2012 Update 3-23 The Cogniti

Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress 1
COGNITIVE ACTIVATION THEORY OF STRESS:

AN INTEGRATIVE THEORETICAL APPROACH TO WORK STRESS

JAMES A. MEURS
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
UNIVERSITY, MS 38677
J MEURS@BUS.OLEMISS.EDU

PAMELA L. PERREW
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32306
PPERREWE@COB.FSU.EDU
ABSTRACT
Workplace stress consistently has received a substantial amount of attention from
practitioners and researchers alike. Many occupational health scholars have developed or
contributed to our understanding of models detailing theoretical approaches to an individuals
experience of stress. Although these theories have improved our understanding of occupational
stress, these conceptualizations of stress and much of the subsequent stress research based on
these models have been limited in their ability to fully explain individual experience. We suggest
that organizational stress research could benefit from an integrative approach that seeks to
incorporate both the positive as well as the more traditional negative aspects of the stress
experience. We contend that organizational stress researchers should look to a recently
elaborated stress theory developed outside of the organizational sciences (i.e., Cognitive
Activation Theory of Stress) to provide the theoretical framing necessary for such research. We
discuss the implications of integrating this theory into the organizational sciences and provide
several avenues for future occupational stress research based on this new conceptualization.
COGNITIVE ACTIVATION THEORY OF STRESS:
AN INTEGRATIVE THEORETICAL APPROACH TO WORK STRESS
Over the course of several decades, occupational stress research has emerged into a
prominent field in the organizational sciences. A recent 15-year review of occupational health
psychology research in three major journals, by Macik-Frey, Quick, and Nelson (2007),
indicated that the stress perspective dominates the field. Based upon the early theorizing and
empirical testing of a few prominent stress scholars (e.g., Cannon, 1932; Elliott & Eisdorfer,
1982; Selye, 1951-1956, 1955, 1974), researchers have proposed various models in an attempt to
explain the stress experiences of individuals (e.g., Hobfoll, 1989; Karasek, 1979; Lazarus, 1966;
Siegrist, 1996).
Early stress researchers argued that stressful experiences did not necessarily demonstrate
a damaging effect on the individual. Cannon (1932) suggested that initial or low levels of
stressors could be endured, but that prolonged or severe stressors resulted in biological
breakdown. Selye (1955) articulated the stress experience as a process of adaptation, arguing for
what he termed the general adaptation syndrome. According to Selye, the stages of the stress
process progressed from an alarm reaction to the situation, to resistance to the stressor, to
exhaustion. Selye (1955) argued that stress was an important part of life and elaborated that
stress is not necessarily negative and, thus, an experience to be avoided (1974). Instead, some
stressful experiences (i.e., eustress) can be associated with positive feelings and health. However,
the most prominent occupational stress theories developed since that time focus predominantly
on the negative consequences of stressors.
In our zeal to find the problems of workplaces or individuals, stress researchers largely
neglected to consider the adaptive effects of stress. This conclusion is strikingly similar to
Seligman and Csikszentmihalyis (2000) contention that for too many years psychology had
highlighted the negatives, resulting in their call for research into positive psychology. In the
same way that researchers in the psychology field have sought to heal damaged people and, thus,
ignored the characteristics of life that result in flourishing (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000),
so too until recently have most stress theorists and researchers neglected the aspects of stress that
can lead to individual growth.
If stress is a necessary and potentially positive aspect of life, then stress research should
consider what aspects of stressful experiences help to make life worth living. We argue that,
unfortunately, stress researchers have focused their attention predominately on the downsides of
workplace stressors. This concentration on the negative is understandable, given the high cost of
overwhelming stress to both the individual and the organization (Macik-Frey, Quick, Quick, &
Nelson, 2009).
However, over a decade ago, Ryff and Singer (1998) argued that stress researchers and
health professionals tend to define health and well-being as the absence of negative states rather
than the presence of positive states. Further, there has been a recent call for occupational health
and stress researchers to place a greater emphasis on the factors that exhibit a positive effect on
health and psychological well-being (Macik-Frey, et al., 2007; Macik-Frey, et al., 2009).
Psychological well-being encompasses a number of factors including autonomy, personal
growth, mastery, purpose in life, self-acceptance, efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience (Avey,
Luthans, Smith, & Palmer, 2010; Ryff, Singer, & Love, 2004). Clearly, this is more than simply
the absence of negative states.
We propose that organizational scholars incorporate into our research, a theory of
individual stress, the Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress (CATS; Ursin & Eriksen, 2004),
which can account for the adaptive aspects and results of workplace stress. We are not
suggesting that the adaptive nature of stress is a new discovery; much empirical research recently
has been conducted concerning the positives (i.e., health and well-being) of the stress
experience. Instead, we believe that this research supports the integration of previous models of
occupational stress with CATS to provide a more complete picture of the adaptive characteristics
of stressful experiences.
In addition, CATS also can shed light on two other important issues, namely, the role of
time and past experiences in the processing of stressful encounters, and how the expected
outcome(s) of a stressful situation drives ones response to stressors. In the sections that follow,
we examine the more prominent occupational stress theories and suggest that current approaches
are based, in large part, on balanced models of stress, which provide insufficient explanations for
these important issues. Next, we introduce CATS, which is a theory that has been developed
within the physiological health literature. We integrate this new (i.e., to the organizational
sciences) theory with occupational stress theories, and discuss how, by incorporating this new
theory, we can advance our understanding of the stress experience in the aforementioned three
specific ways. Finally, we conclude with a brief discussion of the directions that this new
framework allows for stress researchers.
INFLUENTIAL THEORIES OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS
It is a sign of confusion in stress research that our primary term (i.e., stress) has been
conceptualized as the independent variable, the dependent variable, and the process itself
(Cooper, Dewe, & O'Driscoll, 2001), and Hobfoll (1989) detailed how researchers have differed
regarding their conceptualizations of stress. However, a widely adopted view of stress considers
it to be the experienced condition or feeling when individuals perceive that the demands of a
situation exceed their perceived resources and endanger well-being (Lazarus, 1966, 1999;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Hence, stress has been thought of as an imbalance between the
demands of a situation and the resources available to deal with these demands. This traditional
definition seems to have found a consensus of support because it recognizes that stress emerges
from the relationship between the person and the environment and it focuses researchers on the
process between the two (Cooper, et al., 2001). But, as noted below, this definition of stress
restricts it to a situation where strain and/or other negative outcomes are the result, and, thus,
does not allow for a consideration of the adaptive or functional aspects of experienced stress.
In this section, we review some of the most prominent work stress theories in the field of
organizational behavior and occupational health psychology. We suggest that most of our current
approaches to studying occupational stress have been based upon what we have termed balance
models. However, we believe that the idea of balance is ill-defined and cannot fully explain the
adaptive nature of stressful experiences. We briefly discuss four popular approaches to the study
of occupational stress; Lazarus (1991) Transactional Model, Hobfolls (1989) Conservation of
Resources Theory, the model of Effort-Reward Imbalance by Siegrist (2001), and the Demands-
Control model of job stress by Karasek (1979) and colleagues (Karasek & Theorell, 1990).
Based upon Lazarus (1991) belief in the primacy of cognition, the transactional model of
stress posits that two processes (i.e., cognitive appraisal and coping) mediate between
environmental stressors and resulting responses. Stress scholars have continued to use Lazarus
transactional model as their theoretical foundation in empirical studies (e.g., Dewe, Cox, &
Ferguson, 1993; van Steenbergen, Ellemers, Haslam, & Urlings, 2008). According to the model,
an event in the work environment engages the cognitive appraisal process, or primary appraisal.
This consists of an evaluation of whether the event is a threat to the individuals well-being, or
whether it can be dismissed as benign or perhaps challenging. If the individual perceives a threat
to well-being, the secondary appraisal process is engaged to determine if anything can be done to
handle the situation. In this secondary appraisal stage, individuals are said to evaluate their
available options for coping with the stressor. The transactional model suggests that an
imbalance of greater environmental demands than resources to cope with these demands
produces strain.
According to Hobfolls (1989) Conservation of Resources Theory (COR), resources are
the objects (e.g., home, vehicles), energies (e.g., money, time, credit), personal characteristics
(e.g., self-esteem, mastery), and conditions (e.g., socioeconomic status, valued work role) that
are valued by individuals. Stress is said to result from an actual or threatened net loss of
resources, or from a lack of resource gain following the investment of resources. According to
Schaufeli and Bakker (2004, p.296), a resource represents physical, psychological, social, or
organizational aspects of the job that serve multiple purposesone of which is to offset the
effects of job demands. Theory and empirical work suggest that the effects of stressful situations
may be buffered or attenuated if individuals perceive they possess the resources necessary to
cope with the stressor (Hochwarter, Perrew, Meurs, & Kacmar, 2007). Similar to the
transactional model, COR theory implies that an imbalance of greater environmental demands
than resources produces strain.
The model of Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) at work is derived from a more general
approach toward analyzing the psychosocial dimension of human health and well-being. Siegrist
(2001) proposed that personal self-regulation is important for health and well-being in adult life
and that this is largely contingent on successful social exchange. The ERI approach focuses on
individual appraisals of social reciprocity and social exchange, characterized by mutual
cooperative investments based on the norm of return expectancy where efforts are balanced by
respective rewards. Failed reciprocity violates this norm and leads to strong negative emotions
and sustained strain responses because it threatens the fundamental reciprocity/exchange
principle. Further, the ERI model suggests that failed reciprocity (i.e., high efforts spent and low
rewards received in turn) is likely to elicit recurrent negative emotions and sustained stress
