Download factors influencing stress tolerance

FACTORS INFLUENCING STRESS TOLERANCE
Some people seem to be able to withstand the ravages of stress better than others can.
Why? Because a number of moderator variables can reduce the impact of stress on
physical and mental health. To shed light on differences in how well people tolerate stress,
we'll look at five key moderator variables: social support, hardiness, optimism, sensation
seeking, and autonomic reactivity. As you'll see, these factors influence people’s
appraisals of potentially stressful events and their emotional, physical, and behavioral
responses to stress.
Social Support
Friends may be good for your health! This startling conclusion emerges from studies on
social support as a moderator of stress. Social support refers to various types of aid and
succor provided by members of one's social networks. In one study, Jemmott and
Magloire (1988) examined the effect of social support on immunal functioning in a group
of students going through the stress of final exams. They found that students who reported
stronger social support had higher levels of an antibody that plays a key role in warding off
respiratory infections. Positive correlations between high social support and greater
immunal functioning were also seen in a study that focused on spouses of cancer patients
(Baron et al., 1990).
Many studies have found evidence that social support is favorably related to physical health
(Cohen, 1988; Vogt et al., 1992). Indeed, in a major review of the relevant research,
House, Landis, and Umberson (1988) argue that the evidence linking social support to
health is roughly as strong as the evidence linking smoking to cancer. Social support
seems to be good medicine for the mind as well as the body, as most studies find an
association between social support and mental health (Leavy, 1983; Sarason, Pierce, &
Sarason, 1994). It appears that social support serves as a protective buffer for individuals
during times of high stress, reducing the negative impact of stressful events. Furthermore,
social support has its own positive effects on health, which may be apparent even when one
isn't under great stress (Cohen & Syme, 1985).
The power of social support is such that even pets may provide social bonds that buffer the
effects of stress. For instance, Siegel (1990) found that elderly pet owners required less
medical care than comparable subjects who did not own pets. In another study, women
exposed to brief stress showed less physiological reaction when in the company of their
pets (Allen et al., 1991).
Of course, social bonds are not equivalent to social support (Rook, 1990). Indeed, some
people in one’s social circles may be a source of more stress than support. (Lepore, 1992;
Vinokur & van Ryn, 1993). Friends and family can put one under pressure, make one feel
guilty, break promises, and so forth. Pagel, Erdly, and Becker (1987) looked at both the
good and bad sides of social relations in measuring subjects' satisfaction with their social
networks. They found that the helpfulness of friends and family wasn't as important as
whether friends and family caused emotional distress. Adapting a line from an old Beatles
song, the investigators concluded that "We get by with (and in spite of ) a little help from
our friends." To some extent, then, people who report good social support may really mean
that their friends and family aren't driving them crazy.
Hardiness
Another line of research indicates that certain personality traits may moderate the impact of
stressful events. Suzanne Ouellette (formerly Kobasa) reasoned that if stress affects some
people less than others, then some people must be hardier than others. She set out to
determine whether personality factors might be the key to these differences in hardiness.
Kobasa (1979) used a modified version of the Holmes and Rahe (1967) stress scale (SRRS)
to measure the amount of stress experienced by a group of executives. As in most other
studies, she found a modest correlation between stress and the incidence of physical illness.
However, she carried her investigation one step further than previous studies. She
compared the high-stress executives who exhibited the expected high incidence of illness
against the high-stress executives who stayed healthy. She administered a battery of
psychological tests, comparing the executives along 18 dimensions of personality. She
found that the hardier executives "were more committed, felt more in control, and had
bigger appetites for challenge" (Kobasa, 1984, p. 70). These traits have also shown up in
many other studies of hardiness (Ouellette, 1993).
Thus, hardiness is a personality syndrome marked by commitment, challenge, and
control that is purportedly associated with strong stress resistance. Hardiness may
reduce the effects of stress by altering stress appraisals. Hardy subjects tend to appraise
potentially stressful events as less threatening and less undesirable than others do
(Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989). However, some doubts have been expressed about the
relevance of the hardiness syndrome to women (Wiebe, 1991) and active debate continues
about the key elements of hardiness (Funk, 1992). Nonetheless, Ouellette’s work has
stimulated research on how personality affects one’s health and tolerance of stress. Of
particular interest is new work on optimism, a trait that researchers have paid little attention
to until recently.
