Evaluate Biological explanations of stress? 15 marks
Biological explanations of stress are limited since it doesn’t take into
consideration the effect of the environment of stress. The explanation only
look at stress in terms of the high cortisol levels and the release of adrenaline
in the body. In comparison with social psychological explanations, they state
that both biology (nature) and the environment (nurture) could be main causes
of stress an in-life events (SRRS) that was made by Dr Holmes and Dr Rahe, the
scale contains events such as, death of close family member and personal
injury of pregnancy. Thus, meaning that social psychological explanations of
stress look at internal and external factors that could lead to stress.
Therefore, showing the limitations of biological approach in explaining stress as
it only takes the nature side in the nature vs nurture debate and showing the
effectiveness of the social psychological explanations on the other hand.
However, the biological explanations aren’t always limited in explaining stress.
As Kuhlman et al (1996) found an increase in the number of deaths in people
who had cardiovascular disorder in the day that the North bridge California
earthquake took place. This provides a unique opportunity to study the effects
of stress rather than triggering it in the laboratory because it would be
unethical to pose psychological harm on the ppts and the findings may not be
accurate due to the artificial settings. Suggesting that the stress from the
earthquake alongside the cardiovascular disorder increased the chance of
death as the adrenaline released pushed the heartbeats to be faster and
increased blood pressure. Therefore, showing that the biological explanations
aren’t limited in explaining stress.
Biological explanations could be seen as limited while explaining stress as it is
challenge vs threat. Lewist et al (1996) stated that review studies demonstrated
a variation in the response to examination stress ranging from 58% decline to
95% in the cortisol levels. Whereas in their own study they found no variation
in the response to examination stress. Suggesting that these differences in the
findings purpose that not enough longitudinal studies were conducted into
stress and that psychologists need to carefully consider the length of stress, the
emotions of individuals in relation to the stressor and the environment in
which the study was conducted (artificial settings). Therefore, showing the
limitations of the biological approach in explaining stress.
A final limitation of the biological explanations is that is purposes that high
levels of cortisol is linked to health problems and memory problems, whereas a
Biological explanations of stress are limited since it doesn’t take into
consideration the effect of the environment of stress. The explanation only
look at stress in terms of the high cortisol levels and the release of adrenaline
in the body. In comparison with social psychological explanations, they state
that both biology (nature) and the environment (nurture) could be main causes
of stress an in-life events (SRRS) that was made by Dr Holmes and Dr Rahe, the
scale contains events such as, death of close family member and personal
injury of pregnancy. Thus, meaning that social psychological explanations of
stress look at internal and external factors that could lead to stress.
Therefore, showing the limitations of biological approach in explaining stress as
it only takes the nature side in the nature vs nurture debate and showing the
effectiveness of the social psychological explanations on the other hand.
However, the biological explanations aren’t always limited in explaining stress.
As Kuhlman et al (1996) found an increase in the number of deaths in people
who had cardiovascular disorder in the day that the North bridge California
earthquake took place. This provides a unique opportunity to study the effects
of stress rather than triggering it in the laboratory because it would be
unethical to pose psychological harm on the ppts and the findings may not be
accurate due to the artificial settings. Suggesting that the stress from the
earthquake alongside the cardiovascular disorder increased the chance of
death as the adrenaline released pushed the heartbeats to be faster and
increased blood pressure. Therefore, showing that the biological explanations
aren’t limited in explaining stress.
Biological explanations could be seen as limited while explaining stress as it is
challenge vs threat. Lewist et al (1996) stated that review studies demonstrated
a variation in the response to examination stress ranging from 58% decline to
95% in the cortisol levels. Whereas in their own study they found no variation
in the response to examination stress. Suggesting that these differences in the
findings purpose that not enough longitudinal studies were conducted into
stress and that psychologists need to carefully consider the length of stress, the
emotions of individuals in relation to the stressor and the environment in
which the study was conducted (artificial settings). Therefore, showing the
limitations of the biological approach in explaining stress.
A final limitation of the biological explanations is that is purposes that high
levels of cortisol is linked to health problems and memory problems, whereas a