responses in exposed individuals. Although positive emotions evoked by appropriate social
rewards and exchanges is argued to promote well being, health, and survival, the primary focus
of research on ERI has been on the appraisal of failed reciprocity and sustained strain (e.g.,
Preckel, Meinel, Kudielka, Haug, & Fischer, 2007; Siegrist, 1996). In the Effort-Reward model,
imbalance occurs when one receives fewer rewards than is believed to be deserved (Siegrist,
1996).
Finally, the Demands-Control (DC) model of job stress was introduced by Karasek
(1979) about 30 years ago, and has played a dominant role in shaping the research agenda in the
field of work stress and health. Control (i.e., decision latitude) includes both the workers
authority to make decisions and the breadth of skills that are employed (Karasek, 1979;
Verhoeven, Maes, Kraaij, & J oekes, 2003). Karasek (1979) argued that in jobs with high control,
workers experience low strain if they have low demands, whereas they play an active or learning
role if they have a job with high demands. Demands are considered an appraisal of the work
situation and are primarily psychological in nature (Daniels, Beesley, Cheyne, & Wilmarisiri,
2008). Alternatively, workers with low control have passive jobs if they have low demands, but
experience high strain if high demands are made of them. Control can be viewed as a type of
resource for individuals such that they perceive themselves as having the necessary tools to
effectively deal with the demands at work. Although there has been some support for the DC
model (e.g., Taris, Kompier, Geurts, Houtman, & van den Heuvel, 2010), researchers have
gravitated to an expanded model.
In an update to the original model, Karasek and Theorell (1990) proposed that the DC
model add the component of social support as another critical resource in determining responses
to job demands. A number of researchers have tested the role of social support in the demand-
control model finding stress-reducing effects (e.g., Karasek, 1990; Kristensen, 1995). However,
although the demands-control-social support conceptualization has demonstrated relationships
with strain outcomes, only modest support has been found for the buffering effect of control; that
is, at most demonstrating that in order for control to have a buffering effect, it needs to be
matched with the types of demands placed on the individual (J onge & Dormann, 2006; Van der
Doef & Maes, 1998, 1999).
We suggest that balance models do not fully explain how experiencing stress can be
functional, nor do they address the experience of stress when resources exceed (or meet) the
demands encountered. For example, it can be inferred from Karaseks (1979) model that balance
is achieved when both demands and control are low or high. But, according to the model, when
both are low, the individual is in a position of passivity, whereas, when both are high, a person is
in a more active role. Certainly, while both of these situations achieve balance, the distinction
between passive and active roles suggests different outcomes for the individual and different
processes leading to these outcomes. However, these differences are not entirely elaborated in
this model.
In addition, although containing an active or learning situation (i.e., high control and high
demands), the focus of the Demands-Control model is on lessening strain rather than increasing
learning or activity. Within the Karasek (1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) model, the learning or
active role is engaged only if control and/or support are also present at sufficient levels. The
implication is that if this is not the case, strain is experienced. In other words, it could have been
proposed that demands lead to activity or learning except when something (e.g., lack of control
or support) changes that relationship to cause strain. However, the framing of the model places
the emphasis on mitigating strain rather than promoting learning or activity. This distinction may
seem to be merely an issue of focus, but we contend that a theoretical model crafted to explain
how one learns from stressful encounters would propose different constructs and relationships
from a model developed to address the mitigation of strain.
Similarly, as noted above, the Transactional model and COR theory imply that an
imbalance of greater environmental demands than resources produces strain (Hobfoll, 1989;
Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000; Lazarus, 1966, 2001), and in the Effort-Reward model, imbalance
occurs when one receives fewer rewards than is believed to be deserved (Siegrist, 1996). But,
what about the situations where resources meet or exceed demands or where rewards are
proportional to or greater than effort? Strain might not be the predominant outcome of such
situations, yet the experience of stress is still a part of them. Simply because one is able to
manage a stressful situation with the resources at ones disposal does not mean that it is not
stressful to utilize those resources in handling the stressor. Also, even if an individual appraises
that rewards will exceed effort, effort must still be made, and with effort comes the stress
experience. Stress occurs regardless of the outcome of the stressful encounter.
However, likely because of our understandable eagerness to assist employees with the
management of workplace stress, our theories have assumed that stress happens only when
strain, or another negative outcome, is the result. Thus, even a traditional definition of stress, as
given above, suggests this is the case. Consequently, these balance theories neither fully explain
the processing of experiences that do not result in overwhelming strain nor do they elucidate
their results. However, it is likely the case that individuals experience many such stressful
situations throughout the typical workday. In order to better understand the experience of stress,
research needs to include the entirety of stress, and, as noted above, scholars have begun to
consider the positives of health and well-being.
In addition, these balance models specify neither the impact of previous encounters on a
present stressful situation nor the duration of a stress experience. However, just as others have
noted the importance of prior experiences on present encounters (e.g., Daniels, Harris, & Briner,
2004; Warr, 2006), we argue that past situations impact present ones in a variety of ways, such as
through the accumulation of resources, the evaluation of stressors, or the changing of expected
outcomes in the present situation based upon previous ones. Moreover, although scholars have
begun to empirically analyze issues related to the duration of stress (i.e., stress recovery) (e.g.,
Sonnentag, Perrew, & Ganster, 2009), balance theories are not entirely capable of accounting
for these phenomena. Finally, although expectancy has played an important role in motivation
research (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999), we believe that stress research has mostly neglected the vital
role that future expectations play in present stress experiences.
In sum, although providing at least a partial explanation of the consequences of an
inability to cope (i.e., strain), these models provide insufficient explanations for three very
important aspects of stressful experiences: 1. Whether and how individuals adapt and learn from
experienced stress, 2. The role of time and past experiences in the processing of stressful
encounters, and 3. How the expected outcome(s) of a stressful situation influences response to
stressors. As noted above and discussed below, empirical research already has begun to partially
address these issues, and we believe that, in order to more completely understand the stress
experience, research would benefit from a conceptual foundation that provides the framing for
such research. The following discussion examines the Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress
(CATS), which is a theory of stress we believe has strong implications for occupational stress
research. Further, we provide a general illustration of our interpretation and integration of the
CATS framework in work stress research in Figure 1.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
------------------------------------------------------------
COGNITIVE ACTIVATION THEORY OF STRESS & PERSEVERATIVE COGNITION
Overview
Although the experience may produce discomfort for the individual, arousal and stress
are vital to the operation of complex brains (Ursin, 2005), and the Cognitive Activation Theory
of Stress (CATS) (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004) suggests that repeated experiences with a stimulus
allows individuals to adapt and regulate themselves (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). The purpose of
arousal is to compel the individual to remove the source of the stress alarm and the alarm
itself, similar to how it has been argued that the function of affect is to direct action (Frijda,
1986). Or, if not removed, the individual then is able to sustain the activation necessary to handle
the stressor. Consequently, the stress experience is part of an adaptive and beneficial system that
has survived the test of evolution.
CATS argues that because the stress alarm occurs when there is a discrepancy between
what is desired and what is reality, individuals will associate a probability with the likelihood of
abolishing the alarm and its source. This expectancy will have a strong influence on the level of
arousal. At its simplest, if the person has control and expects a desired outcome, then the alarm
will not be activated (i.e., stressors will not be felt, psychologically or physiologically).
However, if the future is unpredictable and/or an individual does not have the necessary
resources to handle the demands, then the alarm is activated. Further, there are instances (e.g.,
avoidant coping, learned helplessness) when individuals do not possess the necessary resources
to handle the situation and remove themselves from it, thus engaging a passive response that
provokes a positive outcome expectation, reducing stress activation.
Much like previous research (e.g., Daniels, et al., 2004; Lazarus, 1999) has argued for the
importance of appraisal and cognition to stress and coping, clearly, the cognitive appraisal of a
stress experience is a critical element of CATS. In the field of cognition, much research also has
examined the importance of appraisal. For instance, it has been argued that appraisals are based
on mental models that are a simplified representation of the self and the environment, and that
individuals make appraisals through either a controlled or an automatic mechanism of processing
information (Power & Dalgleish, 1997). Also, Warr (2006) suggested that when individuals
appraise their environment, they judge it, either intentionally or through routine habit. In a
similar vein, CATS (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004) holds that appraisals involve the development of
future expectations.
Expectancies
According to CATS (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004), appraisals made by individuals are
determinations of expectancies, which can be divided into either stimulus or outcome
expectancies. Stimulus expectancies concern the understanding that a particular stressor leads to
a particular event, and it provides individuals with the ability to psychologically defend against
or distort the stressor. Outcome expectancies connect a response to a stressful situation with an
outcome from that response, and individuals develop outcome expectancies that represent
positive (i.e., coping), negative (i.e., hopeless), or no (i.e., helpless) expectancy; each of these are
detailed below.
Carver and Scheier (1990) argued that individuals self-regulate to minimize the
discrepancies between expectations and their present state. Further, they stated that expectancies
about ones eventual outcome play an important role in whether a response to a challenge is to
exert effort to attain a goal or to disengage from such attempts. CATS can be thought of as an
