Comments
Description
Transcript
Predictability and Control
400 Chapter 10 Health, Stress, and Coping known as cognitive appraisal. A potential stressor usually has a stronger negative impact on people who perceive it as a threat than on people who see it as a challenge (Lazarus, 1999; Maddi & Khoshaba, 2005). Evidence for the effects of cognitive factors on stress responses comes from both surveys and experiments (e.g., Abelson et al., 2005). In one of the first laboratory demonstrations of these effects, Richard Lazarus gave differing instructions to three groups of students who were about to watch a film showing bloody industrial accidents (Lazarus et al., 1965). One group (the “intellectualizers”) was instructed to remain mentally detached from the gruesome scenes; a second group (the “denial” group) was instructed to think of the scenes as unreal; and a third group (the “unprepared” group) was not told anything about the film. As Figure 10.4 shows, the intensity of physiological arousal during the film, as measured by sweat-gland activity, depended on how the viewers were instructed to think about the film. The unprepared students were more upset than either of the other two groups. In a more recent study, students who were first trained to see the threatening aspects of information showed more emotional arousal to a stressful video than those who had been trained to see information as nonthreatening (Wilson et al., 2006). Similarly, physical and psychological symptoms associated with the stress of airport noise, of being diagnosed with a serious illness, of learning about toxins in local soil, or of living with terrorism threats are more common in people who engage in more catastrophic thinking about these problems (Bryant & Guthrie, 2005; Lerner et al., 2003; Matthies, Hoeger, & Guski, 2000; Speckhard, 2002). Those who hold a more optimistic outlook tend to show milder stress responses and better health outcomes (de Moor et al., 2006; Taylor et al., 2000; Taylor et al., 2003). The influence of cognitive factors weakens somewhat as stressors become extreme. Still, even the impact of major stressors, such as natural disasters or divorce, may be less severe for those who think of them as challenges to be overcome. In other words, many stressful events are not inherently stressful; their impact depends partly on how people perceive them. An important part of this appraisal is the degree to which the stressors are perceived to be predictable and controllable, or at least manageable. Predictability and Control Why is the threat of terrorism so terrorizing? For one thing, knowing that a stressor might occur but being uncertain whether, or when, it will occur tends to increase the stressor’s impact (Lerner et al., 2003; Sorrentino & Roney, 2000). In other words, FIGURE 10.4 Baseline Cognitive Influences on Stress Responses Second accident Third accident 22 Units of sweat-gland activity Richard Lazarus and his colleagues found that students’ physiological stress reactions to a film showing bloody industrial accidents were affected by the way they thought about what they saw. Those who had been instructed to remain detached from the film (the “intellectualizers”) or to think of it as unreal (the “denial” group) were less upset—as measured by sweatgland activity—than those in an “unprepared” group. These results were among the first to show that people’s cognitive appraisal of stressors can affect their responses to those stressors. First accident 20 Unprepared 18 16 14 Denial 12 Intellectualizers 10 Projector starts 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time in 10-second intervals Source: Adapted from Lazarus et al. (1965). 70 80 87