THE STRESS APPRAISAL MEASURE (SAM): A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO COGNITIVE APPRAISAL - Dr. Paul Wong
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
STRESS MEDICINE, VOL. 6: 227-236 (1990)
MEASURING LIFE STRESS
THE STRESS APPRAISAL MEASURE (SAM):
A MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO
COGNITIVE APPRAISAL
EDWARD J . PEACOCK. M . A .
University of Toronto. Cunuda
AND
PAULT. P. WONG, PhD
Trent University and University of Toronro. Cunadu
SUMMARY
Cognitive-relational theory emphasizes the fundamental role of cognitive appraisal in i..e stress process. However,
existing measures of stress appraisal suffer from conceptual and methodological problems. The present paper reports
the development of a new stress appraisal scale that attempts to overcome some of these difficulties. Six dimensions
of primary and secondary appraisal were identified: threat, challenge, centrality, controllable-by-self, controllable-by-
others, uncontrollable-by-anyone. Items were generated for each of these dimensions, as well as for an overall
perceived stressfulness scale. In three studies examining anticipatory stress experienced by undergraduates. these
items were subjected to item-selection, analysis and validation procedures. The findings provide strong support
for the psychometric properties of the scales. Two factor analyses showed that the six appraisal dimensions were
relatively independent. In multiple regression analyses, threat and centrality consistently emerged as significant
predictors of overall stressfulness. The Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM) appears to be a promising instrument
for use in future stress research.
According to transactional models of stress, cogni- the evaluation of what can be done about the situa-
tive appraisal mediates the stressfulness of events.’-4 tion. It involves a complex assessment of one’s
In spite of the wide acceptance of these models, coping options. Perceptions of situational control
progress in the study of appraisal has been slow. are assumed to play an important role in secondary
In particular, little attention has focused on the appraisal. Such appraisals reflect the individual’s
development of suitable appraisal instruments. The evaluation of the efficacy of personal coping
present paper presents a multidimensional resources in meeting situational demands.’
approach to appraisal measurement and reports the
psychometric properties of the Stress Appraisal MEASUREMENT OF APPRAISAL
Measure (SAM).
Cognitive-relational theory views appraisal as Much of the literature on appraisal measurement
the process of evaluating or categorizing the per- has dealt with aggregated life events or daily prob-
sonal significance of Primary appraisal l e m ~ . ~ -Lazarus
” notes that summarizing across
involves an assessment of the importance of a encounters can provide useful information but it
transaction for one’s well-being. Encounters are involves a major compromise in terms of cognitive-
appraised as irrelevant, benign-positive (bene- relational theory.I3 The alternative is to focus on
ficial), or stressful. Three stress appraisals are dis- a particular person-environment transaction and
tinguished: hardloss, threat, and challenge. H a r d to assess specific components of primary and
loss appraisals are associated with events that have secondary appraisal.
already occurred whereas threat and challenge Several approaches to the measurement of pri-
appraisals are most relevant to anticipated events. mary appraisal have been attempted. One focuses
Secondary appraisal is primarily concerned with on the emotions that are assumed to be a product
0748-8386/90/030 227-10 $05.00
0 1990 by John Wiley & I
Sons, Ltd.228 E. J . PEACOCK AND P. T. P. WONG
of appraisal.I4 Four emotion scales, corresponding most scales are single-item measures, likely to have
to threat, challenge, hardloss, and benefit apprai- high measurement error. Third, some scales appear
sals, have been d e ~ e l o p e d . ' ~In, 'another
~ approach, to be confounding the measurement of appraisal
the person's evaluation of what is at stake in the with coping. Fourth, there is little information
outcome of the encounter is assessed. This has available regarding the psychometric properties of
resulted in the development of several stakes scales. these scales.