extension of this theory, because it suggests that the expected favorability of an outcome is
critical to determining how a person responds to stressors (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004).
When a person anticipates that a chosen response to a stressor will lead to a positive
outcome, that individual is coping. Thus, coping involves beliefs both that actions taken in
response to a stressor can affect an outcome and that these actions will affect the outcome in a
positive (i.e., desirable) fashion. Although this conception of coping may seem to be a radical
departure from previous theory, it is related to the expectancy theory of motivation. In theories of
motivation, expectancy has been defined as the subjective belief that a given effort will lead to a
specific outcome on the job. Expectancies are judgments about the relationships between given
levels of effort and outcomes (Fudge & Schlacter, 1999; Vroom, 1964). Thus, it is the
expectation that effort will lead to a valued outcome that is the motivating force (House, Shapiro,
& Wahba, 1974; Wahba & House, 1974). Similarly, the expected outcome is the motivating
force for the behavioral response to stressors.
As noted by Ursin (1998), although the term coping has been used for the strategy
selected or actions taken when confronting a stressful situation (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1985;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), it is only when it is used for the expected results from these
strategies that coping is predictive of health. For example, in a sample of parachutists, Ursin,
Baade, and Levine (1978) found that reported fear and endocrine responses were reduced after
the first training session, prior to performance reaching an acceptable level. Thus, neither
successful performance nor feedback from performance of parachuting reduced arousal; it was
the expectation of being able to perform that decreased the stress response. Similarly, a recent
study (i.e., Moreno-J imenez, Rodriguez-Munoz, Pastor, Sanz-Vergel, & Garrosa, 2009) found
that being psychologically detached from work resulted in lower psychological strain when
facing workplace bullying than for those who were low in psychological detachment from work,
suggesting the potentially adaptive nature (i.e., positive outcome expectancy) of avoidant coping.
In both of these example studies, individuals were psychologically and/or physiologically coping
with the stressful situation because they expected their actions to lead to a positive outcome, not
because they engaged in particular actions that uniformly across situations would be considered
coping behaviors. In other words, coping is neither a strategy nor a behavior, but, instead, it is
the adoption of an expected and positive outcome, regardless of the actions (e.g., problem
focused-actions, avoidant behavior) one has or has not taken or will take in response to a
stressor.
Helplessness describes a situation where an individual perceives no relationship between
his or her actions and the outcome from a stressful encounter; it is similar to stating that one feels
no control or influence over the outcome. Although normally producing increased stress
activation, in a prolonged state of helplessness individuals may experience reduced arousal,
particularly if it leads to some form of subsequent gain or support from others. In such situations,
helplessness would be similar to coping. However, hopelessness can be considered the opposite
of coping, because it occurs when someones responses to stressors have results, but the effects
are perceived as entirely negative. An expectancy of failure also has been connected to
hopelessness by motivation researchers (e.g., Weiner, 2010).
Further, the expectancies that individuals maintain can be quantified via three
dimensions: strength, perceived probability, and affective value (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). The
strength of an expectation stems from the salience of the stressful event, the contiguity and
number of the events occurrences, and the frequency with which they occur together. The
perceived probability concerning stimulus expectancies can be thought of as predictability,
whereas for outcome expectancies, it is similar to perceived control or understanding. Lastly, the
affective value of an expectancy describes the hedonic value (i.e., positive, negative, neutral) of
the expected outcome.
Variation in stimulus expectancies stems from psychological defense and distortion
(Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). This psychological defense is a cognitive filter mechanism that denies
or distorts the reality of the stressor based on the level of strength, probability, and value placed
on it. As described above, outcome expectancies can be positive (i.e., coping), such as when the
strength, probability, and value of the expectancy are high and positive (i.e., instrumental
coping), or when the strength and probability are high and positive and the value is high and
negative (i.e., avoidant coping). Thus, again, coping is not an action, but rather the establishment
of positive response outcome expectancies.
These characterizations of expectancies also allow for formal differentiations, concerning
their relationship to stress experiences, between the emotions of fear, safety, and anxiety, which
are all related to future expectancies (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). Fear is high arousal produced by a
circumstance where the affective value of a stressor is highly negative, and the perceived
probability of it happening is high. Although a highly probable event would usually lead to low
arousal, because of the highly unattractive nature of this situation, fear is felt. However, when the
perceived probability of this undesirable event is low, arousal is low and feelings of safety arise.
Finally, when there is uncertainty about the probability of an event (i.e., probability is roughly at
chance level), anxiety is produced.
The CATS Explanation of the Stress Process
As discussed by Ursin and Eriksen (2004), CATS proposes four components to the stress
process. The first part is the stress stimuli (i.e., stressors) or load. It is argued that it is not the
physical characteristics of a stimulus that elicit the stress response (Levine & Ursin, 1991), but a
persons appraisal (i.e., the second stage in the process) based on (previous) experience and
(future) expectations that translates a situation into a stressful experience. Certainly, some
stressors would be regarded as negative across persons, time, and situation. However, individual
and situational differences (e.g., prior learning, personality, contextual setting) are likely to
influence evaluations of most stressors.
Second in the stress process is the stress experience (i.e., appraised and felt stress). The
stressors most often reported in the literature are those that stem from the stress experience itself.
These are the physical, physiological, psychological, and emotional loads or demands felt by the
individual that are reported as stress to the extent that they are deemed a loss or a threat. It is this
feeling of stress that some could argue is the most relevant to occupational stress and, as noted
by Ursin and Eriksen (2004), it is what is reported on job stress questionnaires when individuals
are asked whether something is a source of stress. The respondent is reporting the expectancies
developed for this situation or source of stress. Similarly, J ex, Beehr, and Roberts (1992)
suggested that survey measures using the word stress are likely to assess respondents post-
appraisal evaluations of the stressor, not merely the presence of the stressor.
The third part is the individuals general response (alarm) to the stress experience.
Similarly, Selye (1955) argued that an alarm reaction occurs prior to adaptation. In this phase, as
argued by Ursin and Eriksen (2004), the individual has an increase in arousal, and there is a
specific response to handle the cause of the alarm. Like above, individual and situational
differences play a role in the alarm reaction (e.g., strength and duration of alarm) elicited in the
individual during this stage. Because arousal affects many physiological systems, this is the most
reliable and consistent part of the process to analyze (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004).
As argued by Ursin and Eriksen (2004), examining stress alarm behaviors, such as coping
behaviors, coping strategies, or ways of coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), is problematic,
because these behaviors can occur under different degrees of arousal and future expectancy.
Also, it is too simplistic to argue that certain coping behaviors are necessarily always adaptive
(e.g., problem-focused coping) or maladaptive (e.g., emotion-focused coping), because the
response to the stressor is determined by expectations of whether coping (i.e., a positive
outcome) will occur, not by the particular coping strategy taken (Eriksen, Murison, Pensgaard, &
Ursin, 2005). Consequently, the internal state of the individual, which is predictive of health, is
not connected to the coping strategy chosen.
The final component of the process is the persons experience (feedback) of the stress
response. After responding to a stressor, the individual receives feedback regarding the results of
his or her response, and this feedback can influence the feeling of being stressed. Also, the
individual can alter the perception of the stressor and/or the outcome expectancies regarding
future experiences based upon this feedback. Ursin and Eriksen (2004) suggest that it is often
attempted to evaluate feedback through questionnaires, such as those concerning health
complaints. But, they contend that respondents would have difficulty distinguishing between the
stress experience (step 2 of the process) and the feedback response because of the feedback loop
necessary to the evaluation of stress stimuli.
Similarly, Lazarus (1993) argued that four concepts must be elaborated when detailing
the stress process, including: the stressor (or causal agent); the evaluation of the stressor,
differentiating between the stressful and non-stressful components; the processes by which the
person copes with these stressful demands; and, the effects or stress reactions of the individual
(see Dewe, 2001). Although Lazarus (1993, p.4) argued that a clear distinction between
physiological stress and psychological stress is personal meaning, these core components of
the stress process appear to be recognized by psychological, organizational, and physiological
scholars.
Perseverative Cognition
Stress theories have focused on the reactions of individuals during stressors, and,
suggested that the more frequent and stronger responses to stressors are the primary pathogens in
stress (Brosschot, Pieper, & Thayer, 2005). Consequently, these theories and the measures
developed from them have failed to measure the duration of the stress response (i.e., stress
responses before, during, and after the stressful experience), which is likely key in explaining the
connection between stressors and outcomes (Brosschot & Thayer, 1998). Certainly, there are
some researchers (e.g., Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997; Daniels, et al., 2004; Sonnentag & Fritz,
2007; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010) who have endeavored to examine stressful experiences
beyond the short-term. However, the majority of empirical research has neglected what are likely
the major factors in the stress response, namely, anticipatory (i.e., the prolonging of activation
preceding a stressor), recovery (i.e., the prolonging of activation immediately following a
stressor), and recurrent (i.e., the prolonging of activation after recovery through the stressors
mental re-creation by the individual) stress experiences (Brosschot, et al., 2005; Pieper &
Brosschot, 2005). Further, Pieper and Brosschot (2005) suggested that these mental
representations of stressors could be characterized as perseverative cognitive processes which act
