them to get a shock was so high to assume that they would get a shock each time. Thus the persons shifted the objective 50% probability to a subjective 95% probability. The subjects in effect increased the probability of a shock.

On the other hand the subjects with a 5% probability of shock had a dilemma. On one hand it was “pretty certain that they would not get a shock”, however this possibility still existed.

This study shows us a very important concept i.e. the fact that subjective probability estimates tend to be widely different from the objective probability estimates. In addition this shows that the stimulus factor on its own can increase the degree of arousal. Personal Page 10 of 28

PhD – February 2014 estimates paly a very important role in determining whether or not an event is likely to occur and form a threat.

Hypothesis 2 – There exists a curvilinear relationship between certainty and arousal, the peak occurring with maximum uncertainty (50% probability). Studies to test this hypothesis produced mixed results where in one case the 50% condition produced lowest level of stress. Once again the reason for these results is that an objective 5% estimate is subjectively moved to 50%, while an objective 50% estimate is shifted to 95%.

The author (Lazarus), concludes however that these studies were conducted in a laboratory setting where ethical consideration limit the actual degree of harm which can be created. In real life conditions of maximum uncertainty are highly if not maximally stressful.

For example: ambiguity from marital status can effectively make it difficult for a woman to fit with social group and make practical decisions re employment and children’s education.

There was an experiment with Navy wives, divided into 4 groups: (i) navy wives whose husbands returned from active duty, (ii) navy wives of men killed in action, (iii) navy wives of prisoner of war and (iv) missing in action wives. The study indicated that the greater the uncertainty, in this case with regards to marital status, the poorer the adjustment.

One of the most important reasons why event uncertainty in real life can be stressful is that it has an immobilizing effet on anticipatory coping processes. This is due to the fact that the coping strategies used to cope with an occurring event are very often incompatible with those which anticipate and event non-occurrence.

The coping process for dealing with a serious illness or impairment is to acknowledge and mourn those losses. On the other hand new medical procedures raise the hope for patients.

This leaves the patients in a condition where it is difficult to sustain both course of actions.

In essence not knowing whether an event is going to occur can lead to a long process of appraisal and reappraisal generating conflicting thoughts, feelings and behaviours which in turn create feeling of helplessness and eventual confusion.

2.2.2.3 Temporal Factors This sections will focus on how temporal factors, including imminence, duration and uncertainty influence threat and challenge appraisals.

Imminence This factor refers to how much time there is before an event occurs. It is the interval during which an event is anticipated. Time intervals can both increase and decrease threat.

Short time intervals (i.e. imminent events) can increase the degree of stress. If for example an important decision is to be taken in a short interval, then the person is likely to be frantic and experience high levels of stress. On the other hand, if an event is not imminent, then the person is likely to be more methodological and careful in the search of relevant information.

Longer time intervals can also increase the perceived threat. This is called the ‘incubation of threat”. In an experiment subject were threatened with an electric shod at the end of 3,6 and 12 minutes. The subjects knew that they would receive a shock and also when, however the longer the anticipation time the higher the increase in threat. This study concluded that the Page 11 of 28

PhD – February 2014 degree of stress experienced was not caused directly by the threat or the length of anticipation time itself, but rather by the person’s involvement in the process which incubates with time. The longer and more a person is involved in an event leading to a threat, the higher will the appraisal of stress be.

Experiments have showed that time increases threat, yet at the same time the increased amount of time offers the possibility for a person to appraise and re-appraise the situation and bring to bear a variety of coping mechanisms. In this case the increased time can lessen the threat.

In general the more imminent an event, the more urgent, intense and frantic the appraisal is.

A typical scenario of this case, is prior to an exam and an unprepared student, where the higher the imminence of a threatening exam, the higher the degree of stress. One might argue therefore that the lower the imminence of an event the lower is the degree of stress.

This is not always the case, as the passage of time can make a person more involved in an event leading to a threat. The greater this involvement, the more aroused/stressed a person an be. On the other hand, the opposite may also be true, that is the less imminent an event, the more time it allows for the a person the coping process. In this case the time prior to an event is used in order to appraise coping options.