These scales are either applicable to a particular
situation" or are limited to a narrow range of pos- THE STRESS APPRAISAL MEASURE
sible stakes. I 6 - I 8 Primary appraisal scales, derived (SAM)
from factor analyses of semantic differential
ratings, have also been utilized." Alternatively, Clearly, there is a need for a psychometrically
single-item appraisal measures have been em- sound instrument that measures theoretically
ployed, including items assessing how disturbing," important dimensions of both primary and second-
d i f f i ~ u l t , ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ threatening or challeng- ary appraisal. The Stress Appraisal Measure
ing" the situation is perceived to be. A major prob- (SAM) was developed to achieve these objectives.
lem with such single-item scales is the risk of Because some appraisal dimensions have been
excessively high measurement error. hypothesized to be most relevant to anticipatory
Secondary appraisal frequently has been stress whereas others are most appropriate for past
assessed using four single-item m e a s ~ r e s . ' ~ . ' ~or. ~current
~ . ~ ~ events, somewhat different instruments
These items involve rating the extent to which the are needed for these different situations. The pres-
situation can be changed, has to be accepted, ent discussion is limited to the version of the SAM
requires more information, or requires holding which was designed for anticipatory stress.
oneself back. Because these are single-item On the basis of cognitive relational theory and
measures, results based on these items need to be past research, three primary appraisal dimensions
interpreted c a u t i o ~ s l yAnother
.~~ limitation of the relevant to anticipatory stress were identified,
measures is that they appear to be confounded with namely threat, challenge, and centrality. Threat
coping. Although the items were intended to index appraisals involve the potential for hardloss in
perceived coping options16 rather than actual the future and challenge appraisals reflect the anti-
coping efforts, they overlap in wording and in con- cipation of gain or growth from the experience.'
ception with items in frequently used coping instru- Centrality refers to the perceived importance of an
ments, such as the Ways of Coping Checklist.' For event for one's well-being. Conceptually, centrality
example, there is little difference between accep- is similar to the idea of stakes, and it is assumed
tance as appraisal and acceptance as coping. Other to be orthogonal to both threat and challenge
measures of secondary appraisal are ~ i n g l e - i t e m ' ~ ~appraisals.
'~
or situation-~pecific~~ measures of perceived con- Three secondary appraisal scales focus on per-
trol. ceptions of control. It has been recognized that
In one previous study, multidimensional scales situational control appraisals are complex and
encompassing both primary and secondary apprai- multifaceted.6The present view assumes that indivi-
sal were developed.28 Five orthogonal appraisal duals assess controllability in terms of three rela-
dimensions were obtained from a factor analysis tively independent dimensions: the extent to which
of items based on various appraisal dimensions the situation is controllable-by-self, controllable
reported in the literature. Two factors corres- by others and uncontrollable-by-anyone. We
ponded to threat and challenge dimensions. How- have previously found that events appraised as
ever, it is not clear whether the remaining factors controllable-by-self, controllable-by-others, and
represent dimensions of appraisal or coping uncontrollable-by-anyone are associated with dis-
because they involve the four secondary appraisal tinctly different patterns of coping,29 providing
items discussed above. some initial empirical support for these three com-
On the basis of this review of appraisal measure- ponents of situational control.
ment, several conclusions can be drawn. First, a In addition to the primary and secondary apprai-
variety of measures have been developed for speci- sal scales, the SAM includes a scale to index overall
fic studies but there is no single instrument which perceived stressfulness. Although it is assumed that
measures conceptually important dimensions of primary and secondary appraisal dimensions con-
both primary and secondary appraisal. Second, tribute to one's overall perception of stress, littleSTRESS APPRAISAL 229
is known about the relationship between specific Table 1 - Internal consistencies (alphas) of SAM scales
appraisal dimensions and overall stress percep- Scale Study 1 Study 2 Study 3
tions. In the present studies, the stressfulness scale ( N = 100) ( N = 151) ( N = 144)
is used to investigate this issue. In other studies,
this scale could be used as an alternative to single- Threat 0.75 0.73 0.65
item or other existing measures of stressfulness in Challenge 0.74 0.79 0.66
assessing the relationship between perceived stress
and health outcomes. Centrality 0.90 0.85 0.84
Controllable-by-self 0.87 0.86 0.84
STUDY 1 Controllable-by-others 0.84 0.84 0.85
In the first study, an initial item pool was generated Uncontrollable 0.5 I 0.82 0.57
and items were selected for each of the seven scales: Stressfulness 0.81 0.75 0.79
threat, challenge, centrality, controllable-by-self,
controllable-by-others, uncontrollable-by-anyone,
and stressfulness. To avoid confounding appraisal psychology. Four weeks prior to the final examin-
and coping, only items consistent with our concep- ation in the course, respondents were instructed
tualization of appraisal were included in the initial to report their perceptions of the forthcoming final
pool. From this view, appraisal is regarded as the examination in the course by completing the pre-
person’s perception of the situation at a particular liminary SAM. The response format consisted of
point in time, whereas coping refers to the strategies a five-point Likert scale (1 = not al all, 5 = a great
used to manage the situation. Thus, the appraisal amount). Following item selection, scale scores
items focused on the perception of the situation were calculated by obtaining the mean rating for
and avoided reference to specific strategies for deal- the items comprising each scale; thus, scale scores
ing with the situation, such as acceptance, seeking can potentially range from I to 5.