to prolong the experience of stress.
CATS argues that health is threatened only by sustained activation, not by short-term
arousal. As discussed in greater detail below, this suggests that short-term (phasic) activation has
training effects, whereas, sustained activation produces strain. However, not long after CATS
was proposed, Brosschot, Pieper, and Thayer (2005) noted that stress theories have neglected to
explain the cause of sustained physiological activation. For example, although CATS suggests
that negative expectancy produces sustained activation, what causes negative expectancy to be
prolonged? Eriksen and Ursin (2006) suggested that the protraction of negative expectancy is
due in part to sensitization, increased efficiency in a neural circuit (p. 63), in response to
stressors and to a cognitive mirror of sensitization. Brosschot and colleagues elaborated the
argument concerning this cognitive counterpart by arguing that individuals only experience
prolonged activation when they continue to lend support to their negative outcome expectancies
(Brosschot, et al., 2005), and by focusing or ruminating on these stressors, individuals are
prolonging their experience of stressful events.
Brosschot and colleagues (2005) offered a detailed description of the prolonging of
stressful experiences, arguing that extended activation is the result of a cognitive representation
of stressors they termed perseverative cognition. It is worth noting that Pieper and Brosschot
(2005) suggest that at least part of the perseverating occurs when an individual is unconscious,
such as during sleep. Thus, the concept of perseverative cognition provides a more thorough
explanation of the mechanism underlying the prolonging of stressors than that provided in
CATS, and, consequently, it is a useful addition to this theory.
We suggest that, within our framework in Figure 1, perseverative cognition represents an
individual characteristic or resource that clearly could have a detrimental influence on the
experience of stress. Although generally prior stress research has conceptualized resources as
only beneficial for the individual, we contend that researchers should recognize that resources
can not only mitigate and but also exacerbate stressful experiences through their impact on
expectancies of and responses to stressful encounters. We will provide a further discussion of
resources in our directions for future research.
Empirical Support of CATS and Perseverative Cognition
Although little research has provided direct tests of the importance of anticipatory stress,
in a study examining cortisol stress response (Gaab, Rohleder, Nater, & Ehlert, 2005),
personality factors (i.e., competence and control orientation) were found to influence cortisol
response through situation-specific appraisal (i.e., anticipatory stress). In addition, anticipatory
cognitive appraisal demonstrated a stronger relationship with cortisol response than personality
or retrospective cognitive appraisal. These results support arguments for the importance of
anticipating stress on the biological stress response.
Cognitive perseveration is evidenced in the constructs of worry and rumination, which
are thought to be related to the delayed disengagement from threatening information. Some
research (i.e., Pieper, Brosschot, Van der Leeden, & Thayer, 2007) supports the belief that worry
might have a stronger relationship with health than stressful events, because the experience of
worry about a stressor generally is longer than that of the event itself. Pieper and colleagues
(2007) found that worry episodes, particularly those concerning work episodes and future
stressors, and stressful events had similar and independent associations with elevated heart rate
and decreased heart rate variability, even after adding biobehavioral constructs (i.e., gender, age,
body mass, and negative health behaviors), trait factors (i.e., worry, depression, anxiety, and
hostility), and job strain to their statistical model. Another study (i.e., Brosschot, van Dijk, &
Thayer, 2007) found that worry demonstrated a greater impact on heart rate and heart rate
variability than did the stressors (i.e., annoying or disturbing events).
Worry and rumination also have been linked either directly or indirectly to important
health outcomes, such as sleep quality, increased cortisol, higher heart rate, and increased
mortality (see Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006; Brosschot & Thayer, 2004). Also, a study (i.e.,
Verkuil, Brosschot, Putman, & Thayer, 2009) provided support for the contention that
pathological (anxious) worry is related to an inadequate ability to prevent or disengage from the
processing of threatening information, and this deficit could be an indicator of perseverative
cognition. It also has been shown that trait worry only accounts for a partial explanation of daily
worry (Verkuil, Brosschot, & Thayer, 2007).
Further, in a study assessing heart rate response after negative and positive emotions,
Brosschot and Thayer (2003) found that heart rate activity after a negative emotional experience
was longer than heart rate activity after a positive episode, suggesting that a primary distinction
between the effects of positive and negative emotional responses could be the ability of negative
emotions to prolong the experience of the stressor. Also, studies have demonstrated the role of
rumination in, for instance, experiences of anger (Ray, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2008), anxiety and
depression symptoms (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000), and major depression (Kuehner & Weber,
1999). The research findings concerning worry, negative emotions, and rumination suggest that
regardless of whether a future, stressful event occurs, an inability to prevent the mind from
dwelling on this possibility is a strong predictor of negative health outcomes. Further, we would
suggest that in an organizational setting, employees who engage in worry and rumination are
more likely to interpret job stressors (e.g., deadlines, interpersonal conflict) with negative
expectancies (i.e., hopelessness and helplessness) such that they believe either they will fail or
that there is nothing they can do about the stressor.
Positive and negative outcome expectancies, as described by CATS, are similar to
optimism and pessimism, respectively. Optimism and pessimism have been argued to be
generalized outcome expectancies (O'Connor & Cassidy, 2007), describing whether an
individual expects positive or negative experiences in the future (Carver & Scheier, 1998).
Across two cross-sectional studies, it was demonstrated that positive expectations buffered the
relationship between stress and hopelessness, such that those experiencing high perceived stress
who reported greater positive future thoughts reported lower hopelessness than did those
experiencing high stress and fewer positive thoughts (O'Connor, O'Connor, O'Connor,
Smallwood, & Miles, 2004).
OConnor and Cassidy (2007) found that these general expectancies can be moderated by
specific outcome expectancies. One particularly interesting finding was that, for pessimists
experiencing stress, high levels of positive future thinking about specific events was related to
increased hopelessness. This might suggest that, when persons who tend to expect negative
outcomes (e.g., pessimists) experience stress, they will interpret even positive future
expectancies in a negative light. These findings shed light on the strength of generalized outcome
expectancies (e.g., worry, rumination, anxiety, pessimism) when individuals face specific,
stressful situations.
HOW CATS CAN INFORM OUR UNDERSTANDING OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS
Arnetz (2005) used the CATS theoretical lens in an organizational setting, finding that
the clarity of a departments goals were associated with the stress level (i.e., mental energy and
work-related exhaustion) of that departments employees. However, the CATS perspective
primarily has been of assistance to non-organizational phenomena, such as for Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome (Wyller, Eriksen, & Malterud, 2009) and socio-economic status (SES) related
differences in health. For example, within the context of CATS, it can be argued that the stress
responses that function as mediators between SES and health are determined by the acquired
expectancies (i.e., coping or inability to cope) of individuals (Kristenson, Eriksen, Sluiter,
Starke, & Ursin, 2004). It could be that, concerning those lower in SES, generally, their response
to stress is hampered by an increased difficulty with both recovering after stressors and
responding to new ones.
In addition, we believe that CATS also can provide greater understanding of
occupational stress-related phenomena, regarding areas that have received some research
attention and those that research generally has neglected. We suggested that CATS offers a
theoretical framework for speaking to three stress-related issues that other occupational stress
theories have struggled to address, including, whether and how individuals learn from
experiences of stress, the role of time in the stress experience, and how expectancies direct ones
response to stressors. Below we will explain how we believe CATS can assist organizational
researchers in each of these areas, prior to concluding with a review of several potential avenues
for future research.
Learning
As noted in a recent review of occupational health research (i.e., Macik-Frey, et al.,
2007), positive health has not received substantial research attention, and the authors agreed with
Wright and Cropanzano (2000) that researchers have instead taken a disease perspective on
occupational health issues. The disease perspective has dominated stress research as well. The
principle theories (e.g., J ob Demands-Control Support, Appraisal, Conservation of Resources)
provide substantially more insight into the detrimental effects of strain than into the adaptive
aspects of the stress experience. Unlike the negative outcome of stressful encounters (i.e., strain),
the occupational stress field does not have a singular concept to describe the potentially
favorable aspects of stressful experiences.
A number of different variables could be offered as describing the beneficial effects of
experienced stress, such as challenge (LePine, LePine, & Saul, 2007), hardiness, self-efficacy,
job satisfaction, locus of control, or engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). However, these
concepts provide inadequate explanations for the upside of experienced stress. For instance, if
engagement is necessarily a positive outcome, it would imply that disengagement or avoidant
behaviors are maladaptive, which, as argued earlier, is not the case (Moreno-J imenez, et al.,
2009). Also, hardiness (Maddi, et al., 2006) and general self-efficacy (Eden & Kinnar, 1991;
Eden & Zuk, 1995) have been conceptualized as be stable individual differences, and job
satisfaction limits the positive outcomes of stress to the workplace. Even if one were to suggest
that these approaches provide adequate explanations for the positives of stressful situations, it
is unarguable that, as a whole, empirical organizational stress research has focused attention on
the damage to the individual experiencing stress and our theories of stress have failed to provide
a singular concept, to mirror that of strain, that explains the adaptive nature of stressful
encounters.
CATS provides an avenue for the investigation and explanation of these functional results
from stress. Stress is not viewed as detrimental to the individual by default, with the negative
effects only mitigated by introducing something positive (e.g., control, social support, resources).
Instead, the experience of stress itself has both positive (i.e., training effects) and negative (i.e.,
straining effects) ramifications for the individual, as driven by expectancies. With that in mind,
researchers can investigate how and which resources influence the stress experience, prolonging