Duration This temporal factor refers to how long a stressful event persists. The difference between imminence and duration is that imminence refers to the period before an event occurs, and duration to the period during which the event is occurring.

Duration is considered a major factor in disease, the assumption being that enduring or chronic stressors wear the person down physically and psychologically. This is generally summed up under the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS). Basically GAS consists of three sequential stages of stress response: a. Initial alarm reaction b. The stage of resistance c. Exhaustion Initial alarm reaction – This reaction has two subordinate portions which are the (i) shock phase, and the (ii) counter shock phase. The shock phase represents the initial and immediate effect of the noxious agent e.g. by reduction of body temperature and lowering of blood pressure. The second portion of the initial alarm reaction is the countershock phase, which represents active defensive efforts on the part of the physiological system.

The stage of resistance – This is characterised by an increased resistance to the stressor agent and a decreased resistance to other stimuli. The adaption to one agent appears to occur at the expense of resistance to other agents.

Exhaustion – following the long exposure to severe stress, may of the symptoms of the alarm reaction reappear. The final phase produces an number of symptoms such as shock and arthritis and can be followed eventually by death.

It should be pointed out that chronic stressors do not necessarily lead to the exhaustion stage or death. This is because of the concept of habituation, which refers to the lessening Page 12 of 28

PhD – February 2014 of behavioural or physiological stress arousal that occurs with repetition. The persistence of a chronic stressor can give the person the opportunity to learn to deal with its demands, or to deal with it by avoidance or distancing. The damaging effects of a chronic stressor can thus be mediated through coping and reappraisal with time.

There are 3 types of chronic events: i. ii. iii.

Chronic persistent events – these are events such as working in a noisy and ugly work environment.

Chronic intermittent events – these are events such as conflicts with work colleagues Acute time-limited – these are events such as an exam or a factory fire.

Temporal Uncertainty This factor refers to not knowing when an event is going to happen. A hurricane may be headed for you in the next 24 hours but the question is when in the next 24 hours will it hit.

Event uncertainty vs. temporal uncertainty – event uncertainty refers to uncertainty as to whether or not an event is going to occur. Temporal uncertainty has to do with a situation where you know that an event is going to occur, but have no idea when.

Event uncertainty – there may be a hurricane in the next few months. (We do not know if such a hurricane will occur) Temporal uncertainty – there is a hurricane in Malta, it will hit the southern coast in the next 3 hours. (We do not know exactly when in the next 3 hours the hurricane will hit the southern coast.)

In numerous experiments, time-unknown conditions were ranked by subjects as significantly less preferable than any of the time-known conditions. Temporal uncertainty is stressful only when a threatening cue indicates that the event happen, in other words in the presence of imminence.

2.2.2.4 Ambiguity When information necessary for appraisal is unclear or insufficient, we say that the environmental configuration is ambiguous.

Ambiguity vs. Uncertainty Ambiguity is when there is a lack of situation clarity i.e. lack of information about the environment.

Uncertainty has to do with the person’s confusion about the meaning of the environmental configuration. Note that here we are not necessarily referring to event uncertainty, but rather the uncertainty with regards to the meaning of an event.

The information about the environment can be clear yet uncertainty may arise from conflicting values, commitment and goals, and/or simply from not knowing what to do. For example an employee may face a decision pertaining the status of an employee caught stealing. In this case the employee is facing a situation which is unambiguous; however the individual may be uncertain what to do as the perpetrator is a close relative.

Page 13 of 28

PhD – February 2014 On the other hand even when there is ambiguity in the environment, the person may feel confident about what to do. For example in the case where an individual is applying for a new job, the person might not know what the job entails yet he might feel confident as to what job to choose.

Ambiguity refers to situations where a person does not know what is going to happen, the likehood of what might happen (event uncertainty), when it will happen (temporal uncertainty) and how long will it last (duration).

Ambiguous situations create situations whereby a person tries to infer meaning based on personal dispositions, beliefs and/or experiences. Whenever there is ambiguity, person factors shape the understanding of the situation, thereby making the interpretations of the situation more a function of the person than of objective stimulus constraints.

