Verified by 
Key points
- The American physiologist Mason (1971; 1975) was the first theorist to openly criticize Selye for not taking into account the role of psychology.
- In his pilot study on psychological stress, Mason deprived two groups of monkeys briefly of food and showed psychology mediated stress responses.
- In his elaboration on psychological stress, Lazarus (1993) added the concepts of cognitive appraisal and coping to stress literature.
In part I of this series, we explored the history of stress and how the term emerged. In part II, we further looked into the physiology of stress. In part III, we will examine psychological stress:
The American physiologist Mason (1971; 1975) was the first theorist to openly criticize Selye for not taking into account the role of human psychology, notably cognition, perception, and interpretation of the stressor, explaining that Selye’s conceptualization of stress “had little reason at that time to suspect the true degree of sensitivity of the pituitary-adrenal cortical response to more ubiquitous and much less drastic psychological influences” (Mason, 1971, p.325).
In his pilot study on psychological stress, Mason deprived two groups of monkeys briefly of food. In the first group, the fasting monkeys were alone, while in the second, the fasting monkeys watched other monkeys receive food. While both groups underwent the same physical stressor of hunger, the monkeys who had observed others being fed evoked a psychological response which led to higher stress hormone levels. Thus, Mason showed that psychological distress was a mediating factor in the stress response.
In his elaboration on psychological stress, Lazarus (1993) added the concepts of cognitive appraisal and coping to stress literature. Cognitive appraisal refers to one’s personal evaluation of the stressor, including the consequence and significance the stressor is expected to have. The appraisal process is further reduced to two types of appraisal: primary and secondary appraisal.
Primary appraisal consists of three components. The first is goal relevance, wherein one might ask whether the stressor is at all personally impactful. In goal relevance, if a person’s personal goal is at stake (for instance, in the context of academia, getting a high grade in a course) he or she may be more emotionally invested in a testing situation than if he or she is merely auditing the course for interest.
In the second component, goal congruence, a person evaluates whether the stressor is harmful or helpful to the relevant goal. To continue the example above, if a student is faced with having to take a test and cares greatly about his or her grade, the test is seen as harmful to the relevant goal, as it presents an uncertainty impinging on the goal. As the test event is incongruent to the goal, he or she may react negatively.
Lastly, the type of ego involvement that is placed within the goal (which might include self-esteem, social esteem, well-being, life goals) determines the specific emotion felt. For instance, if intelligence, as measured by scholastic aptitude, is valued highly in one’s immediate social circle, and thus earning high grades is important for one’s social esteem, taking a test would be both goal relevant and goal incongruent (positioned as a threat to earning a high grade). Apart from the “existential emotion” of anxiety, one may feel the intense negative emotion of shame or anger, according to Lazarus (2001) from “the desire to preserve or enhance...social esteem” (p. 57).
Secondary appraisal is also divided into three components. The first, blame and/or credit, is when one judges who is responsible for the stressor, and depending on the judgment given on the goal congruency or incongruency of the stressor, one reacts with credit or blame, respectively. For instance, a student may become angry and blame a professor for having a test, if the event of a test is appraised as being highly threatening and highly important. Alternatively, if having a test is appraised as being highly important but not highly threatening, the student may feel no blame or anger towards the professor.
The second component, coping potential, refers to the individual’s evaluation of his or her ability to improve the stressful situation at hand. For example, the student may feel anxious about writing a test if he or she feels incapable of scoring highly on it. Alternatively, a student who copes by reassuring him or herself of having adequately prepared may feel less anxious to write the test.
The final component, future expectations, refers to how one expects the stressor to impact their future. Thus, the student may feel prolonged stress with respect to goal congruence in a university setting, where tests, mid-terms, and final exams are plentiful and constantly re-occurring.
In a revised definition of stress, Lazarus and Folkman (1986) note that stress “refers to a relationship with the environment that the person appraises as significant for his or her well-being and in which the demands tax or exceed available coping resources” (p. 63). This is particularly poignant within an academic setting, where one is situated in an environment where intellectual capability is inherently seen as highly valuable, and the stability of this value is maintained throughout time.
Within a university, to continue the example above, the collective value of personal intellectual ability runs high amongst all parties involved (undergraduate students, graduate students, administrators, professors, etc.) and tests are seen as the predominant measure of intellect. Thus, performing well is highly relevant and testing situations are highly incongruent with the overall presumable goal of learning reflected by intellect. Therefore, the cost of performing even marginally subpar on tests is potentially destructive to social esteem and, according to Lazarus’ model, to self-esteem, causing a host of negative emotions, and moreover, as per Selye’s model, the long-term destruction of one’s body and mind.
However, it is worth noting that while Lazarus believed appraisal preceded an affective response, LeDoux (1996) believed that it accounted for only one potential response: In the “direct pathway,” the activation of a stress response as a result of a stressor begins in the amygdala (a structure in the brain responsible for emotion processing), which then stimulates the “fight or flight” process. In the indirect, or “appraisal” response, however, the stressor is processed by the thalamus, then the cortex, where the stressor is consciously appraised as threatening or not, which elicits or suppresses the fight or flight response. A classic example given is when walking in a meadow and seeing a long and brown object which could be a snake, but upon closer inspection, it is clear that it is a branch and the stress response is suppressed.
Both Lazarus’ and LeDoux’s models are useful within the academic and other sectors, where the stress response may be lessened by appraising a potential situation, such as a test, as non-threatening.
