The concept stress is a popular theme used by people to suggest a state of distress. From my experience, I have observed people become apprehensive over certain issues while others within similar circumstances show less or no concern. Obviously, people behave differently but what makes a person to show less or no concern over situations that make others nervous? In view of the topic, I intend to explore why certain events tend to distress people and still have no effect on others but firstly, it will be essential to ascertain the term stress. According to Gross (2000), ‘stress is a pattern of negative physiological states and psychological responses, occurring in situations where people perceive threats to their well-being which they may be unable to meet’. From the definition, stress is the physiological and psychological changes in a person brought about by certain anxiety; perception seems to play a key role with the way people handle situations. Apparently, those in distress viewed stress negatively by thinking the threat to their well-being was beyond their capacity.

There are approaches that have thrown more light on stress, although their views maybe different, they seem to recognize that stress is a product of stressors and stress responses. According to Cox (1975), these approaches are:

The engineering model: This model is of the view that stress is located in the stimulus characteristics of an individual’s environment. The engineering model sees stress as what happens to a person and not what happens within the person. This model shares similar view with the opinion of the behavioural perspective, that human behaviours are direct consequences of their environment.

The physiological model: This model on the other hand is principally concerned with what happens within an individual. It is interested in the response aspect of the engineering model. This model can be associated with Freud’s system of belief of the psychoanalytical perspective that people’s behaviours originate from within.

The transactional model: This model views stress as a product of the transaction between a person and his/her environment in relation with their individual perception. This model is a blend of the other two models; it is more objective and includes Lazarus’s cognitive appraisal concept, interested in the ability of people to cope with stress.

1

Bearing in mind that the perception of threat which is beyond ones capacity indicates negative stress; when this phenomenon occurs, the body is left with the option to face its challenges. The defensive reactions could take the form of a ‘fight or flight’ response making the body to automatically adjust itself in preparation to the threat. The response that is discussed in this paragraph is physiological. Take for example a scenario whereby hunters in a jungle are searching for a lion, one of the hunters has no gun and is left alone in a position where the lion is thought to be unlikely found. He walks around for a few minutes and alas, that is the lion right in front of him staring into his eyes. He has no gun and knows he can not out-run the lion, immediately he perceives a threat beyond his capability, some of the reactions which is likely to take place in his body in preparation to that threat include: hormones being released into the blood stream(adrenalin), the shut down of the digestive system – to divert more blood from the stomach to the lungs and the muscles, blood vessels narrow and thickens so that blood flows less rapidly and coagulates quickly in case of fresh wounds, heart rate accelerates increasing the blood being pumped round the muscle and brain, glycogen released from the liver for extra energy and muscle strength, breathing deepens and increases oxygen in the blood; all these to name a few will involuntarily increase energy and alertness in preparation for the rapid response to the threat.

The outlook of the physiological explanation of stress however appears to have a one-sided view; it sees stress responses to only be a thing of the physical. It fails to recognize that the psychological part of a person can activate the body producing similar physiological effects as described in Selye’s ‘GAS’ theory (Selye 1956). The tenet of the physiological explanation of stress does not consider the fact that the perception of this threat took place in the mind and the mind is not physiological.

2

The engineering model as well as the transactional is of the view that the environment plays an important function in stress, though the transactional further sees individual perception to also play a role. There are everyday events considered as hassles which regularly occur at home, work and personal lives of people leading to stress. Lazarus, a well known transactional model theorist used the cognitive appraisal theory to demonstrate the processes of viewing these events positively, negatively or neutrally and their consequent effects on people (Gross 2000). An evaluation of the harm factor and one’s coping ability determines the level of stress. Taking an example of some stressors located within the environment from the workplace; the issue of the role conflict whereby a factory worker, who has been recently promoted to the role of a supervisor, finds himself/herself in the middle management status dealing with the demands of the higher management and other staffs. The staffs may not relate with their new supervisor casually as before and they may even avoid some discussions with him/her, on the other hand the supervisor may still not be able to relate with the senior management differently as before. If after primarily assessing the new role he/she views it to be a threat and subsequently this is followed by an evaluation of low coping abilities, this may place a strain on the supervisor leading to attitudes such as sudden change of moods, seeing self as victim, inability to concentrate, overtiredness, headache/migraine and so on. The environmental explanation of stress in this situation, is only concerned with the role-conflict (stressor) located within the supervisor’s workplace which produced these stress responses.

The viewpoint of the environmental explanation of stress is a subjective one. It only recognises the environmental factors which lead to stress failing to acknowledge that individuality of people also plays an important role in stress; another person may view that middle-management role positively as an advantage and those resulting attitudes may not have occurred. Although the stressor may have been located within the environment, the psychological aspect of the supervisor also contributed to the stress, it is actually impossible to talk about stress without referencing the mind because the negative or positive outlook on events takes place in the mind.

3

After recently carrying out research on stress added with class lessons I received, I have come to realise that although most stressors are located within the environment, perception plays an imperative role in determining the level of stress people experience but there is still another factor which cannot be isolated when discussing about stress and that is individuality. According to Fontana (1989) the level of stress people can handle varies from person to person and also depends on the kind of stress. People can become worried over changes with their usual work or lifestyle; such situations they see as a threat instead of a challenge. When these changes eventually occur, they may find themselves shattered with no more centre of balance.

Putting this in a context, a senior staff nurse who has worked for many years in a hospital gets to the point of becoming retired; he/she has become so used to being employed and having work mates but as a result of the retirement, will have to be waking up soon in the morning and staying alone at home all day. On individuality basis, two people may respond differently to this situation. The Type A personality nurse according to Friedman and Rosenman (1974) as cited in Gross (2000), who has become so obsessed with his/her job and also finds the job to compensate for the lack of friends or family, is likely to become depressed after retirement and as a result suffer from stress, develop high blood pressure and coronary heart disease. The Type B personality nurse on the other hand, who may still be obsessed with his/her job but sees the retirement as an advantage and pleasurable is unlikely to become depressed. It seems when it comes to retirement, more people tend to be associated with the Type A personality this is the reason why retirement was ranked 10 out of 43 in Holmes and Rahe ‘social readjustment rating scale’ (Gross 2000).

Conclusively, people are daily faced with events which may threaten their well-being but perceiving these events positively as a challenge will give them a sense of control over stressors enabling them to cope with stress. Lazarus’s cognitive appraisal concept shows that even an evaluation of both high harm factor and high stress level added with a high coping ability is likely to produce low stress. I will say at this point that perception is the control centre that is responsible for the abilities of one coping with stress and since perception takes place in the mind, ‘stress is all in the mind’.

4