بررسی اثرات تلاش و فرآیندهای پریشانی مقابله ای بر روی فیزیولوژیکی روانی و واکنش استرس روانی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34011||2003||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Psychophysiology, Volume 47, Issue 2, February 2003, Pages 117–128
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of coping processes on psychophysiological and psychological responses in stressful settings. In particular, we focused on the effects of a combination of active and avoidant coping processes. Subjects were 40 healthy undergraduate male students (mean=19.80, S.D.=0.97) who were randomly divided into four groups: (a) an effort coping group in which a subject faced a controllable stressor mobilizing an effortful and active coping behavior for a reward; (b) a distress coping group in which a subject faced a distressful stressor mobilizing an avoidant coping behavior for threat of punishment; (c) an effort–distress coping group in which a subject faced an ambivalent stressor mobilizing active coping behavior for a reward and avoidant coping behavior for threat of punishment; and (d) a control group. Initially, the effects of effort coping, distress coping, and effort–distress coping on psychophysiological and psychological responses were investigated. It was found that effort coping and effort–distress coping intensified cardiovascular responses, particularly blood pressure, and that distress coping and effort–distress coping intensified skin conductance level (SCL). Secondarily, the relationships between effort coping process, distress coping process, psychophysiological responses, and psychological responses were investigated. As a result of cluster analysis, the changes of heart rate and blood pressure were correlated to the change of the effort score, and the changes of SCL and psychological responses were correlated to the change of the distress score. These findings suggest that active coping processes and avoidant coping processes independently affect different response systems.
Coping behavior in stressful settings is thought to be one of the major determinants of individual differences in psychophysiological and psychological stress responses (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984, Steptoe and Appels, 1989 and Aldwin, 1994). In previous studies, various types of coping behavior have been placed in a single dimension such as active vs. passive (Obrist, 1976), problem-focused vs. emotion-focused (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), and repressor vs. sensitizer (Byrne, 1961). Studies investigating the effects of coping behavior on psychophysiological responses have suggested that active coping is associated with cardiovascular responses (Obrist, 1976 and Obrist, 1981), and that avoidant coping is associated with electrodermal activity (Evans et al., 1984 and Tomaka et al., 1993). Additional studies investigating coping effects on psychological responses (Endler and Parker, 1990 and Folkman and Lazarus, 1988) have suggested that, while problem-focused coping has a negative correlation with psychological stress responses, avoidant or emotion-focused coping has a positive correlation. However, Mattlin et al. (1990) suggested the importance of understanding the characteristics of coping patterns based on various combinations of different coping behavior. For instance, we can actively tackle problem solving and avoid thinking of a failure at the same time, which is a combination of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping. However, the combined effects of different kinds of coping behavior have been investigated insufficiently. On the other hand, Fowles (1980) suggested that the difference of stress responses according to adopted coping was not brought about by the coping itself but by the emotional systems controlling coping based on Gray's two factor theory (Gray, 1975). There are different emotional systems corresponding to different coping behavior, and the behavior activation system increased cardiovascular responses while the behavior inhibition system increased electrodermal activity. Moreover, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) conceptualized coping processes to be cognitive behavioral processes exercised in a series of stressful settings. The processes include cognitive appraisals and coping behavior and it has been clarified that their interaction determines stress responses. It means that if cognitive appraisals are changed even without the change of coping behavior, the coping process may induce different stress responses. Furthermore, MacCare (1984) pointed out the presence of cognitive stress coping such as patience, denial, distraction, and positive thinking besides behavioral one and the diversity of human coping processes that could not be investigated by experiments on animals. Lundberg and Frankenhaeuser (1980) and Frankenhaeuser, 1982 and Frankenhaeuser, 1986 proposed a unique model that indicated the close relationship between cognitive behavioral processes and endocrine responses in stressful settings. In this model, cognitive behavioral states in stressful settings are composed of two major components: effort and distress. Effort is a state of high degree of personal control with active coping behavior, and distress is a state of losing control with avoidant coping behavior, and it was found that effort and distress were differentially associated with catecholamine and cortisol release. Frankenhaeuser, 1982 and Frankenhaeuser, 1986 pointed out that effort and distress might be experienced either one at a time or they might occur together in one and the same situation, and the psychoendocrine relationships were conceptualized as follows. Effort without distress is illustrated by a state of actively engaging in one's hobbies and jobs without interruption, and it is accompanied by catecholamine secretion. Distress without effort is illustrated by a state of unwillingly engaging in one's tasks hard to accomplish, and it is generally accompanied by cortisol secretion. Effort with distress is the state typical of high demand for performance and low latitude over ways of doing jobs such as engaging in repetitious, machine-paced jobs on the assembly line or in highly routinized work as at a computer terminal, and it tends to be accompanied by an increase of both catecholamine and cortisol secretion. On the other hand, Suzuki and Sakano (1998) tried to apply Frankenhaeuser's effort–distress model in the context of Lazarus's cognitive stress model, in which the relationship between cognitive appraisals and coping behavior in stressful settings were investigated by exploratory factor analysis and structuring equation modeling. As a result, stress coping processes including cognitive appraisals and coping behavior could be well formulated by two dimensions as Frankenhaeuser had pointed out. The first dimension represented high degree of commitment to tasks as cognitive appraisals and active involvement in situations as coping behavior, which could correspond to Frankenhaeuser's effort state. The second dimension represented low degree of personal control and regarding tasks threatening as cognitive appraisals and avoiding situations as coping behavior, which could correspond to Frankenhaeuser's distress state. Furthermore, Suzuki and Sakano (1998) investigated the individual differences of stress coping processes from the effort and distress dimensions and found that the two dimensions were independent in stressful settings and four combination patterns could be classified as follows (Fig. 1). High effort and low distress pattern is the state of high commitment to situations with active coping behavior. Low effort and high distress pattern is the state of low degree of personal control and threatened appraisals of situations with avoidant coping behavior. High effort and high distress pattern is the state of low degree of personal control and threatened appraisals of situations and at the same time high demand for performance, in which avoidant cognitive coping such as emotional adjustment and giving up are used as well as active behavioral involvement to situations. Low effort and low distress pattern is the state in which stress is not noticed and appraised. Full-size image (5 K) Fig. 1. The combination patterns of effort and distress coping processes are classified into four groups (Suzuki and Sakano, 1998). Figure options The effort–distress model as mentioned above must be useful for understanding coping processes in stressful settings from cognitive behavioral aspects. However, the relationship between effort and distress coping processes and stress responses has been investigated only on endocrine responses and but it has never on autonomic nervous system or psychological responses. Furthermore, the combination effects of effort and distress have not been investigated sufficiently. The purposes of this study are to investigate the effects of coping processes that are understood as combinations of effort and distress coping processes on autonomic nervous system and psychological responses in stressful settings.