Notes – Quantifying and Measuring Stress

Page 2 – Reminders and Announcements

• CBL Journal #1 Due Today

• By Monday 9/15 (12:30 PM) submit the Group Presentation Member Preference Form

Page 3 – Class Aims & Outline

• Today’s questions:

  • What are some methods of measuring stress in empirical studies?

  • Given the multitude of stress measurements, how do we select an assessment for a specific study?

  • How do we compare across studies involving different stressors?

Page 4 – Overview of Stress & Coping Research

• Research approaches (Human Subjects):

  • Descriptive research: Are stress, health, and well-being correlated?

  • Stress-related biomarkers: E.g., Allostatic load, cortisol, stress reactivity

  • Laboratory paradigms: What effects do standardized stressors have on people?

  • Intervention research: What interventions help people cope effectively with stress and/or traumatic life events?

• Animal Models: Research involving animal models also often involves laboratory-based stress inductions

• Key idea: Multiple methodological pathways exist to quantify and understand stress, its correlates, and coping processes

Page 5 – Issues in Measurement

• Core distinctions: subjective vs. objective measures

  • Subjective: personal opinions, feelings, perceptions

  • Objective: observable, standardized criteria

• Stress duration categories:

  • Chronic stress: ongoing, long-term, persisting over weeks, months, or years

  • Acute stress: short-term, resulting from a specific event or situation

• Daily hassles: minor, routine challenges or irritations in day-to-day life

• Domains of stress: financial, social, work/academic, environmental

• Guiding questions presented:

  • Pros and cons of subjective measures of stress?

  • Pros and cons of objective measures of stress?

  • Why does duration of stress matter?

  • How might you measure stressors of different duration?

• Foundational implication: measurement choices influence sensitivity to different stress processes and outcomes

Page 6 – Self-Report Measures: Hassles Scale

• Hassles Scale (self-report): check each hassle experienced and circle severity on a 3-point scale

• Severity scale:

  • 1 = Somewhat severe

  • 2 = Moderately severe

  • 3 = Extremely severe

• Example items (subset shown):

  • Misplacing or losing things

  • Troublesome neighbors

  • Social obligations

  • Inconsiderate smokers

  • Troubling thoughts about your future

  • Thoughts about death

  • Health of a family member

  • Not enough money for housing

  • Concerns about owing money

  • Financial responsibilities for someone who doesn't live with you

  • Conserving electricity, water, etc.

  • Planning meals

  • Concerns about retirement

• Notes:

  • The slide lists many items (a very long scale; garbled ending appears in transcript)

  • The scale captures daily stressors across multiple domains

• Practical considerations:

  • Useful for assessing perceived daily stress burden and its relation to health/outcomes

  • Self-report biases and item coverage are important considerations

• Ambiguity in the transcript at the end of the item list (garbled text): "MMVI MAWHINWM IMMVI HIIMMY" appears to be non-informative/typo

Page 7 – Research Example: Self-Report Measure

• Hewett, Z. L., et al. (2017):

  • Title: Effect of a 16-week Bikram yoga program on perceived stress, self-efficacy and health-related quality of life in stressed and sedentary adults: A randomized controlled trial

  • Journal: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport (online)

  • Design: Randomized controlled trial

  • Participants: 63 inactive, stressed adults

  • Intervention: Group 1 – Bikram yoga 3–5 classes/week for 16 weeks

  • Control: Group 2 – No yoga (control)

  • Outcomes: Perceived Stress, Self-Efficacy, Health-related quality of life

  • Main findings: Less perceived stress, improved quality of life and self-efficacy in the yoga group

• Significance: Demonstrates use of self-report measures to track psychosocial outcomes in an intervention study

Page 8 – Bikram Yoga Study Example – Discussion Prompts

• Why were self-report measures used in this study?