information, or holding oneself back.
The primary goal of the study was item selection Results and discussion
and item analysis. A secondary purpose was to For each of the seven scales, the four items yield-
examine the relationship between overall stressful- ing the highest item to scale-total correlations were
ness and specific appraisal dimensions. retained. The reliability of each scale was then
assessed using internal consistency (alpha) esti-
Method mates. As shown in Table 1, for six of the scales
A pool of 37 items was generated, with 5-7 items the alphas were good, ranging from 0.74 to 0.90.
for each appraisal scale. The items were written However, the alpha for the uncontrollable-by-
to be appropriate for anticipatory stress, to avoid anyone scale was 0.51. Observation of the mean
reference to possible coping strategies, and to cor- and standard deviation for this scale (see Table 2)
respond to one of the following scales: threat, chal- suggested that internal consistency may have been
lenge, centrality, controllable-by-self, controllable- attenuated because ratings of the uncontrollable-
by-others, uncontrollable-by-anyone, stressful- by-anyone items were consistently at the low end
ness. For the stressfulness scale, items were based of the scale; this range restriction may have reduced
on differingdefinitions or views of stress. For exam- interitem correlations. It was decided to retain the
ple, one item referred to demands that tax or exceed scale pending its use with other samples and in dif-
one’s coping resources,3 another reflected the view ferent stressful situations. The mean scores for the
that stress involves a call for action4’ by inquiring other scales were all approximately in the middle
about the need for copinF efforts, and a third of the possible range.
referred to tension a r o ~ s a l,47. ~Another item simply The six appraisal dimensions were moderately
asked about the stressfulness of the situation with- correlated. Ignoring the sign of the correlations,
out any explanation of the term. Items in all scales the mean intercorrelation was 0.22. This suggests
were worded in question format (eg, How threaten- that these scales are tapping relatively independent
ing is this situation?). appraisal dimensions.
The participants in this study were 100 under- Stepwise multiple regression of stressfulness
graduate students enrolled in a second-year ratings on the six appraisal scales revealed that
psychology course that was required to major in threat ( R 2 change = 0.53, p < 0.001; beta = 0.73,230 E. J . PEACOCK AND P. T. P. WONG
centrality ( R 2 change = 0.05, p < 0.001; beta = were to rate the prospect of being exposed to the
0.23) and controllable-by-others ( R 2 change = virus responsible for AIDS. The subjects randomly
0 . 0 2 , ~< 0.05; beta = 0.13) were significant predic- received the SAM with one of the two sets of
tors of stressfulness, yielding an overall R 2= 0.60 instructions in addition to other questionnaires not
J('I < 0.001). Thus, the high degree of overlap related to the present study. Ninety copies of each
between perceptions of threat and stress suggests version of the questionnaire were distributed
that threat may be a major ingredient of stress approximately six weeks prior to the summer aca-
appraisals. However, stress perceptions involve demic break; these were to be completed and
more than just threat because centrality and con- returned within one week. One hundred and fifty-
trollable-by-others appraisals accounted for signi- four questionnaires were returned, 73 from the
ficant variance beyond that predicted by threat. summer employment group and 81 from the AIDS
The two subsequent studies examined the replica- virus group; three questionnaires from the AIDS
bility of these findings. group had some missing data and are not included
Overall, the results from this study are encourag- in the results.
