Discuss Life Changes as a source of stress
One source of stress is life changes e.g divorce as they require significant adjustment. The bigger the change,
the greater the adjustment, and the greater the stress. Life changes are cumulative so they add together to
create more stress as they require even more change to adapt. Life changes are measured using SSRS,
created by Holmes and Rahe, consisting of 43 life changes which each have a corresponding life change unit
(LCU) that reflects how much change the life change requires e.g death of a spouse is highest at 100/100 and
divorce is second with 73/110. Holmes and Rahe suggested that an overall score of 300+ the more likely an
individual will experience stress-related illness. Rahe suggested that between 150 and 300 LCU’s means that
you have a 50% chance of experiencing illness the next year.
Rahe investigated life changes as a source of stress with US navy personnel who completed a version of
SSRS called Schedule Of Recent Experience 6 months before the tour of duty. Whilst abroad the ship, each
participant had to report all their illnesses to the medical staff. At the end of the tour, an independent
researcher reviewed medical records and calculated the illness score for each participant. Both the researcher
and the medical staff were unaware of the aim of the study. Rahe found that there was a significant positive
correlation (+0.118) between LCU scores for 6 months before departure and illness scores aboard the ship,
and suggesting those who experienced stressful life changes in the final 6 months before leaving had more
illnesses on ship.
One limitation is that research into sources of stress is correlational. Research suggests a relationship
between the life change event and illness, but this does not indicate causality. We are not justified in drawing
conclusions that stress causes illness based on correlational analysis. Therefore research may ignore other
causal factors such as less free time. Therefore this lowers the validity of research as it cannot establish a
cause and effect. However it is more ethical than conducting an experiment as establishing a relationship
between life events and illness is more ethical than purposefully placing participants under stress.
Another weakness of research into life changes as a source of stress is that there are methodological issues.
Much of the research uses self report techniques which are subjective and open to interpretation so results
may not accurately reflect life changes as a source of stress due to differences in the interpretation of the
questions which cannot be clarified by the researcher. In addition, participants may demonstrate social
desirability bias and may not answer the questions in an entirely truthful way in order to be viewed favourably
by others and present themselves in a better light e.g they may not want to admit they have problems with
their children especially as they are navy personnel, and want to appear tough Some people may downplay
the severity of a number of their major life events to appear desirable as well. This reduces the validity of the
research as it may not be measuring what the researcher intended to measure but rather the participants
willingness to answer.
A strength is that there is research to support the importance of major life events. For example, Heikkinen et
al. used it to explain the causes of suicide. They found that, in the 3 month period preceding suicide among
suicide victims in Finland, the main causal factor seemed to be changes in life events such as family, loss or
financial troubles. Therefore this means that research into how life events affect stress can be useful as it can
allow individuals to get the help they need and seek treatment for their poor mental health and stress.
However, the life change approach takes a nomothetic approach as it establishes a set of laws that apply to
everyone but, for example, it ignores the fact that life events will have a different significance for different
people.
One source of stress is life changes e.g divorce as they require significant adjustment. The bigger the change,
the greater the adjustment, and the greater the stress. Life changes are cumulative so they add together to
create more stress as they require even more change to adapt. Life changes are measured using SSRS,
created by Holmes and Rahe, consisting of 43 life changes which each have a corresponding life change unit
(LCU) that reflects how much change the life change requires e.g death of a spouse is highest at 100/100 and
divorce is second with 73/110. Holmes and Rahe suggested that an overall score of 300+ the more likely an
individual will experience stress-related illness. Rahe suggested that between 150 and 300 LCU’s means that
you have a 50% chance of experiencing illness the next year.
Rahe investigated life changes as a source of stress with US navy personnel who completed a version of
SSRS called Schedule Of Recent Experience 6 months before the tour of duty. Whilst abroad the ship, each
participant had to report all their illnesses to the medical staff. At the end of the tour, an independent
researcher reviewed medical records and calculated the illness score for each participant. Both the researcher
and the medical staff were unaware of the aim of the study. Rahe found that there was a significant positive
correlation (+0.118) between LCU scores for 6 months before departure and illness scores aboard the ship,
and suggesting those who experienced stressful life changes in the final 6 months before leaving had more
illnesses on ship.
One limitation is that research into sources of stress is correlational. Research suggests a relationship
between the life change event and illness, but this does not indicate causality. We are not justified in drawing
conclusions that stress causes illness based on correlational analysis. Therefore research may ignore other
causal factors such as less free time. Therefore this lowers the validity of research as it cannot establish a
cause and effect. However it is more ethical than conducting an experiment as establishing a relationship
between life events and illness is more ethical than purposefully placing participants under stress.
Another weakness of research into life changes as a source of stress is that there are methodological issues.
Much of the research uses self report techniques which are subjective and open to interpretation so results
may not accurately reflect life changes as a source of stress due to differences in the interpretation of the
questions which cannot be clarified by the researcher. In addition, participants may demonstrate social
desirability bias and may not answer the questions in an entirely truthful way in order to be viewed favourably
by others and present themselves in a better light e.g they may not want to admit they have problems with
their children especially as they are navy personnel, and want to appear tough Some people may downplay
the severity of a number of their major life events to appear desirable as well. This reduces the validity of the
research as it may not be measuring what the researcher intended to measure but rather the participants
willingness to answer.
A strength is that there is research to support the importance of major life events. For example, Heikkinen et
al. used it to explain the causes of suicide. They found that, in the 3 month period preceding suicide among
suicide victims in Finland, the main causal factor seemed to be changes in life events such as family, loss or
financial troubles. Therefore this means that research into how life events affect stress can be useful as it can
allow individuals to get the help they need and seek treatment for their poor mental health and stress.
However, the life change approach takes a nomothetic approach as it establishes a set of laws that apply to
everyone but, for example, it ignores the fact that life events will have a different significance for different
people.