• Advantages of self-report measures in this context:

  • Direct assessment of perceived stress, self-efficacy, and quality of life

  • Feasible, cost-effective, and scalable

  • Captures subjective experience central to the constructs studied

• Limitations of self-report in this study:

  • Susceptible to biases (social desirability, expectancy effects, recall bias)

  • May not map directly onto objective health outcomes

Page 9 – Life Stress Interview (LSI) Measure

• Description:

  • Semi-structured assessment of stress in 10 life domains

  • Distinguishes ongoing, chronic stress vs. acute, discrete life events

• Domain example (Social life):

  • 1) Exceptional social life – many good friends, very active, diverse activities, no significant peer conflict

  • 2) Good social life with some close friends, typical activities, few conflicts

  • 3) Less active social life – some contact, some conflicts

  • 4) Limited social life – somewhat isolated, few stable friendships, conflicts may be present

  • 5) Rare/No social life – severe social problems, isolation, or frequent conflicts

• Additional dimensions:

  • Measures ongoing health, health of self and others, health-related stress, depressive symptoms

• Purpose: Provide a nuanced, interview-based assessment across long-term and short-term stressors

Page 10 – LSI Study Example

• Study features (Dalton, Hammen, & Brennan, 2016):

  • Design: Longitudinal

  • Variables: Chronic stress, health-related stress, depressive symptoms, ongoing health

  • Age-related/health-related measures: Physical health at ages 0–5 and age 21 referred to in the transcript snippet

  • Sample size: 384 participants

  • Focus: Links between stress domains and health/depressive outcomes over time

• Context: Examines how life stress (via LSI) relates to health and depressive symptoms longitudinally

Page 11 – LSI: Advantages and Drawbacks of Interview Measures

• Advantages:

  • Rich, contextual data across domains

  • Flexible probing and clarification capabilities

• Drawbacks:

  • Resource-intensive (requires trained interviewers and time)

  • Potential interviewer bias

  • Less scalable than self-report instruments

  • Possible recall biases for past events

• Guiding questions:

  • What advantages does an interview provide?

  • What are the drawbacks?

Page 12 – Laboratory Paradigms of Stress Induction

• Methods listed:

  • Watching film clips

  • Viewing pictures

  • Expecting a shock

  • Negative events in gaming

  • Sing-a-Song Stress Test

  • Trier Social Stress Test (TSST)

• Ethical considerations:

  • Research ethics for stress paradigms: informed consent, risk minimization, debriefing, participant safety

Page 13 – Research Example: Laboratory Paradigms – Golkar et al. (2014)

• Title: The Influence of Work-Related Chronic Stress on the Regulation of Emotion and on Functional Connectivity in the Brain

• Journal: PLOS ONE, 9(9): e104550

• Design details:

  • Participants: 70 healthy controls; 40 patients with high chronic job stress

  • Measures: Acoustic Startle Reflex, fMRI, resting-state connectivity from amygdala

  • Baseline measures collected

• Focus: How chronic work stress relates to emotion regulation and brain connectivity

• DOI/Link: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104550

Page 14 – Laboratory Research Cont’d: Emotion Regulation Task

• Emotion regulation instructions:

  • Up-regulate: make an effort to increase or amplify feelings elicited by the image

  • Maintain: focus on feelings elicited by the image and keep them the same

  • Down-regulate: make an effort to decrease feelings elicited by the image

• Purpose: Investigate how chronic stress affects the ability to regulate emotions using controlled tasks

Page 15 – Figure 1 (Maintain Instruction) – Golkar et al. (2014)

• Figure depicts an experimental trial with the Maintain instruction

• Reference: Golkar et al. (2014), PLOS ONE, 9(9): e104550

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104550

• Note: Used to illustrate the structure of an emotion-regulation trial

Page 16 – Figure 2 – Startle Reactions by Burnout Status

• Figure shows startle responses across task instructions for burnout patients vs controls

• Implication: Differences in startle magnitude reflect altered emotion regulation under chronic stress conditions

Page 17 – Figure 4 – Resting-State Connectivity

• Figure shows group differences in resting-state connectivity from the right amygdala (R amygdala)

• Implications: Altered functional connectivity in emotion-regulation networks under chronic stress

Page 18 – Laboratory Research Cont’d: Discussion

• Takeaway conclusions:

  • Chronically stressed individuals show impaired ability to regulate emotion

  • Weaker connectivity between amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) observed

• Critical reflection:

  • Is this lab-based stress induction and emotion regulation task a reasonable approximation of everyday stressors?