ing, providing initial evidence of the internal con-
sistency and relative independence of the scales. Results and discussion
The two subsequent studies further examine the
internal consistency and independence of the scales The internal consistency estimates for the SAM
and provide initial evidence of their validity. scales are shown in Table 1. The alphas for all seven
scales are acceptable. The value for the uncontrol-
STUDY 2 lable-by-anyone scale is considerably higher than
obtained in Study 1. Both the mean and standard
In addition to replicating internal consistency esti- deviation (see Table 2) are also higher, supporting
mates and obtaining normative data for two differ- the suggestion that the low alpha for this scale
ent anticipatory stressors, this study examined the
obtained in Study 1 may have been due to the lack
validity of the instrument. Construct validity was
of variability in ratings.
studied by investigating whether the factor struc-
ture supported the conceptually derived appraisal Results of stepwise multiple regression predict-
dimensions. Validity was also examined by deter- ing stressfulness from appraisal showed three
mining whether the instrument could differentiate appraisal variables were uniquely associated with
between two anticipatory stressors that, objec- stressfulness: threat ( R 2change = 0.50, p < 0.001;
tively, appeared to involve very different situational beta = 0.71), challenge ( R 2 change = 0.08,
demands. We predicted that the prospect of un- p < 0.001; beta = 0.28), and centrality ( R 2
employment would be viewed as more under one's change = 0.02, p < 0.01; beta = 0.19). Thus, two of
own control than the prospect of being exposed the three variables uniquely associated with stress-
to the acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome fulness in Study 1 also emerged as significant pre-
(AIDS) virus. At the time of the study, in early dictors in this study. However, in this study
1987, there was a high degree of public ignorance challenge rather than controllable-by-others was
concerning the transmission of AIDS; we hypothe- the other significant predictor.
sized that this would contribute to perceptions of The factor structure of the six appraisal scales
low personal control over exposure to the AIDS was determined using a principal factors analysis
virus. We did not make specific predictions regard- with varimax rotation of factors with eigenvalues
ing the other appraisal dimensions. greater than one. This procedure resulted in a five-
factor solution. It can be seen from the factor load-
Method ings shown in Table 3 that these results are gener-
The participants in this study were under- ally supportive of the SAM dimensions. Although
graduate students in an introductory psychology items from two scales loaded on each of the first
course who participated to fulfill course require- two factors, the scales can be differentiated in terms
ments. Two sets of instructions to the SAM were of the magnitude of the loadings. Particularly strik-
prepared. One set of instructions indicated that ing is the fact that the three types of control items
respondents were to rate the prospect of not being loaded on three different factors. This provides
able to obtain suitable summer employment; the strong support for conceptualizing situational con-
other set of instructions indicated that respondents trol in terms of three independent dimensions. TheSTRESS APPRAISAL 23 1
Table 2 - Means (standard deviations) of SAM scales
Study 1 Study 2 Study 2 Study 3
Examination Unemployment AIDS virus Examination
( N = 100) ( N = 73) ( N = 78) ( N = 144)
Threat
Challenge
Centrality
Controllable-by-self
Controllable-by-others
Uncontrollable
Stressfulness
fifth factor appears to represent an aspect of chal- of appraisal. This view is further supported by the
lenge which is independent from control appraisals. multiple regression results, in both Study 1 and
The two groups had the same mean stressfulness Study 2, showing that centrality predicted signifi-
rating (see Table 2). However, a multivariate analy- cant variance in perceived stressfulness beyond that
sis of variance of the six appraisal scales revealed accounted for by threat. Thus, even though the
that there was a significant multivariate group items from these scales loaded on the same factor
effect ( F = 12.71, df = 6 1 1 4 4 , ~< 0.001). Univari- in this study, there is sufficient justification for
ate tests indicated that the means for the two stres- retaining threat and centrality as separate scales.
sors did not significantly differ for the centrality
and controllable-by-others dimensions, but expo- STUDY 3
sure to the AIDS virus was perceived as signifi-
cantly more threatening, less challenging, less Study 3 was designed to investigate the correlation
controllable-by-self, and more uncontrollable by between the SAM scales and measures of locus of
anyone than the employment stressor. control, mood and psychological symptomatology.
