Holmes and Rahe (1967) developed the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS). What was their rationale for designing it, and what did they mean by "life change units" (LCUs)?

A: To measure daily frustrations; LCUs represent the emotional intensity of minor recurring stressors

B: To quantify the amount of social readjustment required by each life event; LCUs were derived from ratings by 394 participants who judged each event relative to marriage (set at 50)

C: To assess personality vulnerability to stress; LCUs represent how threatening a given person perceives each event to be

D: To predict recovery time from illness; LCUs were based on hospital admission records across five countries

Correct: To quantify the amount of social readjustment required by each life event; LCUs were derived from ratings by 394 participants who judged each event relative to marriage (set at 50)

Holmes and Rahe (1967) proposed that any life change — positive or negative — demands social readjustment and therefore consumes adaptive resources. Working from a sample of 394 American participants, they asked people to rate 43 life events relative to marriage (anchor = 50 LCUs) in terms of the readjustment required. Death of a spouse scored highest (100 LCUs); minor violations of the law lowest (11 LCUs). A person's score over the preceding 12 months was hypothesised to predict illness onset: >300 LCUs = high risk (~80% probability of illness), 150–299 = moderate risk (~50%), <150 = low risk (~30%). Data from US Navy personnel supported the scale's predictive validity — those with higher LCU scores before deployment had more health problems during the voyage.

Which of the following is the strongest criticism of the SRRS as a measure of stress?

A: It is too long and burdensome to complete, making it impractical for clinical use

B: It assigns identical LCU values to each event regardless of whether the individual perceives the event as positive or negative, controllable or uncontrollable, and how much it has changed their daily routine

C: It was validated exclusively on psychiatric populations, limiting its generalisability to healthy adults

D: Its correlation with illness onset is too high (r ≈ 0.9), suggesting it is simply measuring the same construct as illness itself

Correct: It assigns identical LCU values to each event regardless of whether the individual perceives the event as positive or negative, controllable or uncontrollable, and how much it has changed their daily routine

The SRRS has several well-established weaknesses. Most critically, it ignores the individual's appraisal of each event: the same divorce may be devastating for one person and liberating for another; a job promotion may feel exciting or overwhelming depending on the person's coping resources. By assigning a fixed LCU value regardless of perception, the scale assumes events have intrinsically stressful magnitudes — contrary to Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) transactional model. Additional criticisms: (1) It conflates positive and negative life changes (marriage and divorce both score similarly). (2) Retrospective recall bias — people with health problems may remember more life events. (3) The observed correlations between SRRS scores and illness onset are modest (typically r ≈ 0.12–0.30). (4) Cross-cultural validity is limited — LCU values were assigned by US participants in the 1960s. The scale remains widely used in introductory psychology but is now regarded as a rough heuristic rather than a precise measure.

Richard Lazarus and Allen Kanner developed the Hassles Scale (Kanner et al., 1981) as an alternative to life-event measures. What are "hassles" in this framework, and what did their research find about their relationship to health?

A: "Hassles" are major life events reframed as subjective appraisals; Kanner found they predicted health outcomes identically to the SRRS

B: "Hassles" are the irritating, frustrating, distressing demands of everyday life (traffic, arguments, losing things); Kanner et al. found hassles predicted psychological symptoms (anxiety, depression) more strongly than major life events alone

C: "Hassles" are work-specific stressors; the Hassles Scale was designed for occupational settings and focuses on workload and interpersonal conflict with colleagues

D: "Hassles" are physiological indicators of stress (cortisol spikes, elevated GSR); they reflect the biological residue of accumulated minor stressors

Correct: "Hassles" are the irritating, frustrating, distressing demands of everyday life (traffic, arguments, losing things); Kanner et al. found hassles predicted psychological symptoms (anxiety, depression) more strongly than major life events alone