  • Why or why not? Discussion prompts encourage consider realism and ecological validity

Page 19 – Biological Measures (Humans)

• Listed biological measures:

  • Allostatic load

  • Cortisol

  • Skin temperature

  • Wound healing

  • Exposure to viral agents

• Purpose: To assess physiological correlates and consequences of stress beyond self-report

Page 20 – Salivary Cortisol (Schedule and Context)

• Sampling schedule (times relative to wake):

  • Waking

  • 15 minutes after waking

  • 30 minutes after waking

  • Noontime (pre-lunch)

  • 3 PM

  • 5 PM

  • 8 PM

  • Bedtime

  • After rest in bed (15 minutes after waking in some protocols)

• Units: $ext{ug/dL}$ (salivary cortisol concentration)

• Purpose: To capture the diurnal rhythm of cortisol and reactivity patterns

Page 21 – Salivary Cortisol Diurnal Pattern (Normal Range)

• Normal diurnal cortisol pattern (salivary) typically shows higher levels in the morning with a decline throughout the day

• Time anchors shown in slide:

  • 6:30–7:30 a.m.

  • 7:00–8:00 a.m.

  • 11:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m.

  • 4:30–5:30 p.m.

  • 10:00–11:00 p.m.

• The slide labels a “Normal” diurnal cortisol curve; actual values vary by individual and context

Page 22 – Animal Models

• Major stress models listed:

  • Social defeat

  • Neonatal isolation stress

  • Physical restraint stress

  • Chronic unpredictable stress

• Discussion points:

  • These models help study biological mechanisms of stress in controlled settings

  • Limitations include generalizability to humans

  • Ethical considerations include welfare, humane endpoints, reduction of suffering

• Connections to foundational principles and real-world relevance:

  • Allostatic load and cortisol as biomarkers connect daily stress to long-term health outcomes

  • Descriptive vs. biomarker measures illustrate how psychology and physiology integrate in stress research

  • Ethical considerations span both human and animal research, highlighting the need for risk minimization and informed consent

  • Different measurement approaches (self-report, interview, laboratory paradigms, biological measures) provide complementary perspectives on stress

  • Laboratory emotion regulation tasks help link cognitive-emotional processes to neural connectivity (e.g., amygdala–mPFC) under stress

• Key definitions and terms (quick reference):

  • Allostatic load: cumulative physiological wear and tear due to chronic stress response activation

  • Cortisol: a glucocorticoid hormone used as a biomarker of HPA-axis activation

  • Hassles Scale: broad self-report checklist of daily stressors with severity ratings

  • Life Stress Interview (LSI): semi-structured interview assessing stress across life domains with ongoing vs. acute dimensions

  • TSST: Trier Social Stress Test, a standard laboratory stress induction protocol

  • Emotion regulation: cognitive strategies to modulate emotional responses (up-regulate, maintain, down-regulate)

• Formulas and numerical references highlighted in this material:

  • Hassles Scale severity coding: $1 = ext{Somewhat severe},\, 2 = ext{Moderately severe},\, 3 = ext{Extremely severe}$

  • Participant counts and study sizes:

  • Bikram yoga study: $N = 63$ (inactive, stressed adults)

  • Golkar et al. (2014): $N = 70$ healthy controls; $N = 40$ high chronic job-stress patients

  • LSI study: $N = 384$ participants

  • Time points for salivary cortisol sampling (as listed above) and diurnal anchors