These findings were consistent with the expec- In addition, this study provided a replication of
tation that the two stressors would be appraised the internal consistency estimates and factor struc-
differently. The prediction that the AIDS virus ture of the SAM scales in the context of an antici-
would be rated as less controllable-by-self was sup- pated academic examination.
ported. Although this prediction was based on the
widespread lack of knowledge about AIDS, it is Method
not known whether amount of knowledge about Respondents were 144 undergraduate students
AIDS actually affects the appraisal of personal con- in introductory psychology who participated to ful-
trol. Interestingly, the prospect of exposure to the fill course requirements. Participants completed a
AIDS virus was perceived as significantly more questionnaire which contained the SAM and
threatening but not more central than the prospect measures of locus ofcontrol (scored in the direction
of unemployment. Perhaps, exposure to the AIDS of externality),3" dysphoric mood," and psycho-
virus was perceived as only moderately central to logical sympt~matology.~~.'~ These measures were
one's well-being because of its low incidence rate included in a counterbalanced order in the ques-
in the general population. tionnaire booklet. Instructions to the SAM indi-
The different findings for threat and centrality cated that respondents were to rate their
indicate that these represent different components perceptions of the forthcoming Christmas examin-232 E. J. PEACOCK AND P. T. P. WONG
Table 3 - Factor structure obtained in Studv 2 ( N = 151)
Factor Loadings"
I I1 i11 IV V
SAM itemsb
Controllable-by-self
have ability to do well 0.85
have what it takes 0.73
will overcome problem 0.71
have skills necessary 0.76
Threat
threatening situation 0.56 -0.50
feel anxious 0.54
outcome negative
negative impact 0.48
Centrality
important consequences 0.8 1
will be affected 0.73
serious implications 0.70
long-term consequences 0.69
Uncontrollable
totally hopeless 0.57
outcome uncontrollable 0.72
beyond anyone's power 0.82
problem unresolvable 0.79
Controllable-by-others
someone I can turn to 0.69
help available 0.75
resources available 0.76
anyone who can help 0.67
Challenge
positive impact 0.50 0.55
eager to tackle 0.54
can become stronger 0.43
excited about outcome 0.48
> 0.40 are shown.
* all loadings
SAM items are identified by key words in item.
ation in psychology, which was scheduled to occur was little variation in the ratings of items on it (see
in three weeks. Table 2).
Comparison of the scale means obtained in this
Results und discussion study with those from Study 1 shows a high degree
of consistency in the appraisal of the two examin-
The internal consistency estimates for the SAM ations (see Table 2).
scales were quite similar to those obtained in the Stepwise multiple regression of stressfulness on
two previous studies (see Table 1). Overall, these the six appraisal dimensions revealed three
results show that these scales have satisfactory significant predictors: threat ( R 2 change = 0.41,
internal consistency. However, the alpha for the p < 0.001; beta = 0.64), centrality ( R change =
uncontrollable-by-anyone scale was similar to that 0.01, p < 0.001; beta = 0.34), and uncontrollable-
obtained in Study 1, which also investigated apprai- by-anyone ( R 2 change = 0.02, p < 0.05; beta =
sal of a forthcoming examination. As in Study 1, 0.15). Thus, in all three studies threat and centrality
there was evidence that the internal consistency of were found to be unique predictors of stressfulness
this scale may have been attenuated because there ratings; in each study, these appraisals togetherSTRESS APPRAISAL 233
Table 4 - Factor structure obtained in study 3 ( N = 144)
Factor Loadingsa
I I1 111 IV V VI
~
SAM itemsh
Controllable-by-self
have ability to d o well 0.84
have what it takes 0.84
will overcome problem 0.47
have skills necessary 0.73
Centrality
important consequences 0.81
wil be affected 0.71
serious implications 0.78
long term consequences 0.70
Controllable-by-others
someone I can turn to 0.77
help available 0.79
resources available 0.53
anyone who can help 0.87
Threat
threatening situation'
feel anxious 0.56
outcome negative 0.58
negative impact 0.51
Challenge
positive impact -0.44
eager to tackle 0.64
can become stronger 0.42
excited about outcome 0.70
Uncontrollable
totally hopeless -0.41
outcome uncontrollable
beyond anyone's power 0.49
problem unresolvable 0.76
all loading >0.40 are shown.