The influence of ambiguity on people differs from one person to another. In certain human ambiguity can intensify threat by limiting the individual’s sense of control and/or increasing a sense of helplessness over danger. The degree of arousal depends on the extent to which the person is able to tolerate ambiguous situations.

It should be emphasised that ambiguity results in threat only when there is a possible scenario which presents a threat. In fact ambiguity as an isolated concept does not in itself present any threat.

Even if there is a potential scenario which may be threatening, ambiguity can be used to reduce threat by allowing alternative – perhaps reassuring – interpretations of the meaning of a situation. For example a person might have a lump on his chest, he might attribute this ambiguous situation in order to create a sense of hope. So the person might think “I do not know what the lump on my chest is, it could be anything.”

In essence, ambiguity ensures that person factors play an important role in creating individual various in appraisal of what is happening. In many instances, ambiguity can be threatening, and the individual will seek to reduce it by searching for more information. In other cases there are times when ambiguity appears advantageous as when it permits the maintenance of hope.

A summary on situational factors may be referenced to in Appendix B.

3.0 Book 2: Stress and Emotion 3.1 Stress and Emotion The author of this book lists 15 emotion types which include – anger, envy, jealousy, anxiety, fright, guilt, shame, relief, hope, sadness, happiness, pride, love, gratitude and compassion.

Each emotion tells us something different about how a person has appraised what is happening in and adaptational transaction and how that person is coping with it.

3.1.1 The Unity of Stress and Emotion When there is stress there are also emotions – perhaps we could call these stress-emotions – and the revers, though not always the case often applies. In this book the author emphasises that one cannot treat stress and emotions as if they were separate fields.

Page 14 of 28

PhD – February 2014 It is easy to see how certain emotions such as anger, anxiety and sadness, could be stress emotions, because they usually arise from stressful i.e. harmful, threatening or challenging conditions. However, even more positively toned emotions can be stressful as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1

Emotion Relief Hope Happiness, pride and love

Results from… a harmful or threatening situation that has abated or disappeared. stems from a situation in which we must prepare for the works while hoping for better are usually considered to be positive in tone, yet these can be associated with stress. For example, though happy about something good that has happened, we may fear that the favourable conditions provoking our happiness will end soon.

Stress applies not only to the so-called stress emotions, but also to those that are positively toned and the relational conditions that surround them.

3.1.2 The Unity of Stress, Emotion and Coping Coping is an integral part of the process of emotional arousal. Judging the significance of what is happening always entails evaluating what might be done about it, which determines whether we react say with anxiety or anger.

The 3 concepts: stress, emotion and coping belong together and form a conceptual unit with emotions being the superordinate concept because it includes stress and coping.

For example: when a person is demeaned, viewing oneself helpless causes anxiety.

However in a different situation the person may be demeaned and unlike the previous case the person experiences anger. The reason why the person experiences anger may be because he/she feels control over the situation. The two situations although they have common person-situation appraisals, result in a different emotions and potentially levels of stress experienced.

3.2 Psychological Stress and Emotion This part of the section is important as it highlights what is stress, what construes and emotion and the relationship among the two.

Traditionally there have been two main ways of defining psychological stress – one that focuses on the stimulus and the other that focuses on the event.

Stress – A Stimulus Approach The concept is that something happens in the environment – that is, a stimulus – which provokes stress reactions and the need to cope, is a natural and appealing way of thinking about psychological stress.

Page 15 of 28

PhD – February 2014 Stress – A Response Approach In contrast to the stimulus approach stress is defined as being in itself the troubled reaction to stressful stimuli, which is a response definition of stress. We feel pressured, harmed, disturbed, sad and so forth, which is what stress means in emotional response terms.

The problem with this definition is the fact that there is a stress response, and the stress responses is, in turn, defined by referring back to the stimulus that presumably brought it about in the first place.

