Stress is not just a nervous state with shaking hands, distracted attention, and a rapid heartbeat. It is a reaction to novelty to which we are forced to adapt, inseparable from learning (and you almost always have to learn something). Julie Reshet, professor at the School for Advanced Study (SAS), talks about how Canadian physician Hans Selye discovered stress and came to the conclusion that only the grave can get rid of it.
Stress has a bad reputation. The popular psychology market is replete with proposals "we will get rid of stress forever", "we will teach to live without stress", "we will help to stop worrying and start living." In addition, they propose to relieve schoolchildren and students of stress, arguing that stress negatively affects learning. These seemingly good intentions are fraught with the threat of mass destruction, because the absence of stress is characteristic only of a dead person.
Perhaps the popularity of such proposals is due to the fact that the word "stress" has become associated with a dangerous disorder of the body as a whole. Psychological manifestations of stress are considered to be a deviant unhealthy condition that should ideally be avoided. And according to a widespread prejudice, a mentally healthy person is one who goes through life smiling and not worrying. Despite the fact that such an ideal is unattainable, it is very convenient for popular psychology - it is precisely because of its unattainability that psychologists can provide endless services to relieve and prevent stress.
Contrary to popular belief that stress is a harmful and undesirable condition, it is a complex of adaptive processes.
Just because stress is often unpleasant doesn't mean that you don't need to experience it.
What is stress?
Promotional video:
The term was first used in 1946 by Hans Selye, known as the "father of stress". It all started with the fact that in search of a new hormone, Selye injected rats with an extract from the ovaries of a cow. The injection caused the following characteristic triad of symptoms: an increase in the adrenal cortex, a decrease in lymphatic structures, the appearance of ulcers on the mucous membrane of the gastrointestinal tract. Selye was unable to find a new hormone, but the reaction itself turned out to be an interesting phenomenon, because it was reproduced after any intense manipulations: the introduction of foreign substances, the influence of heat or cold, injury, pain, loud sound or bright light. Thus, Selye discovered that the body - not only animals, but also people - reacts in a similar way to different kinds of stimuli. As a result, he suggested that there is a universal adaptive response of the body. The discovered triad Selye called the general adaptation syndrome (OSA) and later began to call it stress. These three symptoms became for Selye objective indicators of the stress state and the basis for the development of his entire concept of stress.
Selye defined stress as a non-specific reaction of the body to changes in environmental conditions or other stimuli. The key characteristic of stress has become its non-specificity, which means that regardless of the type of stimulus or the specificity of environmental conditions, the body uses a similar set of adaptive techniques. Stressors can be of different nature (temperature, light, mental, etc.). And although the body reacts to each stressor differently (for example, in the heat, a person sweats, and in the cold he trembles), when exposed to any of the stimuli, a similar complex of symptoms also appears, which constitutes the stress response.
Stress is thought to be a reaction to something bad - an unwanted change or a harmful stimulus - but it’s not. Its non-specificity means that the stress factor does not have to be subjectively unpleasant and potentially harmful to the body. Such a factor can be changes, accompanied by both negative emotions and positive ones.
It is more accurate to define stress not as a reaction to a harmful stimulus, but as an adaptive response of the body to novelty. After all, a stress reaction occurs when any deviations from the usual conditions of existence, and not only those that harm the body or are subjectively experienced as unpleasant or undesirable. Many events that inevitably lead to stress are considered desirable in society - going to college, falling in love, getting promoted at work, having children. It is not the type of change or stimulus that matters, but the intensity of their impact. The level of novelty plays a role: as far as this situation or irritant is new for us, so much they require an adaptation process.
Stress is a reaction to change as such, regardless of whether it is desirable or undesirable. Even if the changes are for the better, but intense enough, a stress response is triggered. As desirable as this situation is, it is unfamiliar to us - and we need to adapt to it. In addition, there are no unconditional changes for the better - you have to pay for everything good.
Selye's triad as a baseline measure of stress has not quite stood the test of time. In the light of modern research, the main biological markers of stress are considered to be behavioral responses, which are assessed using observations and tests, as well as the level of stress hormones - corticosteroids, mainly cortisol.
Selye's conclusion about the non-specificity of the stress response has been questioned more than once. For example, Patsak and Palkowitz (2001) conducted a series of experiments that demonstrated that different stressors activate different stress biomarkers and different brain regions. For example, low blood glucose concentrations or hemorrhage activate both the sympathetic and the HPA systems (the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis, which forms the stress response); and hyperthermia, colds and formalin injection selectively activate only the sympathetic system. Based on these data, Pachak and Palkowitz concluded that each stressor has its own neurochemical specificity. However, since there is some overlap in response when exposed to most stressors, it is believed todaythat these studies do not refute the original definition of stress as a non-specific response of the body to the demand of the situation.