Kanner et al. (1981) proposed that the cumulative impact of minor, recurring everyday stressors — called hassles — may be a more potent predictor of psychological and physical health than infrequent major life events. The original Hassles Scale contained 117 items covering practical life frustrations (losing keys, traffic jams, concerns about weight, not enough money for necessities). A complementary Uplifts Scale (135 items) captured positive minor experiences. In their prospective study, monthly hassle scores predicted somatic and psychological symptoms more strongly than life event scores after controlling for both. DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, and Lazarus (1982) extended this, showing that daily hassles predicted health status even when controlling for major life events and uplifts. The interpretation is that hassles accumulate, disrupt daily functioning and mood persistently, and thereby exert chronic physiological activation that single major events — however dramatic — do not replicate.

True or False: DeLongis et al. (1982) found that daily hassles were a stronger predictor of health status and somatic symptoms than major life events, even after controlling for life events.

Answer: True

DeLongis et al. (1982) recruited 100 participants and assessed hassles, uplifts, major life events (SRRS), and health status at monthly intervals across 12 months. Using multiple regression, they found that hassles uniquely predicted health status (physical and mental) above and beyond what major life events predicted. Uplifts did not independently predict health when hassles were controlled. The findings supported Lazarus's argument that the texture of everyday life — its ongoing frustrations and minor pleasures — is more proximally connected to health than infrequent, retrospectively recalled life events. A limitation acknowledged by the authors: the Hassles Scale may overlap with neuroticism, as people high in negative affect may both report more hassles and more symptoms (the "same source" confound, noted by critics including Dohrenwend et al.).

Karasek's (1979) demand–control model of occupational stress proposes that the most stressful work conditions are not simply those with the highest demands. What combination of factors does the model identify as producing the greatest strain?

A: High psychological demands combined with high decision latitude (control) — the most demanding and responsible jobs

B: High psychological demands combined with low decision latitude (control) — high workload with little autonomy over how to manage it

C: Low psychological demands combined with low decision latitude — boring, repetitive work with no autonomy

D: High emotional demands combined with high skill variety — jobs requiring intense interpersonal engagement

Correct: High psychological demands combined with low decision latitude (control) — high workload with little autonomy over how to manage it

Karasek (1979) proposed that occupational stress arises not from work demands alone, but from the interaction between demands and decision latitude (control). The model predicts that high-demand/low-control jobs — called "job strain" or "high strain" jobs — produce the greatest psychological and physical health risks. Assembly line workers, waitstaff, and cooks often fall into this category: intense work pressure with minimal autonomy. High-demand/high-control jobs ("active jobs" — surgeons, senior managers) are demanding but allow the worker to use skills and make decisions, producing challenge rather than strain. Low-demand/high-control jobs ("low strain") and low-demand/low-control ("passive") jobs are less pathogenic. Karasek and Theorell (1990) later added social support as a third dimension (the demand–control–support model): low social support amplifies strain. Longitudinal studies (Kivimäki et al., 2012) have supported the model's predictions for cardiovascular disease risk.

Research consistently shows that perceived control over a stressor substantially affects its impact. Which study best demonstrates the health effects of uncontrollable stressors?

A: Asch's (1951) conformity studies showed that social pressure is a powerful stressor because participants could not control whether the majority gave wrong answers

B: Glass and Singer (1972) exposed participants to unpredictable, uncontrollable noise and found it produced poorer post-stress performance on frustration tasks compared to controllable or predictable noise — even when the total exposure was identical

C: Milgram's (1963) obedience studies showed that people under authority experienced less stress because they had delegated control to the experimenter

D: Seligman's (1975) learned helplessness experiments showed that people who had experienced uncontrollable noise performed better on subsequent tasks due to motivational compensation

Correct: Glass and Singer (1972) exposed participants to unpredictable, uncontrollable noise and found it produced poorer post-stress performance on frustration tasks compared to controllable or predictable noise — even when the total exposure was identical