3.2.1 Stress and Individual Differences One of the bigger issues with the two approaches of stress just described, has to do with individual differences. The degree and kind of stress response, event to singularly powerful stress conditions are apt to vary from person to person and these variations need to be understood.

For example the death of a spouse is seen as a negative stressor. However this situation would be welcome with relief by another person who has seen the souse suffer greatly in an extended traumatic period of dying and has shared the suffering.

The existence of substantial individual differences, even in the most stressful situations, means that a stimulus or response approach alone is insufficient to define stress, because it begs the question, what makes a stimulus a stressor.

The main question: How can we explain the existence of substantial individual differences in stress, even in singularly powerful stressful conditions?

One could attempt to attribute such differences to variations in the stimulus conditions being faced. This is due to the fat that no two situations are exactly identical. In reality the details, though they may have an impact, are far less important than the overall message.

The individual differences in a stress response are due to the meaning constructed by a person about what is happening. Very often, a new experiences is fundamentally the same in the way we evaluate its experience despite differences in detail.

The psychological meaning each individual person constructs about the environmental event that is the cause of the stress reaction and the emotions that it produces.

3.2.1.1 The Proximal-Distal Dimension The meaning of an event to a person can be laid out on a proximal-distal dimension. This dimension refers to the ordering of various events in accordance with their personal relevance or psychological closeness. It is the personal significance of what is happening, which is the proximal cause of a stress reaction.

The term distal applies to large social categories such as class or gender. Thus unlike proximal cause, the distal cause does not impact the individual personally, instead it may apply to a large social group.

Page 16 of 28

PhD – February 2014 It follows, that stress arises from conditions where the situation has a direct and personal meaning to the individual. Remember that stressful situations are not exclusively limited to negative events (and emotions) but may also be related to more positively toned events.

Thus every person has two sets of concerns: i.

ii.

Proximal concerns – these are concerns which are directly related to and represent the individual. Whenever a person appraises the situation as having personal meaning, it is practically guaranteed that the person-situation transactions will cause stress. The stress may be caused in both positive and more negatively toned situations.

Distal concerns – these are concerns which in general represent a group. These concerns to not carry any personal significance for every person a they are more generic and belong to a social category. However there may be increased probability of shared meanings

So far we have explained, why different people react with different stress response in similar if not identical situations. The reason being, that each person constructs a meaning from every situation. If a particular meaning impacts the immediate/proximal concerns of a person, then this is highly likely to elicit a stress response.

3.2.1.2 The Daily Hassles Daily hassles refer to little things that irritate and upset people such as delays in the commute to work, being lonely or dealing with an inconsiderate smoker. These recurrent conditions, although not as dramatic than major life changes such as a divorce, are stressful and sometimes get out of hand. When a person endorses a hassle as having occurred, that person has interpreted the event, no matter how insignificant it may appear, as having stressful significance. The situation /event is a proximal cause of stress by virtue of its acknowledged relevance to that person’s values, goals, situational intention and beliefs.

As it has already been stated, daily hassles are typically far less dramatic than major life changes such as divorce of the death of a parent. However, when the daily recurrent stressful event pile up they an very stressful and very important for their subjective well-being and physical health.

To make sense of daily hassles, we must consider some personality characteristics such as coping resources and one’s sense of self-efficacy. This means that stress depends on both the (i) environmental condition and the (ii) personal characteristics that point towards the proximal cause of stress.

3.2.2 A Relational Approach for Stress The ‘best’ way to think about stress is in relational terms. A good way to think about stressful person-environment relationships is to examine the relative balance of forces between environmental demands and the person’s psychological resources in dealing with them. A seesaw provides a good analogy of the balance between environmental load on one side and the person’s resources on the other side as illustrated in Figure 1.

Page 17 of 28

PhD – February 2014

Figure 1 – The seesaw analogy for stress

If the person’s resources are more or less equal to or exceed the demands, we are dealing with a non-stress situation. However even in the case where one is extremely confident that his/her resources exceed by far the environmental demands, then this situation will also give rise to stress namely: lack of involvement, boredom and tedium. The third scenario depicts a more common situation to stress where the individual must struggle with the demands that cannot be easily met. Thus for example, anxiety is a stress emotion that is likely to occur when a person has a poor regards for his or her own capacity t cope with the world effectively.

