4.1 Introduction
4.2.1 Stress as a Response (theory-led)
One dominant conceptualisation of the stress experience is that of stress as a response.
Selye's response-based 'physiological' account of stress is one which defines stress as the
"non-specific (that is, common) result of any demand upon the body, be the effect mental or somatic" (p.22). It should be noted that by 'non-specific', it is meant that every stressor produces a specific response, while also producing non-specific responses common to all stressors (Singer & Davidson, 1991). This account places much emphasis on the dependent variable - the response, regardless of the stressor, that elicits the response (Selye, as cited in Helman, 2001, De Wolff & Winnubst, 1987, Lyon, 2000).
From this perspective, stress is therefore an outcome of an experience that has a physiological effect on the body. In this way, organisms merely automatically react to environmental stimuli.
When examining the newspaper articles it became apparent that the majority of the accounts were in line with this dominant response-based conceptualisation of stress.
Stress tended to be understood and constructed as the physiological response to certain environmental stimuli. An extract taken from an article in the Sunday Times provided an extremely physiological understanding of the stress response "The Complete South African Health Guide describes stress as a state of arousal in which psychological, physiological and biochemical changes are provoked by specific stressors" (Sunday Times, 1999, Stress Comes Under Spotlight). A large majority of the articles, across all the newspaper groups, also provided explanations of the experience from the perspective of the one-dimensional stress response. For example, "Stress occurs when a person responds
to everyday activities in a tense manner. This tense response provokes a flood of adrenalin-related hormones to invade the bodily tissues including the vital organs (Post,
1995, Overcoming Stress Will Improve The Quality Of Your Life). Some articles drew on the theory of Selye to conceptualise the stress experience "Selye's hypothesis is now the accepted view: that when coping with stress the body responds by eased production of certain hormones such as adrenalin and Cortisol, which affect heart rate, blood pressure and metabolism. However, at a certain level and under continued exposure to stress, these physiological affect a person's ability to cope and possibly cause damage to vital organs.
In some susceptible individuals, this may trigger disease" (Sunday Times, 1995, That Illness May Be Incubating At The Office). A definition of stress was found in an article in the Mercury which again reinforced this response-based understanding of the stress experience: "Stress can broadly be defined as people's psychological, behavioural and physiological reactions when they attempt to adapt to internal and external pressures and demands they can not cope with" (The Mercury, 1996, It's Modern, It's Hi-Tech, It's Stressful).
When examining this conceptualisation of the stress experience, a seemingly one- dimensional view of stress becomes apparent. Therefore, this uni-directional understanding of the stress experience tends to neglect the complexity of the stress experience. By conceptualising the relationship between the individual and the environment (in this case the organisation) as uni-directional, an extremely mechanistic account of the stress process is provided. In such a way, the individual is constructed as a passive entity who merely responds to environmental and organisational pressures.
92
Mason (1971, as cited in Everly, 1989) argues that this theory has been criticised for its 'global generality' as well as for its lack of sensitivity towards the specificity of the stress response process. For example, one cannot assume that the same event will result in the same experience for all individuals. That is, no two individuals will respond in the exact same way to an event. An article found in the Business Day acknowledged this individuality by stating that "reactions to the pressures are different for every individual.
Reactions to stress are likely to involve palpitations, shallow or fast breathing, tingling in the limbs, sweating, tension in the shoulders or back, dizziness and dryness in the throat (Business Day, 2001, There Is Skill Involved In Thriving Under Pressure). However, by listing examples of physiological responses, the account this article provides still remains extremely simplistic.
Rather, one event has the possibility of being interpreted in many ways and therefore might not even be experienced as stressful by some individuals. Similarly, literature contends that this conceptualisation has been criticised for focussing extensively on the physiological dimensions of stress, while ignoring psychological resources, coping strategies as well as the meanings individuals attach to the experience, which determine whether the occurrence is perceived negatively or positively (Helman, 2001). However, many of the articles do appear to take cognisance of the range of responses that are available, thus affirming existing criticisms. It can therefore be argued that due to a large portion of the newspaper articles providing a response-based conceptualisation of stress experience, two main implications arise: that a universal view of the stress response is
provided, and as a result there is a diversity of possible responses, and the complexity of the stress experience is ignored and unacknowledged.
94