Glass and Singer (1972) exposed participants to a loud, unpredictable noise in a laboratory setting. In the "perceived control" condition, participants were told they could press a button to stop the noise — though they were asked not to unless absolutely necessary. Virtually no-one pressed the button. Nevertheless, those in the perceived-control condition showed far less performance impairment on subsequent frustration tasks (proofreading, unsolvable puzzles) compared to participants who had no control. This classic result demonstrated that the mere perception of control — not its exercise — buffers against the aftereffects of stressors. Seligman's learned helplessness research (with dogs in inescapable shock conditions, extended to humans) showed the opposite: prior experience of uncontrollability produces passivity and reduced coping effort when control later becomes available. Together, these findings underpin the demand–control model and explain why loss of autonomy at work is particularly damaging to health.

Skin conductance (also called galvanic skin response, GSR, or electrodermal activity, EDA) is widely used as a physiological index of stress and arousal. What does it measure and what are its main limitations?

A: It measures cortisol secretion from the adrenal cortex; its main limitation is the 20-minute delay between stressor onset and measurable change

B: It measures electrical conductance of the skin, which increases with sympathetic nervous system activation (sweat gland activity on palmar surfaces); its main limitation is that it is sensitive to arousal from any source — stress, excitement, and attention all elevate it

C: It measures muscle tension via surface electrodes; its main limitation is that it can only detect gross motor movements, not subtle emotional responses

D: It measures blood oxygen saturation; its main limitation is the need for intravenous access to obtain reliable readings

Correct: It measures electrical conductance of the skin, which increases with sympathetic nervous system activation (sweat gland activity on palmar surfaces); its main limitation is that it is sensitive to arousal from any source — stress, excitement, and attention all elevate it

Skin conductance (electrodermal activity, EDA) reflects the activity of eccrine sweat glands, which are innervated solely by the sympathetic nervous system. As sympathetic arousal increases — in response to stress, threat, novelty, or emotional stimulation — sweat gland secretion increases, reducing the skin's electrical resistance and thus increasing conductance. Electrodes on the palm or fingers detect this change. Tonic skin conductance level (SCL) reflects background arousal, while phasic skin conductance responses (SCRs) reflect discrete responses to stimuli. The measure is exquisitely sensitive to sympathetic activation and is used extensively in psychophysiology research, lie detection (polygraph), and biofeedback. Its key limitation is low specificity: SCL rises with stress, sexual arousal, cognitive effort, pain, and pleasant excitement. It cannot distinguish between different sources of arousal or between positive and negative emotional states. It is therefore best used alongside other measures (heart rate, cortisol, self-report) rather than in isolation.

Siegrist (1996) proposed the effort–reward imbalance (ERI) model as a complement to Karasek's demand–control model. What does the ERI model identify as the key driver of workplace stress?

A: Insufficient pay for the number of hours worked — stress is primarily about financial compensation

B: A mismatch between high effort (demands, obligations) and low reward (pay, esteem, promotion, job security) — perceived unfairness in the effort–reward exchange

C: The absence of autonomy, regardless of effort or reward level — similar to the demand–control model

D: Poor working conditions such as noise, temperature, and ergonomic factors — the physical environment of work

Correct: A mismatch between high effort (demands, obligations) and low reward (pay, esteem, promotion, job security) — perceived unfairness in the effort–reward exchange

Siegrist (1996) proposed that occupational stress arises from a perceived imbalance between the high effort an employee invests (work demands, obligations, time pressure) and the rewards they receive (salary, career opportunities, job security, esteem from supervisors and colleagues). Unlike Karasek's model, which focuses on control, the ERI model emphasises the reciprocity of the work contract: when high effort is met with low reward, the social contract of work is perceived as violated, generating chronic negative emotion and physiological stress. A key individual difference in the model is "over-commitment" — the tendency to overinvest in work driven by need for approval. Over-committed employees who face high ERI are at greatest health risk. Prospective studies have found high ERI predicts incident cardiovascular disease, depression, and sickness absence, with effect sizes comparable to or exceeding those of the demand–control model (van Vegchel et al., 2005 meta-analysis).