In a state of stress, the body reacts holistically to the irritating factor, comprehensively mobilizing forces to cope with the situation. All body systems are involved in the reaction, only for convenience they highlight specific manifestations of stress, such as physiological (for example, the release of cortisol), psychological (increased anxiety and attention), behavioral (inhibition of eating and sexual behavior) and others.
The pituitary gland, in turn, secretes adrenocorticotropic hormone, which activates our adrenal glands to release adrenaline and cortisol. Epinephrine increases heart rate, blood pressure, and overall body activity. Cortisol increases blood glucose levels and affects the immune system, brain, and other organs. In addition, it suppresses the digestive and reproductive systems, mitigates immune responses, and signals to areas of the brain that control cognitive function, mood, motivation, and fear. This complex helps us to mobilize the strength of the body to adapt to change or cope with a situation.
Is stress good and bad?
Later in his research, Selye focused on typing stress responses in relation to their health benefits and harms. As a result, in 1976 Selye introduced the terms "eustress" (from ancient Greek εὖ, "good"), which literally means "good stress", and "distress" (from ancient Greek δυσ, "loss"), literally "exhausting stress". In Selye's conceptualization, distress and eustress are not two different types of stress, as is sometimes thought. These are two scenarios for the development of an initially universal state of stress. The difference appears only in the stages following the stress itself. Eustress is its adaptive consequences, and distress is maladaptive.
Selye identified three main stages in the development of stress: anxiety, resistance, exhaustion.
- At the first stage, an anxiety state develops and attention is focused - as a reaction to a stimulus or a change in environmental conditions, that is, to something new to one degree or another.
- At the second stage, the body's resistance is developed, that is, its forces are mobilized in order to cope with a new situation or adapt to it.
- At the third stage, exhaustion occurs, the body's resources exhaust themselves, which is subjectively experienced as fatigue and exhaustion.
Stress is considered maladaptive, distress, if the body's resources have already exhausted themselves, and adaptation has not been achieved.
The terms "eustress" and "distress" are not widely used in scientific circles, but their simplified interpretation is still common in popular psychology. Although in theory the distinction between distress and eustress looks quite convincing, in practice it is difficult to determine which scenario for the development of stress we are dealing with - whether adaptation has been successfully achieved and whether the results achieved are worth the spent body resources. Since the initial physiological picture of stress is the same, the differences mainly relate to subjective emotions and assessments that accompany stress. For example, was an A in the exam worth the worry and sleepless nights in preparation for it? In addition, maladaptive and adaptive consequences of stress are usually two sides of the coin.
Moreover, even if the exam was failed, but preparation for it was accompanied by stress, this stress cannot be considered only maladaptive, because we have gained a certain learning experience.
In psychiatry, stress is associated with the onset of certain mental disorders. The latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) identifies two stress disorders that result from psychological trauma: acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Symptoms include intrusive memories of a traumatic event, persistent negative emotional states, inability to experience positive emotions, increased alertness, and anxiety. These symptoms are considered grounds for a diagnosis of PTSD if they persist for more than one month and cause significant disturbances or impairments in social, professional, or other activities.
The consequences of psychological trauma were already investigated by Freud. At the same time, he argued that in the process of development, trauma is inevitable. Moreover, if we follow Freud, then development itself can be interpreted as an adaptation to a traumatic experience.
If we return to Selye's experiments, the stress response was discovered when rats were injected with an extract from the ovaries, a foreign substance, to adapt to which the body triggered a stress response. In the case of psychological trauma, the analogue of a foreign substance or body is a new experience - it is by definition different from the old one that exists in the individual, and therefore is alien, which means that it cannot painlessly merge with the existing experience into a single whole.
However, even when the effects of stress can be classified as PTSD, it is not clearly maladaptive. If a person who has been to a war has PTSD, this means that changes in his psyche may be maladaptive in peaceful conditions, but at the same time he (as he could) went through the process of adaptation to war. If environmental conditions change - they cease to be peaceful - such "maladjusted" people will turn into the most adapted.
Why is stress a reaction to novelty?
Stress is essential for development and existence. Rather, the stress state itself should be considered harmful, but the adverse effects or environmental changes that provoked the need to adapt to them. Stress triggers an adaptation reaction, that is, adaptation to the conditions of a new situation or to the presence of a stimulus. With regular exposure to the stimulus, the effect of novelty disappears or decreases and, accordingly, the level of stress decreases - our body reacts more calmly to it. This decline is usually interpreted as addictive.
To demonstrate that stress is a reaction to novelty, and not to changing environmental conditions for the worse, Dmitry Zhukov uses the example of a cat captured in a photograph during the Battle of Stalingrad in his book Stress That Is Always With You.
Judging by his posture, the cat is not stressed, although he is on the battlefield. Moreover, the photo shows a note attached to his collar, that is, the cat played the role of a messenger. Military conditions are undoubtedly a source of severe stress, however, the cat has managed to adapt to them, as he grew up in the war. Shots and explosions, which cause stress in peaceful conditions, the cat began to perceive as integral components of its environment.