bSAM items are identified by key words in item.
due to a clerical error this item was not included in this study.
accounted for over half of the variance in stressful- Correlations of the SAM scales with locus of
ness ratings. However, further investigation is control, dysphoric mood and symptomatology are
needed to determine whether the stressfulness scale shown in Table 5. For locus of control, the correla-
provides any valuable information beyond that tions are small. Only one of the three control scales
given by the threat and centrality scales. was significantly correlated with locus of control;
A principal factors analysis with varimax internals were more likely to perceive the possibility
rotation of factors with eigenvalues greater than of control through the help of others. Although
one resulted in a six-factor solution (see Table 4). this may seem contrary to an internal locus of con-
Each of the factors identified corresponds closely trol, a high score on the controllable-by-others
to one of the SAM appraisal scales. These findings, scale reflects the perception that others can serve
together with the factor analytic results from study a useful support function. As such, this relationship
2, provide strong empirical support for conceptu- fits the view that internals are confident in being
alizing the SAM scales as relatively independent able to obtain desired outcomes and is consistent
appraisal dimensions. with previous findings of a positive relationship234 E. J . PEACOCK AND P. T. P. WONG
Table 5 -Correlations of SAM scales with Rotter locus of control, psychologi-
cal symptoms, and dysphoric mood ( N = 144)
Locus of Psychological Dysphoric
control" symptomsb mood'
SAM scale
Threat 0.12 0.36*** 0.55***
Challenge -0.17* 0.00 -0.19*
Centrality -0.03 0.33*** 0.40* **
Controllable-by-self -0.06 -0.07 -0.26**
Controllable-by-others -0.21* -0.20* -0.29***
Uncontrollable 0.07 0.24** 0.37***
Stressfulness 0.12 0.38*** 0.58***
high score indicates external locus of control.
high score indicates high level of symptoms.
high score indicates high level of dysphoric mood.
*pSTRESS APPRAISAL 235
of three separate dimensions. In both Study 2 and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Study 3, the factor analytic results were very sup-
portive of this conceptualization. This evidence of This article is partially based on a paper presented
three distinct control dimensions is consistent with at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Psychologi-
the previous finding that situations identified as cal Association, Montreal, 1988. Preparation of
controllable-by-self, controllable-by-others, or this paper was supported by a Social Sciences and
uncontrollable-by-anyone were associated with dif- Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral
ferent patterns of coping efforts.” Although the Fellowship awarded to the first author.
contribution of each dimension to the stress process Copies of the Stress Appraisal Measure are avail-
remains to be investigated, this multidimensional able upon request from the authors. Requests
view offers a potentially more sensitive approach should be addressed to Paul T. P. Wong, Depart-
to the measurement of control appraisals than ment of Psychology, Trent University, Canada
available previously. K9J 7B8.
The overall stressfulness scale when used
together with the primary and secondary appraisal REFERENCES
scales has the potential for providing a more com- 1 . Cox, T. Stress. Macmillan, London, 1978.
plete picture of the stress process. In some situa- 2. Lazarus, R. S. Psychological Stress and the Coping
tions, like study 2, overall stressfulness ratings may Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966.
fail to reflect important differences in primary and 3. Lazarus, R. S. and Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal,
secondary appraisal. However, investigation of the and Coping. Springer, New York, 1984.
relationship between overall stressfulness and 4. Moos, R. H. and Billings, A. G. Conceptualizing
specific appraisal dimensions may reveal important and measuring coping resources and processes. In:
Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects.
aspects of the stress process. For example, the pre- Goldberger, L. and Breznitz, S. (Eds) Free Press,
sent results highlight the importance of threat and New York, 1982, pp. 212-230.
