Measures of stress — common mistakes

When evaluating a study on stress, always critique the specific measure used. For example, if a study uses only the SRRS, you can argue it lacks validity as it ignores individual perception. If it uses only GSR, you can question whether the arousal measured was definitely due to stress and not another factor like excitement or physical exertion. The strongest research often combines both types of measures.

No, it is not a guarantee. The SRRS shows a positive correlation, not a causation. A high score indicates an increased statistical risk or vulnerability to illness, but many other factors like coping strategies, social support, and genetics play a crucial role. The scale is a predictive tool, not a diagnostic certainty.

Not necessarily. While objective, they have limitations. An increased heart rate can be caused by excitement or exercise, not just stress. The measurement process itself can be stressful, confounding the results. Crucially, they do not capture the person's subjective experience of stress, which is a vital part of the overall picture.

While major events are highly stressful, research by Kanner suggests the chronic, cumulative effect of daily hassles can be more damaging to health over time. This constant activation of the stress response, without adequate recovery, leads to 'wear and tear' on the body (known as allostatic load) and may be a stronger predictor of health problems than infrequent major life events.