either negative or positive expectancies as well as behavioral responses.
Certainly, outcomes proximal to the stress experience (e.g., job tension, workplace
engagement, work-family conflict) can be indicators of the (mal)adaptive properties of stress, but
these represent only one category of variables that would be useful to organizational research. In
addition, scholars need to consider the long-term consequences of stressful experiences, and
many have investigated the detrimental impact of chronic strain through constructs such as
burnout (Halbesleben, 2006). However, what are the long-term consequences of adaptation to
stress? Aside from the active role in Karaseks (1979) J ob Demands-Control model, there has
been relatively little theoretical consideration of the healthful aspects of stress by organizational
researchers. In the context of CATS, it becomes clear that the positive (i.e., training) results of
stress yield a singular, distal construct that provides the connection between stressful encounters
and long-term adaptationlearning.
Ursin (1998) argued that the most important reason for a decrease in the stress response is
that the individual has learned something about the situation, because acquiring expectancies
necessitates learning (Ursin & Eriksen, 2010). In other words, individual differences in outcome
expectancies are conceptualized as primarily stemming from differences in learning experiences
(Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). Learning provides a reduction in uncertainty and expectations for
future outcomes of stressful encounters, whether they are positive expectancies of coping or
negative expectancies (e.g., psychological defense, learned helplessness). Further, the findings
from a cross-sectional study of employees at an organization facing downsizing suggest that the
survivors of previous organizational changes, which included many of the employees, developed
positive outcome expectancies based on their past experiences (Svensen, Neset, & Eriksen,
2007).
Outside of the CATS literature, occupational research has begun to consider the construct
of learning as an important outcome of stressful experiences. For instance, some have considered
perceived mastery and self-efficacy (e.g., Parker & Sprigg, 1999) or learning computer software
(i.e., Bond & Flaxman, 2006) as learning-related outcomes of stress. Taris and Feij (2004) found
that high levels of strain had a negative impact on skill enlargement and skill acquisition, and
another study (i.e., Daniels, Boocock, Glover, Hartley, & Holland, 2009) demonstrated that
work-related learning mediated the relationship between responses to work demands (e.g.,
changing aspects of work activities) and pleasant affect. We believe that these results suggest
that, for example, if employees are allowed to make mistakes without being subjected to
punishment or abuse and they are encouraged to learn from their mistakes, they will be more
likely to anticipate positive outcomes and interpret their environment as challenging as opposed
to threatening.
Also, using both structural equation modeling and longitudinal hierarchical regression
analyses across 3 samples, Holman and Wall (2002) tested direct, mediated, and moderated
models of the relationships between work characteristics, learning-related outcomes (i.e., skill
utilization and self-efficacy), and strain. Their results demonstrated that mediated models best fit
the data and supported the argument that learning and strain have reciprocal relationships, such
that learning reduces strain and strain impedes learning. Further, as noted by Roberts (2006), the
findings across a range of studies suggest that hardship can lead to improved outcomes for
individuals, because individuals are able to learn from their experiences.
In sum, the likely path through which the stress experience affects subsequent behavior
is individual learning. When appraising a situation, the individuals stated or unstated desired
outcome is to learn from this experience, and this is particularly the case when it is believed that
the circumstance will recur in the future, as many stressful workplace situations actually do.
Thus far, research in this emerging area has mostly examined perceived job-related learning and
self-efficacy as learning-related outcomes of experienced stress. However, research also could
examine other types of learning, such as learning related to the stress experience itself (i.e.,
stressors, expectancies of outcomes, responses to stressors, effectiveness of responses). For
example, scholars could consider what changes the relationship between expectancies and an
individuals short- and long-term arousal level. In other words, when an employee expects a
negative (or chance) outcome from a particular circumstance, but experiences and recognizes
positive results from the stressful encounter, would not that be potentially the situation (and its
converse) that is most likely to characterize learning related to stressful experiences? Thus,
CATS allows researchers to theoretically frame and empirically test how negative appraisals can
become positive experiences for employees, and how learning influences long-term stress
activation and future appraisals of stressors.
Time & the Prolonging of the Stress Experience
Related to learning, the stress response develops over time (Eriksen, Olff, Murison, &
Ursin, 1999). As shown by CATS, when individuals develop an efficient way of coping with
stress, their psychological and physiological reactions tend to involve only brief arousal.
Whereas, when persons engage in psychological defense (i.e., denial or distortion of the
stressor), or have an inability to cope with stressors, their activation levels are prolonged, and the
influence of the stressful situation is lengthened. Thus, it could be said that the effect of stress on
the individual is more due to the inability to recover from work than to what happens during the
workday (Ursin, 2000).
Further, research on stress recovery has demonstrated that some individuals have greater
difficulties than others in recouping following a stressful situation. Geurts and Sonnentag (2006,
p.483) argued that the essence of recovery is the psychophysiological systems that were
activated during work will return to and stabilize at a baseline level, that is, a level that appears
in a situation in which no special demands are made on the individual. Successful recovery,
however, differs across individuals (Rook & Zijlstra, 2006). For example, some persons may be
able to recover by simply taking regular short breaks or vacations (Cartwright & Cooper, 1997),
while others may need physical activity on a daily basis to be able to recover well (Rook &
Zijlstra, 2006).
Scholars also recently have highlighted the importance of recovery in the stress process
(see Sonnentag, et al., 2009) and that rumination prolongs physiological activation, hindering the
recovery process (McCullough, Orsulak, Brandon, & Akers, 2007). Recovery could be
considered a form of prolonged activation (Brosschot, et al., 2005; Kristenson, et al., 2004), and
some evidence suggests that a poor ability to recover from stressors might be an important factor
linking sustained activation to ill health (Harris, Ursin, Murison, & Eriksen, 2007). These
findings highlight the importance of recovery from stress, and lend support to the foundational
arguments of CATS and perseverative cognition, namely, that, typically, it is less that the
stressful event itself has ill health effects, and more that an individuals response to the stressor
(e.g., anticipatory stress, worry, rumination, anxiety, recovery) has profound effects on health
and well-being.
In addition, the harboring of negative or uncertain outcome expectations also promotes
the extension of arousal by preventing the disengagement from previous, threatening or stressful
situations (Verkuil, et al., 2009), encouraging recurrence of the stressor through its mental
recreation (Pieper, et al., 2007). Moreover, before establishing the outcome expectancy in a
particular situation, individuals often spend time vacillating from considering one coping
strategy to contemplating another, as they ponder which one is likely to lead to a positive
outcome. Consequently, even outside of what is typically measured as the stress experience,
strain can be prolonged through an inability to recover, it may reoccur through mental
representations of the stressor, and it may be maintained or increased during a stressful episode
when individuals vacillate between different strategies for handling the stressor.
Thus, it can be seen that anticipatory stress, which has received little research attention,
becomes an important variable in the true experience of stress. For instance, one group of
researchers (i.e., Waugh, Panage, Mendes, & Gotlib, 2010) found that anticipating a speech and
giving a speech, although they had different underlying affective mechanisms, yielded similar
cardiovascular recovery, suggesting that recovering from an anticipated stressor and recovering
from the stressful event involve a similar cardiovascular profile. Also, an experimental study
demonstrated that those participants in a gambling task who were placed in an anticipatory stress
condition took longer to make advantageous decisions in the task (i.e., Preston, Buchanan,
Stansfield, & Bechara, 2007). This finding could suggest that the addition of anticipatory stress
(e.g., worry) to the stressful brooding and vacillating over coping strategies that individuals
naturally do in stressful situations intensifies and elongates the experience of stress. Clearly,
there is a substantial amount of time in the experience of stress, and in the transfer of learning
from one stressful experience to another that has yet to be fully examined by research.
However, if effective, such studies would improve our knowledge of the link between
short-term stressors that are internally prolonged by the individual, and the long-term
consequences of stress, such as cardiovascular disease. This particularly would be the case for
research that tracks an individual moving through multiple, potentially stressful encounters.
However, there are many other potential issues for researchers to consider as they relate to time.
For example, does the expected duration of a stressor influence ones response to a stressful
situation? It seems likely that a subordinate would have a greater ability to cope with a
demanding supervisor who needs to be satisfied for only one day than one that needs to be
contented for several months. Even if the employee expects a positive, eventual outcome, a
greater duration of the stressor leading up to that outcome would likely take an increased toll on
the individual. In a similar fashion, the length of time a resource is available would seem to have
an influence on a persons appraisal of a stressful situation. There are many other such potential
research questions where considerations of time add another layer to our understanding of the
experience of stress. Such studies would provide organizational scholars with crucial insight into
the development of the stress response over time, and CATS, when combined with a more
elaborate explanation of the prolonged cognitive representation of stressors, as is provided by the
perseverative cognition hypothesis, can serve as a theoretical guide for researchers conducting
this type of research.
Expectancies Guide Response to Stressors
For many years, appraisal has been an important component of stress theory. As
discussed earlier, Lazarus Appraisal Model (1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) has shaped the
approach of many stress researchers, and numerous studies could be cited that framed research
within the context of this model. However, some have continued to emphasize a desire for a
greater consideration of appraisal when analyzing stress arousal and response (i.e., Day &
Walker, 2007).
Appraisal is an important component of CATS, because it is through appraisal that a
person develops expectations, and expectations determine whether a stimulus becomes a stressor
and whether an individual believes that coping can be accomplished. These subjective and