If the demands are extremely larger than the resources, then we are no longer talking about high stress but trauma. The person feels helpless to deal with the demands to which he/she is exposed and this can result in feelings of panic, hopelessness and depression.

So far we have provided and alternative definition of stress as opposed to the stimulus or the response approach. However on its own, the seesaw analogy does not explain the individual differences in stress response i.e. why do people respond differently even when subject to identical conditions.

The solution to individual differences is based on the subjective process of appraising the person-environment relationship. We have already established that the source of stress is based on the ‘demands’ of the environment and the ‘resources’ of the Page 18 of 28

PhD – February 2014 person. When the person-environment relationship is combined with the subjective process of appraising which is called the relational meaning. The relational meaning is in essence the personal significance of the person-environment relationship.

The basic concept of the relational approach is that stress and emotion are the expression of a particular kind of relationship between the person and the environment. For the relationship to be appraised as being stressful – subjective appraisal process- the person must desire something from the environment, in effect he/she wants to avoid certain outcomes as aversive or attain certain outcome because they are important.

In essence each person appraises the personal significance of the person-environment relationship. The appraisal is carried out with the intent to have desirable outcomes from this relationship. Now people differ greatly in their goals, beliefs and personal resources on which the outcome depends. The relational approach explains why there are individual differences in stress response, even when subjected to identical environmental characteristics. The reason is that each person holds strongly to a set of beliefs, commitments and personal resources. These personal characteristics vary from one person to another. Each person appraises the personal significance of the person-environment relationship.

3.2.3 Antecedent Conditions of Appraisal Bothe person and the environment play an important role in the appraisal process. This section will outline some characteristics pertaining to the environment and the person.

3.2.3.1 The Environment The environment is characteristics are divided into two groups: environmental variables and environmental properties as illustrated in Table 2. The previous section in this book already outlined the environmental properties, hence this section will only outline the environmental variables.

Table 2

The Environment Variables Demands Constraints Opportunity Culture

Properties Novelty Uncertainty Temporal Factors : imminence, uncertainty, duration

Demands These consist of both implicit and explicit pressures from the social environment to act in a certain way and manifest socially correct attitudes. There are multiple demands to conform to social conventions e.g. to do what one’s job entails, to excel, to love etc.

Constraints Unlike social demands on people to act in prescribed ways, constraints define what people should not do, which are also backed up by punishments if violated. Among the most interesting social constraints are those that facilitate or interfere with the coping process.

When we cope with stress in ways that violate the social standards, say, of the community or Page 19 of 28

PhD – February 2014 the company for which we work, we may need to censor certain actions even though they would otherwise be personally useful.

Opportunity This is the third environmental variable that influences the process of appraisal. It arises from fortunate timing but could also depend on wisdom to recognize opportunity. To take advantage of opportunity requires the right actions at the right moment.

Culture There are two main contrasting cultures which may be of relevance to emotions, the cultures that emphasize individualism (Western societies like the US) and those that emphasize collectivism (Asian societies like Japan, Korea and China). Because of the sense of self (as independent vs. inter-dependent) is said to differ in such societies, shame, guilt, pride and anger are favourite targets as emotions for cross cultural research.

3.2.3.2 The Person There are three types of person variables that are especially important in shaping the appraisal namely: (i) goals and goal hierarchies, (ii) beliefs about self and world and (iii) personal resources, which a person brings into the transactions.

Goals and goal hierarchies These are analogous to commitments, which are crucial in stress and emotions. This is due to the fact that without a goal at stake, there is no potential for stress or emotions. Emotions are the result of how we appraise, or evaluate the fate of one’s goal in adaptational transactions, and in life in general.

A complication is that very often, more than one goal may be involved in the personenvironment relationship. So a decision must be made about which goals are most and less important in any given situation. This last statement points to the importance of a person’s goal hierarchy in the emotional life. The hierarchy of what we value most and the least, along with the probabilities and costs of trying to actualize them in a given transaction, determines the choice of goals that a person will go for in any given transactions, and which emotions are aroused by the outcome.