Optimism
Defining optimism as a general tendency to expect good outcomes, Michael Scheier and
Charles Carver (1985) found a correlation between optimism and relatively good physical
health in a sample of college students. In another study that focused on surgical patients,
optimism was found to be associated with a faster recovery and a quicker return to normal
activities after coronary artery bypass surgery (Scheier et al., 1989). Research suggests that
optimists cope with stress in more adaptive ways than pessimists (Aspinwall & Taylor,
1992; Scheier & Carver, 1992). Optimists are more likely to engage in action-oriented,
problem-focused coping, are more willing than pessimists to seek social support, and are
more likely to emphasize the positive in their appraisals of stressful events. In comparison,
pessimists are more likely to deal with stress by giving up or by engaging in denial.
In a related line of research, Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman have studied how
people explain bad events (personal setbacks, mishaps, disappointments, and such). They
identified a pessimistic explanatory style in which some people tend to blame setbacks on
their personal shortcomings. In a retrospective study of men who graduated from Harvard
back in the 1940s, they found an association between this pessimistic explanatory style and
relatively poor health (Peterson, Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988). In their attempt to explain
this association, they speculate that pessimism leads to passive coping efforts and poor
health care practices. A subsequent study also found an association between pessimism
and suppressed immune function (Kamen-Siegel et al., 1991).
Sensation Seeking
Sensation seeking is yet another personality trait that affects how we respond to stress.
First described by Marvin Zuckerman (1971, 1979, 1990), sensation seeking is a
generalized preference for high or low levels of sensory stimulation. People who are
high in sensation seeking prefer, and perhaps even need, a high level of stimulation. They
are easily bored, and they enjoy challenges. They like activities that may involve some
physical risk, such as mountain climbing, whitewater rafting, and surfing. They satisfy
their appetite for stimulation by experimenting with drugs, numerous sexual partners, and
novel experiences (such as travel to unusual places). They tend to relish gambling, spicy
foods, provocative art, wild parties, and unusual friends.
Obviously, high sensation seekers actively pursue experiences that many people would find
stressful. However, now that you know how subjective stress is, it should come as no
surprise that sensation seekers see these experiences as less threatening, risky, and anxietyprovoking than other people would (Franken, Gibson, & Roland, 1992). Zuckerman
(1991) believes that there is a biological predisposition toward high sensation seeking.
Although sensation seeking may be associated with stress resistance, we hasten to point out
that high sensation seeking may often be more maladaptive than adaptive. In comparison
to others, high sensation seekers are more likely to indulge in drug abuse, have difficulty in
school, exhibit unhealthy habits (such as smoking or driving too fast), and engage in
impulsive behavior, including fighting with others (Zuckerman, 1979, 1990). Some studies
have even found an association between high sensation seeking and criminal behavior
(Stacy, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1993; Young, 1990). Thus, the disadvantages of high
sensation seeking may well outweigh the advantages.
Autonomic Reactivity
In light of the physiological response that people often make to stress, it makes sense that
physical makeup might influence stress tolerance. According to this line of thinking, those
individuals who have a relatively placid autonomic nervous system should be less affected
by stress than those who are equipped with a highly reactive ANS. Thus far, most of the
research on autonomic reactivity has focused on autonomically regulated cardiovascular
(heart rate and blood pressure) reactivity in response to stress.
Subjects who are exposed to stressful tasks in laboratory settings show fairly consistent
personal differences in cardiovascular reactivity over time and across a variety of tasks
(Manuck et al,, 1993; Sherwood, 1993). There may be a genetic basis for these differences
in cardiovascular reactivity (Smith et al., 1987), which can be seen even in children
(Matthews, Woodall, & Stoney, 1990). However, the research thus far has largely focused
on reactions to simple, short-term stressors in the laboratory (challenging mental tasks) that
are relatively pale imitations of real-life stress. Hence, more research is needed on
reactions to chronic, ongoing stress and stress emanating from social interactions (Kelsey,
1993); Lassner, Matthews, & Stoney, 1994). Nonetheless, the preponderance of evidence
suggests that certain patterns of cardiovascular reactivity probably make some people more
vulnerable than others to stress-related heart disease (Blascovich & Katkin, 1993).1
1 Material was excerpted from Weiten, W., Lloyd, M. A., and Lashley, R. L., Psychology Applied to Modern Life:
Adjustment in the 90s, 5th ed. (Pacific Grove, Ca.: Brooks/Cole, 1997), pp. 90-94. Used with permission.