personally-constructed expectations (i.e., related to the response and to the outcome) are the
crucial links between potential stressors and the stress experience. Without the conceptualization
of appraisals or expectations, stress theories are under appreciating what might be the most
fundamental aspect of the typical stress experienceindividual interpretation of stimuli. Further,
the adoption of expectancies is the result of learning (Ursin & Eriksen, 2010).
Related to expectancies, it appears that some confusion exists in the research community
concerning the place of hopelessness and helplessness in the stress experience. For instance, a
well-researched hopelessness scale (i.e., Beck, Weissman, Lester, & Trexler, 1974)
operationalizes the construct in line with the CATS definition of it (i.e., negative outcome
expectancy). In addition, the concepts of learned helplessness (Peterson, Maier, & Seligman,
1993) and hopelessness depression (Abramson, Alloy, & Metalsky, 1995) are in line with the
CATS explanations of helplessness and hopelessness. However, Luthans and Youssef (2007,
p.332) noted that helplessness is the conceptual opposite of an optimistic explanatory style.
Using the CATS formulations, hopelessness (i.e., negative outcome expectancy
regardless of coping response) could be considered conceptually opposite of optimism, but
helplessness (i.e., no relation between coping response and expected outcome) could not be.
OConnor and Cassidy (2007, p.598) also suggested that individuals experience hopelessness
when there is no relationship between their behaviour and subsequent outcomes, but that,
instead, should be considered a description of helplessness. We believe that by having more
distinct definitions of hopelessness and helplessness, as described by Ursin and Eriksen (2004),
researchers will be better able to juxtapose these concepts against others and develop clearer
explanations of how each of these fit within the stress experience.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
As Whetten, Felin, and King (2009) argued, organizational research frequently borrows
theories and concepts from other disciplines without modifying them, where needed, to fit the
organizational context. Thus, our primary suggestions for future occupational stress research are
not only to empirically test relationships in the CATS model, as discussed in various directions
given below, but also to consider the organizational context as an important aspect of how CATS
is adapted to occupational stress research. Due to the recent development of CATS, and because
research using CATS has occurred almost exclusively outside of the organizational sciences, we
do not believe we are yet able to construct a complete occupational CATS model. Instead,
occupational stress researchers need to consider the occupational or organizational features that
would assist in adjusting the CATS model to the workplace environment. Below, we detail
several potential avenues for future research based on the CATS model where scholars could
work to expand our knowledge of stressful experiences in ways that would elaborate and/or
expand the model we have presented.
Resources
Karaseks (1979) model suggests that job control is the most salient on-the-job resource,
and Hobfols (1989) COR theory argued that a number of resource categories (i.e., conditions,
objects, personal characteristics, energies) are of use to individuals facing stressors. However,
occupational stress researchers have only characterized resources as being of benefit to the
individual in a stressful situation. But, as noted earlier regarding perseverative cognition,
resources can be helpful or detrimental to individuals coping with stressors. In addition, the
(un)helpfulness of a particular resource often would be dependent on the particular situation and
the outcome assessed. For instance, those high on neuroticism, typically considered a
disadvantageous personality trait, have been found to obtain higher performance ratings when in
a busy work environment (Smillie, Yeo, Furnham, & J ackson, 2006). Thus, when considering
both the training and straining effects of stressful experiences, it could be argued that a particular
resource is not necessarily always and entirely beneficial or harmful to the individual across a
range of situations and outcomes, but more likely that it has both adaptive and maladaptive
features depending on a variety of factors.
Also, researchers could examine the influence of prior learning from stressful encounters
on resource accumulation. Further, can stressors become so demanding that resources are
irrelevant to the individuals? At what level and type of stressors do particular resources become
unimportant? Similarly, stressors and resources likely differ in their stability and/or availability
to the individual. In sum, research could vary the transience, quality, and quantity of appraised
stressors and resources to more accurately explain resource value.
Cognitive Defense
CATS argues that defending against or distorting stressors is the method for consciously
altering ones stimulus expectancies, the predictability that a stressor will be followed by a
particular event, and that the stimulus expectancy is learned from previous stressful encounters
(Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). However, psychological defense mechanisms have received relatively
little attention in occupational stress research when compared to coping mechanisms. Although
psychological defense has been found to be related to lower psychological well-being (Kernis,
Lakey, & Heppner, 2008), other findings might suggest inconsistent relationships between
defense and physiological reactivity to stress (Cramer, 2003).
However, the apparent inconsistency could be explained by the possibility that
individuals differentially adopt various defense strategies. Future research could investigate
whether defense strategy preference has an influence on physiological and psychological
response to stressors. Potentially even more valuable to organizational stress research is the
possibility that psychological defense mechanisms could partially explain the discrepancies
between self- and physiological-report of strain, as suggested by other scholars (e.g., Cramer,
2003; Shedler, Mayman, & Manis, 1993)
Coping Generalization
Ursin and Eriksen (2004) suggest that coping generalizes across situations, leading to
future expectations of success and failure in a range of situations. However, how and to what
extent does ones learning from previous stressful encounters generalize to the approach taken to
other, future stressors? In a study reporting that specific future expectancies moderated the
relationship between general expectancies (i.e., optimism and pessimism) and hopelessness,
OConnor and Cassidy (2007) suggested that the relationship between generalized and specific
expectancies lacks clarity, implying that future research should address this matter. Also, when
and how does perceived learning develop into unrealistic expectations or narcissistic beliefs
about ones capabilities? This substantial number of unknown relationships concerning the
generalization of coping provides scholars many avenues of research.
The Beginning and the Ending
Pieper and Brosschot (2005) argued that future research should clearly establish the onset
and offset of stressful events. Research on stress recovery suggests that the effects of a stressor
extend beyond any objective presence it may have. In addition, the ability of resources to
prolong stressful activation supports the same notion. Consequently, without an empirically-
based understanding, the beginning and ending of strain (and learning) become indistinct. As
highlighted above, research already has begun to address the recovery needs of individuals
facing stressors, and future research along these lines should continue and also consider how
individual differences (e.g., perseverative cognition) might change these relationships. However,
much less attention has been directed to anticipatory stress, and a fruitful avenue of research
would be to consider when anticipatory (psychological or physiological) stress begins, what
moderates when it begins, and what its trajectory is to a stressful event.
In addition, scholars could research how long-term individual learning relates to the onset
and offset of workplace stress. The role of emotions in the production of health and resiliency
over time has begun to draw greater research attention, such as through the Broaden-and-Build
theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). Positive emotions could emerge as the
result of learning from stressful experiences, and this growing body of research seems to suggest
that positive emotions, as examples, build psychological resources (Fredrickson, Tugade,
Waugh, & Larkin, 2003), produce a wide range of personal resources that lead to greater life
satisfaction (Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel, 2008), and promote a broadened
cognitive state (i.e., holistic processing and attention flexibility; J ohnson, Waugh, & Fredrickson,
2010). Consequently, stress researchers could further our understanding of learning by
examining how stressful experiences relate to positive emotions, cognitive states and stress-
related learning over time.
The Importance of Interdisciplinary Research
Recently, Heaphy and Dutton (2008) encouraged the integration of physiological data
into organizational research, urging researchers to pursue interdisciplinary research. Certainly,
we join with Heaphy and Duttons (2008) encouragement, and this paper could be viewed as an
attempt to integrate an outside theory into occupational stress research. However, although we
believe that the CATS model of stress can be of great assistance to occupational stress
researchers, research has yet to elucidate many of the complex relationships between physiology,
psychology, and stress.
For example, one study (i.e., Wirtz, et al., 2006), utilizing an Appraisal perspective
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) on stress, found that a greater fibrin stress response was produced
when individuals evaluated a stressor as more challenging or threatening (i.e., primary
appraisals). But, there was no significant relationship with fibrin stress response for perceived
control or beliefs about ones abilities to cope (i.e., secondary appraisals), and this finding would
appear to run contrary to much of the occupational stress literature, which suggests that beliefs
about control and self-efficacy are important to the individuals psychological responses to
stressors.
However, as noted by Day and Walker (2007), there are multiple components to an
individuals physiological response to stress. Also, in a review of ambulatory assessment in
industrial and organizational psychology, Klumb, Elfering, and Herre (2009) suggested that the
determination of the best indicator(s) (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, EEG) of the relationship
between stressors and strains depends on the type of strain under investigation (e.g., physical,
musculoskeletal, mental). In order for occupational stress researchers to benefit from the
integration of physiological data, it is important that we not only seek such data but that we
carefully consider what it measures and how we will be able to integrate it into our present
knowledge.
Conclusion
Macik-Frey, Quick, and Nelson (2007) presented findings suggesting that despite the fact
that the field of occupational health is broader than the theme of stress, stress remains a dominant
issue in the field of workplace well-being. We believe that CATS can provide stress researchers
with the perspective necessary in order to better integrate our future studies with the new
directions of occupational health research (e.g., positive health). Consequently, although
occupational stress might continue to be a widely investigated topic within the broader area of
occupational health and well-being, it also can be of better service to the occupational health
field as a whole.
REFERENCES

Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L. B., & Metalsky, G. I. 1995. Hopelessness depression. Hillsdale, NJ :
Erlbaum.
Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. 1999. Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s.
Journal of Management, 25: 231-292.
Arnetz, B. B. 2005. Subjective indicators as a gauge for improving organizational well-being. An
attempt to apply the cognitive activation theory to organizations.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30: 1022-1026.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. 1997. A stitch in time: Self-regulation and proactive coping.
Psychological Bulletin, 121: 417-436.
Avey, J . B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F. 2010. Impact of positive psychological
capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
15: 17-29.
Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L. 1974. The measurement of pessimism: The
hopelessness scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42: 861-865.
Bond, F. W., & Flaxman, P. E. 2006. The ability of psychological flexibility and job control to
predict learning, job performance, and mental health. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 26: 113-130.
Brosschot, J . F., Gerin, W., & Thayer, J . F. 2006. The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A
review of worry, prolonged stress-related physiological activation, and health. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 60: 113-124.
Brosschot, J . F., Pieper, S., & Thayer, J . F. 2005. Expanding stress theory: Prolonged activation
and perseverative cognition. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30: 1043-1049.
Brosschot, J . F., & Thayer, J . F. 1998. Anger inhibition, cardiovascular recovery and vagal
function: A model of the link between hostility and cardiovascular disease. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, 20: 1-8.
Brosschot, J . F., & Thayer, J . F. 2003. Heart rate response is longer after negative emotions than
after positive emotions. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 50: 181-187.
Brosschot, J . F., & Thayer, J . F. 2004. Worry, perseverative thinking and health. In I. Nyklicek,
L. R. Temoshok & A. J . J . M. Vingerhoets (Eds.), Emotional expression and health:
Advances in theory, assessment and clinical applications: 99-115. London, UK: Taylor
and Francis.
Brosschot, J . F., van Dijk, E., & Thayer, J . F. 2007. Daily worry is related to low heart rate
variability during waking and the subsequent nocturnal sleep period. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 63: 39-47.
Cannon, W. B. 1932. The wisdom of the body (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. 1997. Managing workplace stress. London: Sage.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 1990. Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A
control-process view. Psychological Review, 97: 19-35.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 1998. On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J ., & O'Driscoll, M. P. 2001. Organizational stress: A review and
critique of theory, research, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cramer, P. 2003. Defense mechanisms and physiological reactivity to stress. Journal of
Personality, 71: 221-244.
Daniels, K., Beesley, N. J ., Cheyne, A. J . T., & Wilmarisiri, V. P. 2008. Coping processes
linking the Demands-Control-Support model, affect, and risky decisions at work. Human
Relations, 61: 845-874.
Daniels, K., Boocock, G., Glover, J ., Hartley, R., & Holland, J . 2009. An experience sampling
study of learning, affect, and the demands control support model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94: 1003-1017.
Daniels, K., Harris, C., & Briner, R. B. 2004. Linking work conditions to unpleasant affect:
Cognition, categorization and goals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 77: 343-363.
Day, T. A., & Walker, R. 2007. More appraisal please: A commentary on Pfaff et al. (2007)
"Relations between mechanisms of CNS arousal and mechanisms of stress". Stress, 10:
311-313.
Dewe, P. J . 2001. Work stress, coping, and well-being: Implementing strategies to better
understand the relationship Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being: 63-96.
Oxford: Elsevier Science, Inc.
Dewe, P. J ., Cox, T., & Ferguson, E. 1993. Individual strategies for coping with stress at work: A
review. Work & Stress, 7: 5-15.
Eden, D., & Kinnar, J . 1991. Modeling galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteering.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 770-780.
Eden, D., & Zuk, Y. 1995. Seasickness as a self-fulfulling prophecy: Raising self-efficacy to
boost performance at sea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 628-635.
Elliott, G. R., & Eisdorfer, C. 1982. Stress and human health. New York: Springer Publishing
Company.
Eriksen, H. R., Murison, R., Pensgaard, A. M., & Ursin, H. 2005. Cognitive activation theory of
stress (CATS): From fish brains to the olympics. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30: 933-
938.
Eriksen, H. R., Olff, M., Murison, R., & Ursin, H. 1999. The time dimension in stress response:
Relevance for survival and health. Psychiatry Research, 85: 39-50.
Eriksen, H. R., & Ursin, H. 2006. Stress - it is all in the brain. In B. B. Arnetz & R. Ekman
(Eds.), Stress in health and disease: 46-68. Wiley-VCH.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. 1985. If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and
coping during three stages of college examination. Journal of Personality and Social
Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2:
300-319.
Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-
build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56: 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J ., & Finkel, S. M. 2008. Open hearts build
lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build
consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95:
1045-1062.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. 2003. What good are positive
emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist
attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social
Frijda, N. H. 1986. The Emotions. London: Cambridge University Press.
Fudge, R. S., & Schlacter, J . L. 1999. Motivating employees to act ethically: An expectancy
theory approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 18: 295-304.
Gaab, J ., Rohleder, N., Nater, U., & Ehlert. 2005. Psychological determinants of the cortisol
stress response: The role of anticipatory cognitive appraisal. Psychoneuroendocrinology,
30: 599-610.
Geurts, S. A. E., & Sonnentag, S. 2006. Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation
between acute stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment and Health, 32: 482-492.
Halbesleben, J . R. 2006. Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the
conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1134-1145.
Harris, A., Ursin, H., Murison, R., & Eriksen, H. R. 2007. Coffee, stress and cortisol in nursing
staff. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32: 322-330.
Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J . E. 2008. Positive social interactions and the human body at work:
Linking organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33: 137-162.
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44: 513-524.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. 2000. Conservation of resources theory: Application to stress and
management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organization
behavior: 57-81. New York: Dekker.
Hochwarter, W. A., Perrew, P. L., Meurs, J . A., & Kacmar, C. J . 2007. The interactive effects
of work-induced guilt and ability to manage resources on job and life satisfaction.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12: 125-135.
Holman, D. J ., & Wall, T., D. 2002. Work characteristics, learning-related outcomes, and strain:
A test of competing direct effects, mediated, and moderated models. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 7: 283-301.
House, R. J ., Shapiro, H. J ., & Wahba, M. A. 1974. Expectancy theory as a predictor of work
behavior and attitude: A re-evaluation of empirical evidence. Decision Sciences, 5: 481-
506.
J ex, S. M., Beehr, T. A., & Roberts, C. K. 1992. The meaning of occupational stress items to
survey respondents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 623-628.
J ohnson, K. J ., Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. 2010. Smile to see the forest: Facially
expressed positive emotions broaden cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 24: 299-321.
J onge, d. J ., & Dormann, C. 2006. Stressors, resources, and strain at work: A longitudinal test of
the triple-match principle. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1359-1374.
Karasek, R. A. 1979. J ob demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 285-307.
Karasek, R. A. 1990. Lower health risk with increased job control among with collar workers.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11: 171-185.
Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. 1990. Healthy work, stress, productivity and the reconstruction of
working life. New York: Basic Books.
Kernis, M. H., Lakey, C. E., & Heppner, W. L. 2008. Secure versus fragile high self-esteem as a
predictor of verbal defensiveness: Converging findings across three different markers.
Journal of Personality, 76: 477-512.
Klumb, P., Elfering, A., & Herre, C. 2009. Ambulatory assessment in industrial/organizational
psychology. European Psychologist, 14: 120-131.
Kristensen, T. S. 1995. The demand-control-support model: Methodological challenges for
future research. Stress Medicine, 11: 17-26.
Kristenson, M., Eriksen, H. R., Sluiter, J . K., Starke, D., & Ursin, H. 2004. Psychobiological
mechanisms of socioeconomic differences in health. Social Science and Medicine, 58:
1511-1522.
Kuehner, C., & Weber, I. 1999. Responses to depression in unipolar depressed patients: An
investigation of Nolen-Hoeksema's response styles theory. Psychological Medicine, 29:
1323-1333.
Lazarus, R. S. 1966. Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Psychological stress in the workplace. In P. L. Perrew (Ed.), Handbook on
job stress (Special Issue), Journal of Social Behavior and Personality: 1-13.
Lazarus, R. S. 1993. From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing outlooks.
Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 1-21.
Lazarus, R. S. 1999. Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S. 2001. Conservation of resources theory (COR): Little more than words
masquerading as a new theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50: 381-
391.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
LePine, J . A., LePine, M. A., & Saul, J . R. 2007. Relationships among work and non-work
challenge and hindrance stressors and non-work and work criteria: A model of cross-
domain stressor effects. In P. L. Perrew & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in