Beliefs about Self and World These have to do with how we conceive ourselves and our place in the environment. They shape our expectations about what is likely to happen in an encounter, what we hope for and fear and therefore what our anticipatory and outcome emotions are likely to be Personal Resources Person variables influence what we are able and unable to do as we seek to gratify needs, attain goals and cope with the stresses produced by demands, constraints and opportunities.

Such personal resources include intelligence, money, social skills, education, supportive family and friends, health, energy etc.

3.3 Emotions and Appraisal Emotions and stress are conjoined. It is very easy to see the link between stress and negative emotions. The more challenging part is to expand the link between emotions and stress, to the emotions that are more positively toned.

Page 20 of 28

PhD – February 2014 It should be noted that, emotions are the product of reason, in that they flow form how we appraise what is happening in our live. In effect, the way we evaluate an event determines how we react emotionally.

Q: So if emotions are the product of logic and reason, why is it that sometimes people act irrationally as a result of emotions? e.g. when a person is angry he/she proceeds with destroying everything and shouting A: Well, we engage in folly, such as in an episode of anger, not because we think illogically but because we have appraised events in a particular way, most often based on unwise or inaccurate assumptions, motives and beliefs. In fact this inaccuracy in the appraisal of events has been used by product designers so as to ‘deceive’ the appraisal of customers in order to elicit the emotions intended by the designer him/herself.

3.3.1 Emotions and Irrationality Emotions mainly reflect what we think we want and how we believe we should try to attain it and much of the time, our choices, are indeed, unwise. Our interpretation of the real world, on which we base our appraisals and resulting emotions, is very often far from the ‘objective’ / real world. This is the main cause of ‘irrational’ emotions.

The author identifies a list of common causes of erroneous judgements that affect our emotions and which may in particular result in “irrational emotions”. The causes of irrational emotions are listed below.

3.3.1.1 Disorders These involve damage to the brain, as in senility, psychoses and mental retardation.

Persons with these disorders, when severe, are usually unable to reason adequately, which means that often their emotions have inadequate foundations in social and physical reality.

3.3.1.2 Lack of Knowledge Genuine ignorance can distort our relationship with the environment; leading to emotions that make sense from only the standpoint that we believe is true. For example, if my distorted view of a tiger is that it is a domestic animal, than only this view might explain why I perceive the wild animal to be cute and want to bring it home.

3.3.1.3 Not paying attention A third cause of inappropriate emotions and action is that we have not paid attention to the right things in our social relationships. In most relationships, there is too much to consider, and we must decide what is important and what is not, which may force us to make hasty, often incorrect guesses.

3.3.1.4 Denial When we attempt to cope effectively with a personal crises e.g. life-threatening disease or an insurmountable challenge, we may be/feel unable to face the truth and therefore, engage in denial. This defence mechanism leads us to make erroneous judgements and , thereby, to experience emotions and act inappropriately with respect what is needed to prolong our life.

Note: In some cases denial can actually be helpful in preserving our moral and is only harmful when it prevents us from doing what is essential. Denial is not harmful when we cannot do anything constructive to improve our situation.

Page 21 of 28

PhD – February 2014 Example : A person is facing a life-threatening disease for which there is no cure and goes into denial, by believing that it is not life threatening and thus not give up. Some years later a new effective cure is made available which no longer renders the disease life-threatening.

The denial in this case was important so that the patient could preserve his morale and not give up.

3.3.1.5 Ambiguity As it was already introduced in the previous chapter, ambiguity has to do with not understanding what is going on. Most of our social relationships are filled with uncertainty about what other people think, want, intend and feel, and it is easy to make an incorrect judgement. For example we see malevolence where it does not exist, or good intentions where there is evil. This leads us to react with emotion that deviates from reality and that from an objective point of view is unfit to the situation. The cause lies in inadequate information ad judgement, not emotion, which merely reflects judgement.

