Revise Sources of stress for Cambridge 9990 (3.4.1)

A primary source of stress stems from major life events, which are significant but relatively infrequent occurrences that disrupt an individual's normal routine and require substantial psychological readjustment. Holmes and Rahe (1967) developed the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) to quantify this stress. The scale lists 43 life events, from death of a spouse to minor violations of the law, each assigned a 'Life Change Unit' (LCU) score based on the perceived level of adjustment needed. The core principle is that both positive (e.g., marriage) and negative events are stressful. A high cumulative LCU score over a 12-month period is correlated with an increased likelihood of experiencing physical illness, suggesting that the effort of adapting to change depletes our resources and makes us more vulnerable.

In contrast to major life events, daily hassles are the frequent, minor irritations and frustrations of everyday life. Kanner et al. (1981) argued that the cumulative effect of these stressors, such as losing keys, traffic jams, or arguments, is a more significant source of stress than major life events. They developed the Hassles and Uplifts Scale to measure these experiences, proposing that 'uplifts' (minor positive experiences) could partially offset the negative impact of hassles. Research by DeLongis et al. (1982) supported this view, finding that daily hassles were a better predictor of psychological symptoms and health problems than the life event scores from the SRRS. This suggests that the constant wearing down of our coping resources by minor stressors is particularly damaging to our health.

For many adults, the workplace is a major source of chronic stress. Two key factors identified by research are workload and control. Workload refers to the volume and pace of work; both overload (too much to do) and underload (boring, repetitive tasks) can be stressful. Control refers to the autonomy an employee has over their tasks, work pace, and decisions. The Whitehall II study by Marmot et al. (1997) was a landmark piece of research in this area. It studied British civil servants and found a clear social gradient in health. Employees in lower-status jobs with low control were significantly more likely to develop coronary heart disease than those in higher-status jobs with high control, even when other risk factors were accounted for.

The experience of stress is not universal; individual differences mediate how a person perceives and reacts to a potential stressor. Personality is a key factor. Friedman and Rosenman (1974) identified the Type A and Type B personalities. Type A individuals are characterised by competitiveness, time urgency, ambition, and hostility. In their longitudinal study, they found that men with a Type A personality were more than twice as likely to develop coronary heart disease (CHD) as their more relaxed, patient, and easy-going Type B counterparts. Subsequent research has refined this, identifying the 'hostility component' of the Type A personality as the most toxic element, strongly predicting poor health outcomes. This demonstrates how dispositional factors can create a vulnerability to stress.