occupational stress and well being: 35-72. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.
Levine, S., & Ursin, H. 1991. What is stress? In M. R. Brown, G. F. Koob & C. Rivier (Eds.),
Stress: Neurobiology and neuroendocrinology: 3-21. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. 2007. Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Management, 33: 321-349.
Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J . C., & Nelson, D. L. 2007. Advances in occupational health: From a
stressful beginning to a positive future. Journal of Management, 33: 809-840.
Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J . D., Quick, J . C., & Nelson, D. L. 2009. Occupational health
psychology: From preventative medicine to psychologically healthy workplaces. In A. G.
Antoniou, C. L. Cooper, G. P. Chrousos, C. D. Spielberger & M. W. Eysenck (Eds.),
Handbook of managerial behavior and occupational health: 3-19. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Maddi, S. R., Harvey, R. H., Khoshaba, D. M., Lu, J . L., Persico, M., & Brow, M. 2006. The
personality construct of hardiness, III: Relationships with repression, innovativeness,
authoritarianism, and performance. Journal of Personality, 74: 575-597.
McCullough, M. E., Orsulak, P., Brandon, A., & Akers, L. 2007. Rumination, fear, and cortisol:
An in vivo study of interpersonal transgressions. Health Psychology, 26: 126-132.
Moreno-J imenez, B., Rodriguez-Munoz, A., Pastor, J . C., Sanz-Vergel, A. I., & Garrosa, E.
2009. The moderating effects of psychological detachment and thoughts of revenge in
workplace bullying. Personality and Individual Differences, 46: 359-364.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. 2000. The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed
anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109: 504-511.
O'Connor, R. C., & Cassidy, C. 2007. Predicting hopelessness: The interaction between
optimism/pessimism and specific future expectancies. Cognition and Emotion, 21: 596-
613.
O'Connor, R. C., O'Connor, D. B., O'Connor, S. M., Smallwood, J ., & Miles, J . 2004.
Hopelesness, stress and perfectionism: The moderating effects of future thinking.
Cognition and Emotion, 18: 1099-1120.
Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. 1999. Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job
demands, job contrl, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 925-
939.
Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. 1993. Learned helplessness: A theory for the
age of personal control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pieper, S., & Brosschot, J . F. 2005. Prolonged stress-related cardiovascular activation: Is there
any? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 30: 91-103.
Pieper, S., Brosschot, J . F., Van der Leeden, R., & Thayer, J . F. 2007. Cardiac effects of
momentary assessed worry episodes and stressful events. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69:
901-909.
Power, M., & Dalgleish, T. 1997. Cognition and emotion: From order to disorder. Hove, East
Sussex: Psychology Press.
Preckel, D., Meinel, M., Kudielka, B. M., Haug, H.-J ., & Fischer, J . E. 2007. Effort-reward-
imbalance, overcommitment and self-reported health: Is it the interaction that matters?
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 91-107.
Preston, S. D., Buchanan, T. W., Stansfield, R. B., & Bechara, A. 2007. Effects of anticipatory
stress on decision making in a gambling task. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121: 257-263.
Ray, R. D., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J . J . 2008. All in the mind's eye? Anger rumination and
reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94: 133-145.
Roberts, L. M. 2006. Shifting the lens on organizational life: The added value of positive
scholarship. Academy of Management Review, 31: 292-305.
Rook, J ., & Zijlstra, F. 2006. The contribution of various types of activities to recovery.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15: 218-240.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. 1998. The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9:
1-28.
Ryff, C. D., Singer, B., & Love, G. D. 2004. Positive health: Connecting well-being with
biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 359: 1383-1394.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. 2004. J ob demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25:
293-315.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000. Positive Psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55: 5-14.
Selye, H. 1951-1956. Annual report of stress. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Selye, H. 1955. Stress and disease. Science, 122: 625-631.
Selye, H. 1974. Stress without distress. Philadelphia: J B Lippincott.
Shedler, J ., Mayman, M., & Manis, M. 1993. The illusion of mental health. American
Psychologist, 48: 1117-1131.
Siegrist, J . 1996. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low reward conditions. Journal of
Siegrist, J . 2001. A theory of occupational stress. In J . Dunham (Ed.), Stress in the workplace:
Past, present, and future: 52-66. Philadelphia, PA: Whurr Publishers.
Smillie, L. D., Yeo, G. B., Furnham, A. F., & J ackson, C. J . 2006. Benefits of all work and no
play: The relationship between neuroticism and performance as a function of resource
allocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 139-155.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. 2007. The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and
validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of
Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. 2010. J ob stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for
recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 76: 355-365.
Sonnentag, S., Perrew, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. 2009. Research in occupational stress and well-
being (Vol. 7: Current perspectives on job-stress recovery). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Ltd.
Svensen, E., Neset, G., & Eriksen, H. R. 2007. Factors associated with a positive attitude
towards change among employees during the early phase of a downsizing process.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48: 153-159.
Taris, T. W., & Feij, J . A. 2004. Learning and strain among newcomers: A three-wave study on
the effects of job demands and job control. Journal of Psychology, 138: 543-563.
Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J ., Geurts, S. A. E., Houtman, I. L. D., & van den Heuvel, F. F. M.
2010. Professional efficacy, exhaustion, and work characteristics among police officers:
A longitudinal test of the learning-related predictions of the demand-control model.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83: 455-474.
Ursin, H. 1998. The psychology in psychoneuroendocrinology. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23:
555-570.
Ursin, H. 2000. Psychosomatic medicine: State of the art. Annals of Medicine, 32: 323-328.
Ursin, H. 2005. Press stop to start: The role of inhibition for choice and health.
Ursin, H., Baade, E., & Levine, S. 1978. Psychobiology of stress: A study of coping men. New
York: Academic Press.
Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. 2004. The cognitive activation theory of stress.
Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. 2010. Cognitive activation theory of stress (CATS). Neuroscience
and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34: 877-881.
Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. 1998. The job demand-control (-support) model and physical
health outcomes: A review of the strain and buffer hypotheses. Psychology and Health,
13: 909-936.
Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. 1999. The job demand-control (-support) model and psychological
well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work & Stress, 13: 87-114.
van Steenbergen, E. F., Ellemers, N., Haslam, S. A., & Urlings, F. 2008. There is nothing either
good or bad but thinking makes it so: Informational support and cognitive appraisal of the
work-family interface. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81: 349-
367.
Verhoeven, C., Maes, S., Kraaij, V., & J oekes, K. 2003. The job-demand-control-social support
model and wellness/health outcomes: A European study. Psychology and Health, 18:
421-440.
Verkuil, B., Brosschot, J . F., Putman, P., & Thayer, J . F. 2009. Interacting effects of worry and
anxiety on attentional disengagement from threat. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47:
146-152.
Verkuil, B., Brosschot, J . F., & Thayer, J . F. 2007. Capturing worry in daily life: Are trait
questionnaires sufficient? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45: 1835-1844.
Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Wahba, M. A., & House, R. J . 1974. Expectancy theory in work and motivation: Some logical
and methodological issues. Human Relations, 27: 121-147.
Warr, P. 2006. Differential activation of judgments in employee well-being. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79: 225-244.
Waugh, C. E., Panage, S., Mendes, W. B., & Gotlib, I. H. 2010. Cardiovascular and affective
recovery from anticipatory threat. Biological Psychology, 84: 169-175.
Weiner, B. 2010. The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of
ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45: 28-36.
Whetten, D. A., Felin, T., & King, B. G. 2009. The practice of theory borrowing in
organizational studies: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Management, 35:
537-563.
Wirtz, P. H., Ehlert, U., Emini, L., Rudisuli, K., Groessbauer, S., Gaab, J ., et al. 2006.
Anticipatory cognitive stress appraisal and the acute procoagulant stress response in men.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 68: 851-858.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. 2000. The role of organizational behavior in occupational
health psychology: A view as we approach the millennium. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 5: 5-10.
Wyller, V., B., Eriksen, H. R., & Malterud, K. (2009). Can sustained arousal explain the Chronic
Fatigue Syndrome? Behavioral and Brain Functions, 5. Retrieved from
http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/5/1/10 on 02/26/2010

FIGURE 1

An Integrative Theoretical Approach to Work Stress

Stressors Appraisal
Brief
Behavioral
Response

Negative
Expectancy
Psychological
Defense

Training
Effects
(Phasic
Activation)
Straining
Effects
(Sustained
Activation)
Distortion of
Stressor
Expectancy
Prolonged
Behavioral
Response

Positive
Expectancy
Anticipated Outcome
Subconscious
Conscious
Feedback
Regarding
Outcome
Expectancy
Resources
Learning
Learning

2012 Update 3-23 The Cogniti

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2012 Update 3-23 The Cogniti

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress 1

COGNITIVE ACTIVATION THEORY OF STRESS:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen