Available online at [Link].

com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 78 (2013) 556 – 561

PSIWORLD 2012

A theoretical approach to stress and self-efficacy

Vl sceanu Sebastian*
University of Bucharest, Kog lniceanu 36-46 street,Bucharest,050107, Romania

Abstract

This paper aims to establish a theoretical approach of the stress and self-efficacy issue. This article provides an overview of the literature
regarding the definition of stress and general adaptation syndrome, summarizing the specific stress related approaches .This theoretical
article also highlights and explains the cognitive activation stress theory. This paper explains some theoretical models that analyse stress
in terms of resource conservation and recovery of the individual. This paper studies the issue of stress in the context of self-efficacy. The
novelty that this article brings, consists in combining the models and the theory of stress and feeling of self-efficacy. This type of approach
has many benefits, especially in research, with the possibility of finding new ways to explain these psychological issues. Therefore I find
this theoretical approach useful, by combining conceptual and explanatory models of stress and self-efficacy.

2012The
© 2013 TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier B.V. B.V.
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selectionand/or
Selection and/orpeer-review
peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of PSIWORLD
of PSIWORLD 2012 2012

Keywords: stress; self-efficacy; stressor; cognitive; response

1. Defining stress and the general adaptation syndrome

The notion of “stress” has entered the current language along with famous biochemist Hans Selye’s studies. It
appears that the notion of “stress”, which has an Anglo-Saxon origin, has been used even before Hans Selye’s
writings, but around 13th and 14th century this term didn’t enjoy a pragmatic description (Lumsden 1981).This
Anglo-Saxon term was used to describe either the pressure or the tension. Robert Hooke, another great
personality, famous biologist and physician has had a great influence upon stress patterns in humanities at the
beginning of the 20th century (Hinkle 1973). The idea of “stress” has bothered Hans Selye for his entire life. The
famous scientist dedicated his life to study “stress” bringing thereby a revolutionary concept in the field of

*
Corresponding author. Tel: 0722461942
E-mail address: [Link]@[Link]

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of PSIWORLD 2012
doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.04.350
 Vlăsceanu Sebastian / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 78 (2013) 556 – 561 557

medicine and humanities. Selye’s work (1976) on general adaptation syndrome – GAS is considered nowadays
a highly important research made in stress description. Selye (1976) explains to us that the general adaptation
syndrome is not a specific one. According to Selye’s pattern when an individual faces a stressful situation, the
body prepares itself either to run or to confront the stress factor (Cannon, 1929). This is known as the first phase
of the GAS model, also carrying the name of the alarm phase. In the alarm phase the hypothalamus stimulates the
pituitary to secrete an adenocorticotropic hormone which determines the adrenal glands to release epinephrine
and cortisol in the blood. These hormones are responsible for the high blood pressure and the accelerated heart
beat. In the second phase, also known as the resistance phase, our body tries to adapt to the new stress factor. As
a result the level of excitation decreases which leads therefore to a recovery of hormones. It should be noted that
during this phase although the level of excitation decreases, it will not return to a normal level whatsoever.
During this phase we need to state that the body is weakened and the person can be easily affected by different
health problems. If the stress factor lingers exhaustion occurs in the third phase and it will be fully accountable
for the loss of all the body resources. If any person remains in this stage he/she can get easily ill. Hans Selye
(1976) reminds us that we can find two different stress reactions: one positive and one negative. A specific level
of stress is needed in order to evolve, to be more motivated. This kind of stress is named eustress. Harmful stress
factors can lead to distress.

2. Approaches to stress

Stress was approached and defined as a stimulus, as a reaction and as a process (Baum, 1990; Cooper, Dewe
and O’Driscoll, 2001; Lazarus and Cohen, 1999). Seen as a stimulus, stress is focused on the factors area which
can affect our self balance. If we are to see stress as a reaction we can thus offer an explanatory model to our
restlessness, a condition which occurs when we are faced with a new situation. Stress seen as a transition is a
model which implies an exchange between an individual’s resources and the environment requirements. It should
be noted that different individuals can present different reactions to stress. In my opinion the last model is a
model for defining stress and is the most appropriate one. This kind of model is a relational one and in this
relational process finding a middle oscillating variable between individual and environment is the most proper
cognitive assessment.

3. Theory of cognitive activation of stress

I will refer below to a theory which I consider to be very useful in explaining the emerges of stress.
(Levine and Ursin, 1991) define the theory of cognitive activation of stress using the four aspects of stress( the
stress stimuli, the stress experience , the stress response , the feedback from the stress response) which we will
discuss below, and which will be enclosed in a plan, adapted according to the above mentioned authors. The first
aspect of stress is represented by the stressful stimulus. The second aspect of stress is the stress experience. One
stimulus can gain a load which can be either positive or negative depending on individuals self appreciation,
his/her previous experiences and the forecast one may give to the effects of a specific stress source. When we
perceive a stimulus or a group of stimuli as being threatening, we address it as a stress. This is a kind of
experience that can be easily quantified through psychological instruments. The third aspect of stress referrers to
the general response to stress stimulus. This type of answer produces a general increase in awareness and
attention, a condition which has as side effect a more intense brain activity. Thus some mechanisms that deal
with the stressful situation are activated. The last aspect of stress is related to the feedback of an answer.
558 Vlăsceanu Sebastian / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 78 (2013) 556 – 561

Alarm
Activation
Subjective experience of load
Subjective experience of stress response
(1)
(2)
Load Stress response
Input Brain (3)
Stress
Stressor
Stimuli
Anticipation stimuli+/-
Anticipation outcome : +/-
Train Strain
Phasic Sustained
( 5 ) (4) Anabolic Catabolic

Fig. [Link] four aspects of stress, adapted from (Levine and Ursin,1991)

The plan above explains the four aspects of the cognitive activation of stress theory, which are: The Load (1)
which includes stressful factors and stress stimuli. The load is evaluated by the brain (2). After the evaluation,
there might be a response to the stress (3), the alarm signal is the brain’s feedback (4). The brain can modify
stimuli (5) or the perception of stimuli through actions and [Link] the plan explains, the physiological
response to stress can lead either to training or tension, depending on the activity. A gradual challenge is to be
encountered among individuals with positive expectations. Producing sustainable stress can lead to pathology
(tension). The model described by (Levine and Ursin, 1991) reckons with both stimulus anticipation as well as
with response anticipation. According to this theory stimulus anticipation as well as response anticipation can
either have a positive valence as well as a neutral or negative one. Thus, persisting in a negative anticipation may
build up a permanent stress source which eventually leads to individual exhaustion. Without understanding the
mechanisms of psychological and physiological adjustments we cannot have a model to explain sustainable
stress. New researches and approaches to the stress problem are needed in order to be able to introduce that
element which will eventually stop sustainable excitation that affects organism. This model is only an
explanatory one and it offers a benefic effect in elaborating a new adaptation strategy.

4. Approaching stress through theoretical models

Furthermore I think it is necessary to present some theoretical models which approach stress from the
perspective of preserving the resources (Hoboll, 1998) and recovery (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). These models
showed how recovery and effort development process play an important role in predicting health and well being.
The effort-recovery model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998) describes how sustainable effort put into work can lead to
specific reactions where an individual is overcharged. These reactions include physical reactions, behavior
change and subjectivism. In normal conditions these reactions are reversible. As a result of the recovery process,
tiredness and other situations (conditions) of stress are diminished. Accumulated reactions of overcharging can
cause (lead to) negative effects on the long term, as well as health issues and a distortional well being.
Craig & Cooper (1992) talked to us about individual physiological systems which are interchanged and based
on some specific activities. In order for an individual to recover from work he needs to engage into an activity
which requires a low cognitive use. The preserving resources theory (Hobfoll, 1998), states that people fight to
 Vlăsceanu Sebastian / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 78 (2013) 556 – 561 559

gain and to protect their resources. Thus stress appears when individual’s resources are threatened or lost.
Combining these two theories, two complementary processes are suggested for the self well being at every
individual’s level. Recovery is only active when the functional system used during work is no longer in use. Thus
it can be assumed that activities related to work or based on tasks, especially when a high level of concentration
and cognitive action is requested, will have a negative impact over conditional well being.

5. General aspects regarding stress

Stress might have multiple effects on a person. Stress effects can develop on different levels: physiological,
psychological and behaviour related. Physiological effects can have multiple medical forms from ulcers,
cardiovascular illness to hormonal problems. Psychological effects include: anxiety, depression, burnout,
insomnia, no satisfaction. Behaviour related effects caused by stress can lead to a lower performance in current
activity, heavy information process, abuse of alcohol and other substances, etc. Exhaustion of those resources
needed to deal with different challenges may affect one’s health. Not to miss the fact that a too high or too low
level of stress influences our performance in different activities. If there is no strategy adapted in order to reduce
stress, it’s effects can increase causing real disturbance in our daily activities through tension and struggle.
Considerable evidence show that stress can lead to heart problems, ulcerative colitis, and other problems.
Although it is hard to determine the role played by stress for our health it becomes more and more obvious the
fact that many disease are caused by stress. Positive and negative aspects are best presented by the relation stress-
performance. On a lower stress level it might turn out that we are not too engaged to perform at our full capacity.
An increased level of stress reduction might improve our performance to a certain point. Probably an optimal
level of stress exists in most tasks. Beyond this point performance starts to crumble. At a higher level of stress we
become nervous, troubled in performing at our full capacity.

6. Stress and self-efficacy

Self-efficacy theory was developed by Albert Bandura (1986). Theory’s author considered that self-efficacy is
a type of cognitive evaluation which every individual is conducting over his/her own competence. Therefore self-
efficacy is an individual’s judgment over his own capacity of organizing and structuring his/her activity in order
to accomplish some results. According to Bandura (1997) the root of our beliefs about our self-efficacy is
represented by some evaluation and persuasion processes which include in their structure a cognitive evaluation
of information we posses about our self-efficacy. In the social-cognitive theory, self-efficacy is seen as a resource
with regard to personality study and stress vulnerability. The theory is focused on the relevance of the cognitive
process on the emotional level as well as on the behavior level. A certain event might be perceived as a negative
one only after a negative cognitive evaluation. The result of our evaluation depends on the oscillation of our
initial event evaluation which an individual is forced to face. People react to the surroundings after evaluating the
meaning of a specific event and its consequences. Individual’s interaction with the environment brings on
physiological responses, cognitive evaluations, social and motivational answers. If an individual perceives a
certain stimulus as a threat, then he will intensify his/her emotional reaction which will generate a state of stress.
Self-efficacy represents a way to self-control individual’s emotions which can bring multiple advantages in the
area of stress. Self-efficacy can explain therefore the vulnerability we show when faced with stressful situations,
but it can also be a helping hand for the cognitive activation of stress theory (CATS) through conceptual
resemblance regarding the anticipation mechanism for the oscillatory result of an action. Therefore if an
individual perceives a task after it’s cognitive evaluation and according to his/her experience as being a difficult
one, the answer he/she will get to the task will trigger an alert which will increase the level of stress. We can
therefore say that a positive or negative evaluation of a situation may represent an impulse or a break in
overcoming obstacles thus influencing the level of stress self-perceived and biological. We can relate this concept
560 Vlăsceanu Sebastian / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 78 (2013) 556 – 561

to adaptation strategies and coping. By anticipating an action we also anticipate the valence of emotional
reactions thus being able to increase or decrease adaptive resources efficiency. Bandura (1986) considers that our
own judgments regarding self-efficacy are based on some aspects like: previous experience, social shaping and
social pressure, physiological and emotional states. All these aspects depend on our self cognitive evaluation.
Experience plays an important part in elaborating our own judgments regarding self-efficacy. Previous
experience shapes our behaviour changing our way of dealing with new situations. An important factor in
building our judgment regarding self-efficacy which is based on individual’s experience is the rate of success and
failure in our activities which are similar to the activity an individual is forced to face. If a person had several
failures in this kind of task he/she received from the outside, then the experience will plea in a negative way
because of the negative valence offered by an individual to his/her self-efficacy feeling. Social shaping brings a
great influence to our judgments regarding self-efficacy. We often tend to compare and identify ourselves with
other persons who are much alike us from some points of view. If a person similar to us manages to bring a
positive change on a professional level, through the similarity mechanism, we will think that we should also be
able to make such a change. Such a judgment can only be functional when related to our self-efficacy feeling. We
very well know that social pressure has a great impact over us. If we are encouraged or discouraged in a certain
activity, or to say it better, if we receive positive and negative feedbacks from our acquaintances our self-efficacy
feeling may vary according to the type of valence of social pressure. Positive feedbacks will increase our self-
efficacy feeling, while discouragements will mark a drop of this feeling. Another way to influence our judgments
regarding self-efficacy feeling can be related to physiological factors or to be more exact emotions and somatic
and psycho-physiological reactions which we reveal when we encounter a new situation. In this situation there
are two ways to show the self-efficacy feeling: one positive and one negative. Those persons who will consider
these states as being normal will gain a positive thinking about their own self-efficacy when dealing with a
situation, while other persons who will give too much attention than necessary to these states will face a brick
wall and will gain a negative thinking regarding their self-efficacy feeling. As we can see from the above
mentioned facts, the way we think can influence our behavior as well as our physiological and emotional level. If
we self-evaluate us as underperforming in a specific activity then we expose ourselves to a higher level of stress
and this can affect our entire activity and also our health. The stress can prevent the use of our resources in an
efficient manner. Persons who consider themselves as being efficient will better deal with stress and will prove to
be more focused when dealing with daily activities. Some authors consider that our own opinion on efficiency
can serve as an important personal resource or as a vulnerability factor. (Bandura, 1986; Schwarzer, 1992). If the
efficiency used to cognitive evaluate problems is one of a low level then stress and emotional and negative
somatic reactions might occur. Positive interpretation of the outside stimuli will have a positive effect on our
performance and health.

7. Conclusions

Without a thorough knowledge of these concepts, any scientific endeavour is useless. Stress and self-efficacy
remain present-day topics which need more attention. Scientific research will bring new models and theories
related to stress and self-efficacy, not because of their absence but because of their necessity to put all efforts in
this direction. There are studies underlining the lack of satisfaction and fulfillment lead to increased distress
(Vasile & Albu, 2011). Through this knowledge and by spreading this information about stress and self-efficacy
we can contribute to a healthier and balanced society. While the problem about stress is related also to the life
quality, the self-efficacy feeling brings a helping hand in increasing life standards being also connected to
performance. We, as psychologists should pay more attention to “well-being” and to health psychology bearing
in mind those two concepts. Knowledge and implementation of adaptive strategies by public can only lead to
positive results. Combining models and theory in the field of stress and the self-efficacy feeling can have several
advantages, especially in continuing the research keeping the door open for new possibilities of explaining these
 Vlăsceanu Sebastian / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 78 (2013) 556 – 561 561

psychological problems. Therefore I consider this theoretical endeavour very useful because it combines the
conceptual and explicative models of stress and self-efficacy.

References
Bandura, A., (1986), Social Foundation of Action and Thought: A Social Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs; NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., (1997), Self-efficacy: the exercise of control, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Baum, A. (1990), ``Stress, intrusive imagery, and chronic distress'', Health Psychology, 9, pp. 653–675.
Cannon, W. B. (1929), Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear and range, edi ia a II-a, New York: Appleton.
Cooper, G. L., Dewe, Ph. J., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress. A review and critique of theory, research and applications.
London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Craig, A., & Cooper, R. E. (1992). Symptoms of acute and chronic fatigue. In A. P. Smith & D. M. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of human
performance (pp. 289–339). London: Academic Press. Vol. 3.
Hinkle, L. E. Jr. (1973). The concept of ``stress'' in the biological and social sciences. Sci. Med. Man.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community: The psychology and physiology of stress. New York: Plenum.
Lazarus, R. S., & Cohen, J. P, (1999), ``Stress and emotion: A new synthesis'', New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal and Coping, New York: Springer.
Levine, S., & Ursin, H., 1991. What is stress? In M. R. Brown, G. F. Koob, C. Rivier (Eds.), Stress: Neurobiology and Neuroendocrinology
(pp. 3–21). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Lumsden, D. P. (1981). Is the concept of``stress'' of any use, anymore? In Contributions to Primary Prevention in Mental Health:Working
Papers, ed. D. Randall. Toronto: Toronto Natl. Off. Can. Mental Health Assoc.
Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth & H. Thierry (Eds.), Handbook of work and
organizational psychology. Work psychology (pp. 5–33). Hove, England: Psychology Press. Vol. 2
Schwarzer, R. (Ed.). (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington, DC: Hemisphere
Seyle, H. (1976), Stress în Health and Disease, MA: Butterworth, Reading.
Ursin, H., Eriksen., H. R. (2003) Review :The cognitive activation theory of stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29. Elsevir, 567–592.
Vasile, C., Albu, G. (2011). Experimental Investigations on Professional Identity, Vocational Personality Type and Stress Level in Adults.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1801–1805.