centrality to overall stressfulness. 5. Lazarus, R. S. and Launier, R. Stress-related trans-
Establishing the psychometric properties of an actions between person and environment. In: Per-
instrument is a long-term process. The present spectives in Interactional Psychology. Pervin, L. A,
studies have provided initial evidence in support and Lewis, M. (Eds) Plenum, New York, 1978, pp.
of the SAM but there is the need for further psycho- 287-327.
metric data, especially those obtained in differing 6. Folkman, S. Personal control and stress and coping
processes: A theoretical analysis. J. Personal. Soc.
contexts and with a broader range of respondents. Psychol. 1984; 46: 839-852.
Although examination of test-retest reliability is 7. Cohen, S. Contrasting the Hassles Scale and the
not appropriate because appraisals are expected to Perceived Stress Scale: Who’s really measuring
change over time,’3further evidence of the validity appraised stress? Am. Psychol. 1986; 41: 717-71 8.
of the scales is warranted. In our own research we 8. Cohen, S., Kamareck, T. and Mermelstein, R. A
are continuing to gather psychometric data on the global measure of perceived stress. J. Hlth Soc.
instrument and we are extending the SAM, which Behav. 1983; 24: 385-396.
was designed for measurement of anticipatory 9. Delongis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, F., Folkman. S.
stress, by adapting it for use with ongoing and past and Lazarus, R. S. Relationship of daily hassles,
uplifts, and major life events to health status. Hlth
events. Psychol. 1982; 1: 119-136.
Cognitive-relational theory places appraisal at 10. Delongis, A., Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. The
the center of the stress process. However, little is impact of daily stress on health and mood: Psycho-
known about how appraisals are influenced by per- logical and social resources as mediators. J. Personal.
son variables, how they change as an encounter SOC.Psychol. 1988; 54: 48-95.
unfolds or how appraisals mediate coping and 11. Dohrenwend, B. S. and Shrout, P. E. ‘Hassles’ in
adaptational outcomes. To address such issues, the conceptualization and measurement of life stress
stress appraisal needs to be examined within the variables. Am. Psychol. 1985; 40: 780-785.
12. Lazarus, R. S., DeLongis, A,, Folkman, S. and
context of prospective studies. The Stress Appraisal Gruen, R. Stress and adaptational outcomes: The
Measure appears to be an attractive instrument for problem of confounded measures. Am. Psychol.
use in such research. Furthermore, the SAM repre- 1985; 40: 770-779.
sents an alternative to conceptualizing and measur- 13. Lazarus, R. S. Theory-based stress measurement. (in
ing stress in terms of aggregated life events. press).236 E. J . PEACOCK AND P. 'T.P. WONG
14. Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. Coping as a mediator 30. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal
ofemotion. J. Personal Soc. Psychol. 1988; 54: 466- versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol.
475. Monogr. Gen. Appl. 1966; 80 (whole No. 609).
15. Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. If it changes it must 3 1. Zuckerman, M. and Lubin, B. The Multiple Affect
be a process: A study of emotion and coping during Adjective Checklist ( M A ACL). Educational and
three stages of a college examination. J. Personal. Industrial Testing Service, San Diego, 1965.
Soc. Psychol. 1985;48: 150-170. 32. Derogatis, L. R. Brief Symptom Inventory. Clinical
16. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Psychometric Research, Baltimore, 1975.
DeLongis, A. and Gruen, R. J. Dynamics of a stress- 33. Derogatis, L. R. and Melisaratos, N. The Brief
ful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and Symptom Inventory: An introductory report.
encounter outcomes. J. Personal. Soc. Psycho/. 1986; Psycho/. Med. 1983; 13: 595-605.
50: 992-1003. 34. Krause, N. Understanding the stress process: Link-
17. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R . S . , Gruen, R . J. and ing social support with locus of control beliefs. J.