WHY FEDERALISM?
Why do we have state and local governments? Why not govern the entire nation from
Washington? Why not have a unitary government—a centralized regime responsible to all
the people and capable of carrying out uniform policies throughout the country?
Advantages of Federalism
The argument for American federalism—for dividing powers between national and state
governments (and for further dividing state powers among many types of local
governments)—centers on the advantages of decentralization, which are as follows:
1. Federalism permits diversity. Local governments may deal directly with local
problems. The entire nation is not straitjacketed with a uniform policy to which
every state and community must conform. State and local governments may be
better suited to deal with specific state and local problems. Washington bureaucrats
do not always know the best solution for problems in Commerce, Texas.
2. Federalism helps manage conflict. Permitting states and communities to pursue
their own policies reduces the pressures that would build up in Washington if the
national government had to decide everything. Federalism permits citizens to
decide many things at the state and local levels of government and avoid battling
over single national policies to be applied uniformly throughout the land.
3. Federalism disperses power. The widespread distribution of power is generally
regarded as a protection against tyranny. To the extent that pluralism thrives in the
United States, state and local governments have contributed to its success. State
and local governments also provide a political base for the survival of the
opposition party when it loses national elections.
4. Federalism increases political participation. It allows more people to run for and
hold political office. Nearly a million people hold some kind of political office in
counties, cities, townships, school districts, and special districts. These local
leaders are often regarded as closer to the people than Washington officials. Public
opinion polls show that Americans believe that their local governments are more
manageable and responsive than the national government.
5. Federalism improves efficiency. Even though we may think of eighty thousand
governments as inefficient, governing the entire nation from Washington would be
even worse. Imagine the bureaucracy, red tape, delays, and confusion if every
government activity in every community in the nation—police, schools, roads, fire
departments, garbage collections, sewage disposal, street lighting, and so on—were
controlled by a central government in Washington. Even in the Soviet Union,
where centralized discipline and party control are a matter of political ideology,
leaders have been forced to resort to decentralization simply as a practical matter.
Moreover, federalism encourages experimentation and innovation in public policy
in the states.
Disadvantages of Federalism
However, federalism has its drawbacks.
1. Federalism allows special interests to protect their privileges. For many years,
segregationists used the argument of states' rights to avoid federal laws designed to
guarantee equality and prevent discrimination. Indeed, the states' rights argument
has been used so often in defense of racial discrimination that it has become a code
word for racism.
2. Federalism allows local leaders to frustrate national policy. They can obstruct not
only civil right policies but also policies in areas as diverse as energy, poverty, and
pollution.
3. Federalism allows the benefits and costs of government to be spread unevenly.
Some states spend more than twice as much per capita as other states on education.
Even in the same state, some wealthy school districts spend two or three times as
much as poorer districts. The taxes in some states are much higher than in other
states; five states have no state income tax at all.
4. Federalism creates disadvantages in poorer states and communities, which generally
provide lower levels of education, health, and welfare services; police protection;
and environmental protection than wealthier states and communities.
5. Federalism obstructs action on national issues. Although decentralization may
reduce conflict at the national level, some very serious national issues may be swept
under the rug. For many years, decentralizing the issue of civil rights allowed
segregation to flourish. Only when the issue was nationalized in the 1960s by the
civil rights movement was there any significant progress. Minorities can usually
expect better treatment by national agencies than by state or local authorities.
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF FEDERALISM
The importance of formal constitutional arrangements should not be underestimated.
However, the American federal system is also shaped by the interpretations placed on
constitutional principles. The real meaning of American federalism has emerged in the
heat of political conflict between the states and the nation.