If we consider that stress is an adaptive response to novelty, then, in principle, our entire existence is a series of stresses, that is, stages of learning new things. The learning process can be viewed as getting into a new, unknown situation and adapting to it. In this sense, the child is most susceptible to stress, despite the widespread myth of childhood as the least stressful period in life. Childhood is a time of intense learning. The myth of non-stressful childhood was invented by adults, for whom everything a child learns seems to be elementary and uncomplicated.
In the aforementioned book, Zhukov cites the example of one-year-old ravens - they differ from adult birds in a larger head size. But this is only the impression that is created due to the fact that the feathers on the heads of the chicks are raised all the time. This is one of the manifestations of a stress reaction: the year-old crow is surprised at everything, for her the whole world is still new and she has to adapt to everything. And adult crows are already difficult to surprise with something, so the feathers lie smoothly and the head visually decreases.
How does stress help (and hinder) learning?
Stressful events are very well remembered, moreover, the more pronounced the reaction, the better we remember the events provoking it. This mechanism is at the root of PTSD, when a person would rather forget what triggered stress, but cannot do it.
Due to its ability to promote concentration and memorization, stress contributes to the learning process and is even necessary for it. If the stressor is associated with a purposeful educational process (for example, stress on the eve of the exam), one should talk not about abstract adaptation, but about learning, that is, the learning process itself, understood as a complex of the ability to remember, attention, work ability, concentration, and quick wits.
For example, rats that learn to find a hidden platform in the Morris water maze, with increased stress levels (this is achieved by lowering the water temperature), better remember the location of the platform and remember it longer, even a week after training. However, this effect of stress on learning only lasts up to a certain water temperature. Lower temperatures do not give further improvement, but, on the contrary, worsen the process. On this basis, it is usually concluded that moderate levels of stress are beneficial for learning, and increased ones negatively.
Neuroscientist Marian Joels and her colleagues have questioned what exactly determines how stress affects learning - and challenged the notion of stress as a mechanism that affects learning in a mutually exclusive way, that is, it can both interfere and facilitate learning.
Regarding the experiment with rats, they point out that the decrease in learning efficiency can be associated not with the negative effects of stress, but with the fact that at lower temperatures the rat's body switches to an energy conservation strategy, in which learning is no longer a priority. That is, the stress response has exhausted itself, which reduced the effectiveness of training.
A study by Joels and her colleagues showed that stress promotes learning and memorization when the stress response coincides with the learning process. If stress is separated from the learning process, that is, a person experiences stress not during learning, but, for example, a day after it, he will remember the studied material worse.
Although the effect of stress that does not coincide with the moment of learning is logical to interpret as negatively affecting learning, Joels and her colleagues offer an alternative interpretation. Stress, which did not coincide with the moment of learning, triggered a new learning process that entered into competition or overwritten previously learned information. In our example with the exam and personal problems, we, of course, poorly mastered the material necessary for the exam, but we did well remember the situation that provoked personal stress. And it is possible that it is this knowledge that will be more useful in life, even if the price for it is poor preparation for the exam and a low grade.
Experiments carried out later confirmed the results of the studies led by Joels. Tom Smits and his colleagues pointed out the importance of not only temporal coincidence of the state of stress with the learning process, but also the contextual one.
They conducted an experiment with students and found that when the information to be studied is conceptually related to their stress state and is considered important by the students, learning under stress contributes to better memorization. That is, for better preparation for the exam, our stress during training should be provoked by the very fact of the exam and the material being studied, and not, for example, by personal circumstances.
***
The idealized notion that we can avoid stress altogether and that this will improve our lives is untenable. Stress is impossible and unnecessary to get rid of. It revives and invigorates, but at the same time weakens and exhausts. The first is impossible without the second. Like a heartbeat, the alternation of stages of stimulation, exhaustion and recovery is the rhythm of life. Stress indicates that it is important for us, what inspires or hurts us, to which we cannot remain indifferent. If we don't have stress, we don't care, we feel apathy and detachment, we are not involved in anything.
Perhaps you are familiar with the situation when you decided to devote a day to rest, and by rest meant doing nothing, and at the end of that day you are tormented by the feeling that it never happened. The only thing that saves such a day is a feeling of anxiety about lost time, which stimulates the mobilization of strength and an attempt to make up for it.
By postulating the health risks of stress and the illusion that stress can be avoided, popular psychology exploits our ability to experience stress. A person begins to consider such a state unhealthy and focuses adaptive and mobilization resources not on the situation that provokes stress, but on trying to get rid of the stress itself, that is, experiencing stress about stress and at this stage seeks help from a psychologist.
Likewise, our ability to experience stress is being exploited by social movements that panic about increased stress levels in today's society. This is how they draw attention to themselves by triggering the same stress over stress.
Stress is inevitable as long as we are alive. All we have to do is try to use it more effectively and at least not waste stress on unnecessary anxiety because we are experiencing it.
By Julie Reshet
