Introduction
In general, life in an urban setting can be taxing for most individuals. Every morning, from the moment we open our eyes, we are bombarded with the hassles of daily stressors. Even positive events, such as a job promotion or anticipation of a big date, can be perceived as a stressor.
However, positive stress usually leads to eustress, as opposed to distress produced by negative stressors. The stress phenomena consist of two mechanisms or components: physical and psychological (Sarafino & Smith, 2014).
Usually, stressful experiences manifest as one of three types – positive, tolerable, or toxic stress. The three types of stressors can be further classified into four categories; acute physical anxiety, chronic physical stress, traumatic events, and psychological and social disruptions (Sapolsky, 2004). The broad nature of stressors begs the question: what defines or constitutes a stressor?
Sapolsky (2004) explains a stressor as any outside event or factor that imbalances the body’s homeostatic pendulum. Subsequently, this internal discrepancy elicits a stress response to restore homeostasis (Sapolsky, 2004). The stress response can be somatic and/or psychological and is referred to as a strain (Sarafino & Smith, 2014).
Psychological & Social Disruptions
The more notable stressors I experienced during the 10-day observation period were psychological and social disruptions. It included an argument with my girlfriend; worrying about an upcoming exam; getting stuck in traffic while running incredibly late; getting a flat tire; etc.
Although my diary was centered on a single notable stressor per day, most days were marked by a host of stressors. For example, on May 10th, in addition to the traffic and running late to class, I was also running short on gas. As such, on days that are plagued by stress, the stressors are usually related.
There were also independent stressors, such as being rudely awakened by an annoying noise early in the morning.
Some of the stressors I experienced were controllable (e.g., argument). At the same time, others were uncontrollable and even unpredictable (e.g., getting a flat tire). My typical stress response was/is usually frustration.
I usually overcome this initial reaction by employing problem-focused coping strategies and primary control. According to Bandura’s social-cognitive theory, stress responses are contingent on the self-appraisal of one’s ability or effectiveness to cope with a given stressor (Prati, Pietrantoni, & Cicognani, 2011).
However, a lingering migraine comes to fruition if the initial frustration persists. In addition, during the entire duration, while I am stressed, I constantly smoke cigarettes. Chain smoking Marlboros tends to yield and bitter aftertaste.
In combination with the intensity of my headache, this effect sometimes makes me feel nauseous. If the symptoms above and the sensations persist, my frustration can sometimes turn to hostility and emotional distress.
These symptoms, and the sequence of somatic and psychological processes in reaction to stress, are more or less consistent in the rare events when I fail to implement an adaptive coping approach. However, the emotional responses that accompany different types of stressors can vary.
For example, when confronted with stressors that I could have proactively avoided (e.g., traffic or being late), my initial frustration leads to anger, usually directed at myself. In other instances, stressors that arise from interpersonal conflicts (e.g., arguments with my girlfriend) manifest themselves as contempt if the coping approach fails.
Coping Approaches To Stress
Similar to grieving, coping is a process. It is defined as behavioral or psychological attempts to deal with circumstances that are deemed stressful (Prati et al., 2011). The myriad of coping strategies that people employ can be classified into two broad categories; problem-focused or emotion-focused coping styles.
In general, men tend to favor “problem-solving approaches” for dealing with stress. On the other hand, their opposite-sex counterparts usually gravitate towards an “emotion- or relationship-based” coping style (Sapolsky, 2004, p. 411).
As a male with a typical Type A personality, I tend to favor a problem-focused approach when confronted with stressors. An essential factor to remember is that the two different methods are not mutually exclusive. Depending on a situation or a particular stressor, both coping strategies have adaptive qualities.
Problem-focused coping can be adaptive when the person has the ability and the opportunity to terminate or decrease the intensity of the stress-inducing stimuli—for example, proactively combating the stress of a forthcoming exam by studying extra hard. Conversely, emotion-focused coping is usually advantageous when the stressor has passed or is uncontrollable (e.g., the death of a loved one).
In addition to the two aforementioned coping styles, individuals also employ confrontative (i.e., approach) and/or avoidant coping strategies. The former is similar to the problem-focused coping style and is part of my coping arsenal. It has good research support regarding its adaptiveness.
The latter, however (i.e., avoidant strategies), may be deemed as maladaptive, possibly leading to “behavioral and mental disengagement” (Prati et al., 2011). Regretfully, however, I am not immune to avoidance strategies. I usually resort to such maladaptive strategies when faced with interpersonal conflicts.
It is also important to note that the relationship between stress and coping does not pivot on the perceived stress level or the intensity of the emotional responses (Cohen, 1996). Studies that address the stress-coping phenomena underscore the crucial role of “cognitive appraisal in the stress process.”
The coping strategy mediates cognitive appraisal and health outcomes (Prati et al., 2011). Cognitive appraisal is a psychological process by which individuals assess two fundamental dynamics when confronted with stressors.
First, whether a demand jeopardizes “their physical or psychological well-being.” And second, the ability to muster up resources to accommodate those demands (Sarafino & Smith, 2014).
Additionally, the two factors above exemplify “two types of [cognitive] appraisal – primary and secondary” (Sarafino & Smith, 2014).
Stress-Appraisal Process
Another essential factor of the stress-appraisal process is the individual’s perceived sense of control over stressors. Individuals can attempt to utilize two forms of control when dealing with stressors (primary and secondary control). Primary control attempts to modify the environment (e.g., change or terminate the stressor).
Secondary control calls for a compromise. It requires adjusting oneself to conform to the environmental demands (e.g., learning to tolerate and co-exist with specific stressors). Depending on the circumstances, I apply both forms of control. If I perceive a stressor to be within the sphere of my influence, I almost always endeavor to exert primary control. If it is not, I will settle for a secondary control strategy.
Internal & External Locus OF Control
To some extent, the person’s disposition towards a particular coping style is related to their locus of control. The concept of locus of control was proposed by Julian B. Rotter. It denotes the degree of self-perceived control of environmental outcomes.
Those with the self-efficacy to exert their will to affect the outcome of events are said to have an internal locus of control. Those attributing life outcomes to an external agency (e.g., faith, luck, God) have an external locus of control.
In stressful situations, those belonging to the latter category are disadvantaged. Their lack of confidence that they can have a positive impact on a stressor usually leads to a maladaptive coping strategy (e.g., avoidant coping).
For those with an internal locus of control, stressful events are perceived as just another challenge for the person to overcome. In general, I tend to have an internal locus of control.
My philosophy for handling challenging and/or stressful situations is based on three premises or axioms. First, is that God never gives us more than we can handle. The second is what one man can do; another can too. And the third, a quote from Benjamin Franken- every problem is an opportunity in disguise.
Personal Tendencies
As mentioned earlier, I have a typical Type A personality and frequently exhibit the accompanying tendencies. For example, I am very competitive, usually impatient, sometimes controlling, prone to aggression, hyper-vigilant, demanding, performance-oriented, etc.
According to research, people with Type A personality are at “an increased risk of [developing] [a] cardiovascular disease” (Sapolsky, 2014, p. 324). The cardiac risk associated with this personality type is on par with smoking.
However, once coronary illnesses manifest, Type A’s usually demonstrate a higher survival rate (Sapolsky, 2014). Granted that I regularly indulge in smoking, I feel a sense of urgency to quit as I type away these words with a lit cigarette pressed between my lips.
Additionally, there are three behavioral patterns typical of Type A personalities. They are competitive achievement orientation, time urgency, and anger/hostility.
The angry/hostile pattern is the most maladaptive of the three and can lead to self-destructive behavior and consequences (e.g., incarceration). Interestingly, some researchers have proposed that the catalyst for anger and hostility is, in fact, the sense of being pressed for time (Sapolsky, 2014).
To some degree, my personality disposition exhibits all three behavioral patterns. However, the defining pattern of my Type A disposition is competitive achievement orientation, with time urgency being a close second and anger/hostility a distant third.
Conclusion
During this process, one interesting thing I learned about my personality is that I get stressed much more frequently than I previously realized. This fact was made partly salient by the stress log, which turned out to be rather insightful.
This, too, was surprising; I initially found the idea of a stress diary to be somewhat girly. Exploring some of the somatic mechanisms and processes influenced by the stress response was also intriguing. In addition to the pleasantries, disquieting factors were also brought to my attention.
Chief amongst them was the troubling revelation that individuals like myself, that is, those with Type A personality, are susceptible to a variety of illnesses. Evidently, the intensity of the correlation between Type A’s and susceptibility is as profound as the relationship between smoking and cardiovascular diseases.
This revelation, in conjunction with some of my maladaptive health habits (e.g., smoking), is a prime breeding ground for illness and urgently needs to be addressed (i.e., I need to quit smoking and take better care of myself).
30 Easy Stress-Killers
Free eBook
References
Cohen, S. (1996). Psychological Stress, Immunity, and Upper Respiratory Infections.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5 (3), 86-90.
Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L. & Cicognani, E. (2011). Coping Strategies and Collective Efficacy as
Mediators Between Stress Appraisal and Quality of Life Among Rescue Workers. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1, 84–93. DOI: 10.1037/2157-3905.1. S.84
Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). WHY ZEBRAS DON’T GET ULCERS. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin
Press.
Sarafino, E. P., & Smith, T. W. (2014). Health Psychology: Biopsychosocial Interactions (8th
ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.