Implied Federal Powers
Political conflict over the scope of national power is as old as the nation itself. In 1790
Alexander Hamilton, as secretary of the treasury, proposed the establishment of a national
bank. Congress acted on Hamilton's suggestion in 1791, establishing a national bank to
serve as a depository for federal money and to aid the federal government in borrowing
funds. Jeffersonians believed that the national bank was a dangerous centralization in
government. They objected that the power to establish it was nowhere to be found in the
delegated powers of Congress. Jefferson argued that Congress had no constitutional
authority to establish a bank, because a bank was not "indispensably necessary" in carrying
out its delegated functions. Hamilton replied that Congress could derive the power to
establish a bank from grants of authority in the Constitution relating to money, in
combination with the clause authorizing Congress "to make all laws which will be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Jefferson
interpreted the word necessary to mean indispensable, but Hamilton argued that the
national government had the right to choose the manner and means of performing its
delegated functions and was not restricted to employing only those means considered
indispensable in the performance of its functions. The question eventually reached the
Supreme Court in 1819, when Maryland levied a tax on the national bank and the bank
refused to pay it. In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall
accepted the broader Hamiltonian version of the necessary-and-proper clause; "Let the end
be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are
appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited but consistent
with the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional."
The McCulloch case firmly established the principle of implied powers—that the
necessary-and-proper clause gives Congress the right to choose its means for carrying out
the delegated powers of the national government. Today Congress can devise programs,
create agencies, and establish national laws on the basis of long chains of reasoning from
the most meager phrases of the constitutional text, all because of the broad interpretation of
the necessary-and-proper clause.
National Supremacy
The case of McCulloch v. Maryland also made a major contribution to the interpretation of
the national supremacy clause. Chief Justice Marshall held that a Maryland tax on the
national bank was unconstitutional on the grounds that it interfered with a national activity
being carried out under the Constitution and laws "made in Pursuance thereof." Thus
Maryland's state tax law was declared unconstitutional because it conflicted with the
federal law establishing the national bank. From Marshall's time to the present, the
national supremacy clause has meant that states cannot refuse to obey federal laws.
Secession and Civil War
The Civil War was the greatest crisis of the American federal system. Did a state have the
right to oppose national law to the point of secession? In the years preceding the war, John
C. Calhoun argued that the Constitution was a compact made by the states in their
sovereign capacity rather than by the people in their national capacity. Calhoun contended
that the federal government was an agent of the states and the states retained their
sovereignty in this compact; and that the federal government must not violate the compact,
under penalty of state nullification or even secession. Calhoun's doctrine was embodied in
the constitution of the Confederacy, which began with the words "We, the people of the
Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to
form a permanent federal government. . . ." This wording contrasts with the preamble of
the U.S. Constitution: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union. . . ."
What was decided on the battlefields between 1861 and 1865 was confirmed by the
Supreme Court in 1869: "Ours is an indestructible union, composed of indestructible
states." Yet the states' rights doctrine and the political disputes over the character of
American federalism did not disappear with General Robert E. Lee's surrender at
Appomattox. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments, passed by the
Reconstruction Congress, were clearly aimed at limiting state power in the interests of
individual freedom. The Thirteenth Amendment eliminated slavery in the states; the
Fifteenth Amendment prevented states from denying the vote on the basis of race, color, or
previous enslavement; and the Fourteenth Amendment declared: "No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws." These amendments delegated to Congress the power to secure their enforcement.
Yet for several generations, they were narrowly construed and added little, if anything, to
national power. By tacit agreement, after southern states demonstrated their continued
political importance in the disputed presidential election of 1876, the federal government
refrained from using its power to enforce these civil rights.
Civil Rights
After World War II, however, the Supreme Court began to build a national system of civil
rights based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court had held that the Fourteenth
Amendment prevented states from interfering with free speech, free press, and religious
practices. Not until 1954, however, in the desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, did the Court begin to call for the full assertion of national authority
on behalf of civil rights. When the Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment
prohibited the states from segregating the races in public schools, it was asserting national
authority over deeply held beliefs and long-standing practices in many of the states.
The Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure a national system of civil
rights supported by the power of the federal government. This was an important step in the
evolution of the American federal system. The controversy over federally imposed
desegregation in the southern states renewed the debate over states' rights versus national
authority. The vigorous resistance to desegregation in the South following Brown testified
to the continued strength of the states in the American federal system. Despite the clear
mandate of the Supreme Court, the southern states succeeded in avoiding all but token
integration for more than ten years. Yet only occasionally did resistance take the form of
interposition. Governor Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent a
federal court from desegregating Little Rock Central High School in 1957. But this
interposition was ended quickly when President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the
National Guard removed and sent units of the U.S. Army to enforce national authority. In
1962 President John F. Kennedy took a similar action when Governor Ross Barnett of
Mississippi personally barred the entry of a black student to the University of Mississippi
despite a federal court order requiring his admission. Governor George Wallace also
literally stood in the doorway to prevent desegregation at the University of Alabama but
moved aside several hours later when federal marshals arrived. These actions upheld the
principle of national supremacy in the American political system.