3.3.2 Appraising and Appraisal in Stress theory The remainder of this chapter is dedicated to the two forms of appraisal: primary and secondary. These two appraisal processes have been reviewed in detail in the previous book. It should be pointed out , that the book emphasises that primary appraising does not necessarily come first, nor does it operate independently of secondary appraising, and there is an active interplay on the part of both.

4.0 Conclusions This report has summarized two books on the underlying concepts of stress, emotions, appraisal and coping. Following this summary the following lessons may be learned.

1. Stress and emotions intertwine with each other and should not be treated separately.

In essence there are 3 types of psychological stress: (i) harm/loss, (ii)threat and (iii) challenge. Emotions are the product of reason, they also flow from how we appraise in a very subjective manner (see point 3) the person-situation relationship. Unlike stress, emotions are more complex, and the author proposes 15 emotion types.

Emotions nearly always flow from stress, and in fact the author calls these emotions as stress-emotions. Even positively toned situations, and the positive emotions such as hope and love, may be considered and related to stress.

2. Stress-emotions are the result of a very rational process which we call an appraisal process. There are two types of appraisal, which determine the significance of the person-environment situation. As one might assume both the person and environmental factors play a very important role as to how the person-environment situation is appraised and the emotions which are elicited as a result.

3. One of the issues which psychologists have tried to explain was, how can two people experience the same identical situation and react so differently. Even if we use the notion of appraisal, there should be no reason why two persons appraise the environment so differently from each other.

The main reason for individual differences is that each person appraises the relational-meaning of the situation. Basically each person appraises to significance of the situation from his/her point of view. Needless to say, this very subjective interpretation of reality, may lead to a skewed view of reality. And this explains why Page 22 of 28

PhD – February 2014 emotions have and still are, for many years been associated with irrationality. In fact this is what product designers are exploiting i.e. skewing the view of the customer in order to give a (false) sense. For example use curved, edges to give a sense of intimacy.

4. Any event may be plotted on a proximal-distal dimension, where the closer to the proximal cause the more is at stake for a person. This proximal-distal dimension portrays the extent to which an event has personal significance to a person (proximal) or a large social group (distal). In most cases only proximal are the strongest as they carry personal meaning for the person to relate to. Distal causes are ones which affect entire social groups but in reality they do not have a personal significance to the members of the group.

5. Every person has a hierarchy of goals and a set of beliefs. A gun-enthusiast will react very differently in a war situation when compared to a soldier who has a family waiting for him at home. These are very important as they ultimately determine how a person interprets and appraises a situation.

Page 23 of 28

PhD – February 2014

Appendix A

Appendix A

Page 24 of 28

Appendix A

PhD – February 2014

Among the most important person factors affecting cognitive appraisal are commitments and beliefs. Commitments are an expression of what is important to people, and they underlie the choices people make. They also contain a vital motivational quality. Commitments affect appraisal by guiding people into or away from situations that threaten, harm, or benefit them and by shaping cue-sensitivity.

Commitments also influence appraisal through their impact on vulnerability. The deeper a person's commitment, the greater the potential for threat and challenge, yet at the same time, the depth of commitment can also push a person toward ameliorative action andhelp sustain hope.

Beliefs also determine how a person evaluates what is happening or is about to happen.

They often operate on a tacit level, and as a consequence it may be difficult to observe their influence on appraisal. The impact of beliefs can be observed when there is a sudden loss of belief or a conversion to a different belief system. Although many beliefs are relevant to appraisal, beliefs about personal control and existential beliefs are of particular interest in stress theory. Beliefs about personal control can be both general and situational. General beliefs about control, which concern the extent to which the person believes outcomes of importance can be controlled, are most likely to affect appraisal in ambiguous situations.

The less ambiguity there is about a particular encounter, the more likely situational appraisals of control will affect emotion and coping. Situational appraisals of control are not restricted to expectations about the environment; they can also refer to expectations for controlling one's own response to the transaction.

In any given encounter there may be multiple outcomes varying in importance to evaluate with respect to controllability. Most research suggests that appraising an outcome as controllable is stress reducing.

