Conceptualizing stress

  Over the years numerous definitions and conceptualizations of stress have been cited in the literature. Some have taken the view that stress is caused solely by events or characteristics in the environment. Others have defined stress in terms of the response of the individual to the demands of their environment. However, these definitions cannot explain why it is that two individuals confronted by exactly the same situation can react very differently to it and consequently experience different levels of stress. Cognitive therapists argue that in many situations it is not the environment itself that causes stress but the individual’s appraisal of the situation or event in their environment. It is of course not the intention here to imply that individuals are responsible for causing all of their own stress but simply to emphasize the importance of the meaning that we attach to situations as a factor which mediates between the environment and the level of stress experienced. Nor is it to deny that there are some environmental situations that may be objectively stressful for anyone.

In the work context, the saying ‘one man’s meat is another man’s poison’ summarizes this approach well, since two employees doing exactly the same job can, according to the model, appraise and experience the job in very different ways. One employee can appraise the job as being stressful whereas another employee can appraise it as being challenging and satisfying. There is a growing consensus among psychologists that stress is the result of an interaction (or transaction) between an individual’s appraisal of their environment (i.e., the meaning that they attach to it) and the actual environment itself. This is known as the transactional model of stress.

The ‘camera analogy’

  Aaron T. Beck, who is considered by many to be the father of cognitive therapy, used a camera analogy to describe the interaction of the individual with their environment. He likened an individual’s construction of a particular situation or event to taking a snapshot. When taking a photograph of a particular event or situation, the existing settings of the camera (e.g., lens, focus, speed and aperture settings) all determine what the eventual picture obtained will look like. For example, there may be some blurring or loss of detail due to inadequate focusing, or some distortion or magnification of the picture if a wide-angle or telephoto lens has been used. Likewise, a photograph taken with a soft focus sepia finish will convey a different message from a sharp focus black and white picture. In a similar way, Beck argued, the pre-existing ‘cognitive settings’ of an individual’s mind will influence the way an event or situation in their environment is perceived. He called these pre-existing cognitive settings ‘schemas’.

Schemas are stable structures that process incoming information to the brain in a similar way as the lens, focus, speed and aperture settings described in the camera analogy. They are formed by early life experiences and determine that individual’s propensity to interpret situations in a particular way. For example, if the individual has experienced significant rejection in their childhood, they will be particularly sensitive to situations or events that signal rejection. Thus, a situation signalling rejection will result in activation of that schema and the individual will experience it as stressful. However, an individual who does not have the rejection schema will not interpret the situation as being stressful. Once the unhealthy schema is activated, the individual begins to feel and behave ‘as if’ they were in reality being rejected. Thus, schemas are at the core of stress reactions, because they provide the meaning of an event for the individual. If through the activation of their schemas an individual perceives that a threat is present, and the risk posed by that threat is greater than their resources for coping with it, the ‘emergency response’ is activated.