Interstate Commerce
The growth of national power under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is
also an important development in the evolution of American federalism. The Industrial
Revolution in the United States created a national economy with a nationwide network of
transportation and communications and the potential for national economic depressions.
Industrialization created interstate business that could be regulated only by the national
government; this reality was recognized in the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act in
1890. Yet for a time, the Supreme Court placed obstacles in the way of national authority
over the economy and by so doing created a crisis in American federalism. For many
years, the Court narrowly construed interstate commerce to mean only the movement of
goods and services across state lines, and until the late 1930s, the Court insisted that
agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and labor relations were outside the reach of the
delegated powers of the national government. However, when confronted with the Great
Depression of the 1930s and the threat of presidential attack on its membership, the Court
yielded. The Court recognized the principle that production and distribution of goods and
services for a national market could be regulated by Congress under the interstate
commerce clause. Thus, the national government was given effective control over the
national economy, and today few economic activities are outside the reach of congressional
power.
Loss of Reserved Powers
For two hundred years, American federalism incorporated the idea of constitutionally
protected state powers. The federal government could not directly interfere with the
independent powers of state governments and vice versa. An early Supreme Court decision
asserted that: "Neither government can intrude within the jurisdiction of the other or
authorize any interference therein by its judicial officers with the action of the other." This
meant that Congress could not directly coerce the states in the performance of their
traditional functions—education, streets, police and fire protection, water and sewers, and
refuse disposal. Rather Congress sought to influence state and local affairs by granting or
withholding federal aid dollars depending on whether state and community governments
conformed to federal guidelines.
However, in its 1985 Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority decision, the
Supreme Court reversed itself and removed all barriers to direct congressional legislation in
matters traditionally "reserved" to the states. The Court dismissed the argument that the
nature of American federalism and the reserved powers clause of the Tenth Amendment
prevented Congress from directly legislating in state and local affairs. The Court held that
it would no longer intervene to protect state powers, that judicial intervention was
"unworkable," and that Congress should decide how far its powers extended to state and
local affairs.
Federalism's Constitutional Status Today
What is left of federalism today? If there are no real constitutional restraints on the powers
of the national government, if people look primarily to the national government to solve
their problems, if the national government's superior fiscal resources give it powerful
leverage over states and communities, what remains of the federal division of power
between the states and the nation? Are there any guarantees of state power remaining in
our federal system?
The notion of representational federalism denies that there is any constitutional division of
powers between the states and the nation and asserts that federalism is defined by the states'
role in electing members of Congress and the president. The United States is said to retain
a federal system because national officials are selected from subunits of government; that
is, the president is selected through the allocation of electoral college votes to the states,
and the Congress through the allocation of two Senate seats per state and the apportionment
of representatives to states based on population. Whatever protection exists for state power
and independence must be found in the national political process—in the influence of state
and district voters on their senators and representatives. Representational federalism does
not recognize any constitutionally protected powers of the states.
The Supreme Court appears to have adopted this notion of the representational
federalism, especially in its Garcia decision when it declared that there were no "a priori
definitions of state sovereignty," no "discrete limitations on the objects of federal
authority," and no protection of state powers in the Constitution. According to the Court,
"State sovereign interests . . . are more properly protected by procedural safeguards
inherent in the structure of the federal system than by judicially created limitations on
federal powers." The Court rhetorically endorsed a federal system but left it up to
Congress, rather than to the Constitution or the courts, to decide which powers should be
exercised by the states and which should be exercised by the national government.2
2 Material was excerpted from Dye, T. R., Zeigler, H., and Lichter, S. R., American Politics in the Media Age, 4th ed.
(Pacific Grove, Ca.: Brooks/Cole, 1992), pp. 64-73. Used with permission. (Note: Footnotes have been deleted from
this text.)