DeLongis, A. Appraisal, coping, health status and Gerontot. 1987;42: 589-593.
psychological symptoms. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 35. Caldwell, R. A., Pearson, J. L. and Chin, R. J. Stress
1986; 50: 571-579. moderating effects: Social support in the context of
18. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S. and gender and locus of control. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
Novacek, J. Age differences in stress and coping pro- Bull. 1987; 13: 5-17.
cesses. Psychol. Aging 1987; 2: 171-184. 36. Archer, R. P. Relationships between locus of con-
19. Fish, T. A. Semantic differential assessment of trol, trait anxiety, and state anxiety: An interactionist
benign, threat and challenge appraisals of life events. perspective. J. Personal. 1979; 47: 305-3 16.
Can. J. Behav. Sci. 1986; 18: 1-13. 37. Parkes, K. R . Locus of control, cognitive appraisal,
20. Dobson, K. S. and Neufeld, R . W. J. Sources of and coping in stressful episodes. J. Personal. Soc.
differential stress associated with psychometrically Psychol. 1984;46: 655-668.
designated anxiety proneness. J Personal. Soc. Psy- 38. Vitaliano, P. P., Russo, J. and Maiuro, R. Locus
chol. 1981; 40: 951-961. of control, type of stressor, and appraisal within a
21. Dobson, K. S. A regression analysis of the interac- cognitive-phenomenological model of stress. J. Res.
tional approach to anxiety. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 1983; Personal. 1987; 21: 224-237.
15: 163-173.
39. Lazarus, R. S., Speisman, J. C., Mordkoff, A. M.
22. Dobson, K. S . and Neufeld, R. W. J. Stress-related
and Davison, L. A. A laboratory study of psycho-
appraisals: A regression analysis. Can. J. Behav. Sci.
1979; 11: 274-285. logical stress produced by a motion picture film.
23. Wong, P. T. P. and Reker, G. T. Coping behavior Psychol. Monogr. 1962; 76: (whole No. 553).
of type A individuals. Paper presented at the annual 40. Norris, E. L. Verbal indices of psychological stress.
meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, In: Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook.
Halifax, June 1985. Abelson, R. P. et al. Rand McNally. (Eds) Chicago.
24. Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. An analysis of cop- 41. Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M. and Karp,
ing in a middle-aged community sample. J. Hlth Soc. L. Affect, accessibility of material in memory and
Behav. 1980; 21: 219-239. behavior: A cognitive loop? J. Personal. Soc.
25. Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. Stress processes and Psychol. 1978; 36: 1-12.
depressive symptomatology. J. Abn. Psychol. 1986; 42. Bower, G. H. and Cohen, P. R. Emotional influences
95:107-1 13. in memory and thinking: Data and theory. In: AfSect
26. Forsythe, C. J. and Compas, B. E. Interaction of and Cognition. Clark, M. S and Fiske, S. T. (Eds)
cognitive appraisals of stressful events and coping: Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1982, pp. 291-331.
Testing the goodness of fit hypothesis. Cog. Ther. 43. Forgas, J. P. and Bower, G. H. Mood effects on
Res. 1987: 11: 473485. person-perception judgements. J. Personal. Sac.
27. Aflleck, G., Tennen, H., Pfeiffer, C. and Fifield, J. Psychol. 1987; 53: 53-60.
Appraisals of control and predictability in adapting 44. Lazarus, R. S. Puzzles in the study of daily hassles.
to a chronic disease. J. Personal. Soc. Psycho/. 1987; J. Behav. Med. 1984; 7: 375-389.
53: 273-279. 45. Sarason, I. G., and Sarason, B. R. The importance
28. Gall, T. L. and Evans, D. R. The dimensionality of cognition and moderator variables in stress. In:
of cognitive appraisal and its relationship to physical Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional
and psychological well-being. J Psychol. 1987; 12: Perspective. Magnusson, D. (Ed.) Erlbaum, Hills-
539-546. dale, NJ, 1981; pp. 195-210.
29. Wong, P. T. P. and Reker, G. T. Face validity of 46. Appley, M. H. and Trumbull, R. (Eds) Psychological
the Coping Inventory. Paper presented at the annual Stress. Appleton, New York, 1967.
meeting of the Canadian Association on Geronto- 47. Mechanic, D. Students under Stress. Free Press, New
logy, Moncton, New Brunswick, 1983. York, 1962.You can also read