An appraisal of controllability can also heighten threat, however, as when having control is contrary to a preferred style or conflicts with other commitments or goals. To the extent that situational appraisals of control are based on incomplete information and/or are influenced by person factors, they are less likely to be accurate. Regardless of their accuracy, however, situational appraisals of control, over the environment and/or one's self, influence emotion and coping.

Existential beliefs enable people to create meaning and maintain hope in difficult circumstances. They may be affectively neutral, but they can give rise to emotion when they converge with a strong commitment in a particular encounter. By themselves, commitments and beliefs are not sufficient to explain appraisal. They work interdependently with situation factors (which we take up in Chapter 4) to determine the extent to which harm/loss, threat, or challenge will be experienced.

Page 25 of 28

PhD – February 2014

Appendix B

Appendix B

Page 26 of 28

Appendix B

PhD – February 2014

In this chapter formal properties of encounters that create the potentialfor threat, harm, or challenge were discussed. First, novelty, predictability, and event uncertainty were dealt with. A completely novel situation will result in an appraisal of threat only if some aspect of it has been previously connected with harm. Novelty encourages appraisal inferences based on related previous experience or on general knowledge. Predictability has been studied extensively in animals, and the findings indicate a preference for predictable stimuli.

However, the animal model, which has most commonly been employed for this situation variable, is not adequate for understanding psychological stress in humans, partly because it is not concerned with individual differences in appraisal or coping. The analogous construct in human behavior is event uncertainty, which introduces the notion of probability.

Laboratory research indicates that the relationship between uncertainty and arousal is complex, due perhaps to subjective biases in probability estimates. In real-life events, anecdotal observations suggest that maximum uncertainty is often extremely stressful; it can have an immobilizing effect on anticipatory coping processes and cause mental confusion.

Three temporal situational factors were considered: imminence, duration, and temporal uncertainty. Generally, the more imminent an event, the more urgent and intense the appraisal. The less imminent an event, the more complex the appraisal process becomes.

Although the passage of time can heighten threat, it can also allow the person to manage threat through cognitive coping, in which case increased anticipation time can lead to the reduction of stress reactions. There is some evidence that the relationship between imminence and arousal is different for threat and challenge; threat elicits greater coping complexity than challenge. Duration refers to the length of time during which an event is occurring. Much of the research on duration has been influenced by Selye's concept of the General Adaptation Syndrome, which includes an alarm reaction, a stage of resistance, and exhaustion. Not all enduring stressors lead to exhaustion; animals, for example, often habituate, resulting in a diminished stress response. Emotional habituation occurs in humans, and it may arise through the same evaluative mechanisms as discerned in animals, and/or through coping. Temporal uncertainty refers to not knowing when an event will occur. Little research has been done on this important temporal factor, but the existing evidence suggests that temporal uncertainty generates coping activity that reduces stress reactions.

Ambiguity is characteristic of many if not most real-life encounters. The greater the ambiguity, the more person factors shape the meaning of the situation. Ambiguity can intensify threat if the disposition exists to be threatened or if there is some other cue present that indicates potential harm. Ambiguity can also reduce threat by allowing alternative interpretations of the significance of an encounter. The timing of stressful events over the life cycle can also affect appraisal. Neugarten has pointed out that many normal life events are stressful crises only if they occur "off time." Off time events are more threatening because they are not expected and therefore deprive the person of the support of compatible peers, a full sense of satisfaction that would accompany an event had it been on time, or the opportunity to prepare or engage in anticipatory coping. Hidden stressful events, which mainly comprise experiences for which concepts are lacking (e.g., male menopause) or are suppressed in thought, are also relevant to a life cycle view of stress and coping.

Page 27 of 28

Appendix B

PhD – February 2014

The timing of events in relation to other events was also considered; the effects of a given event may be heightened or even suppressed if it occurs in juxtaposition to other events, resulting in its having different personal significance. Finally, one must remember that situation and person factors are always interdependent, and their significance for stress and coping derives from the operation of cognitive processes that give weight to one in the context of the other.

Page 28 of 28