A Critical Review of Stress Causes and Measurement Methods in UK Society
This work has been verified by our teacher: 16.01.2026 at 8:06
Homework type: Essay
Added: 16.01.2026 at 7:33
Summary:
The essay explores the complex causes of stress and critically evaluates various methods, especially physiological, for measuring stress in British contexts.
A Critical Examination of the Causes of Stress and the Evaluation of Methods for Measuring Stress
In the unforgiving pace of modern British society, the issue of stress has gained unmatched prominence. From the pressure on GCSE and A-Level students angst-ridden over exam results, to the relentless demands on NHS staff navigating under-resourced wards, stress permeates the very fabric of everyday life in the United Kingdom. Its tentacles reach into schools, workplaces, homes, and even virtual spheres, affecting mental wellbeing and physical health alike. Defined broadly, stress refers to the intricate physiological and psychological responses individuals manifest when confronted with situations or demands perceived as threatening or overwhelming. This essay seeks to delve into the tangled roots of stress by exploring its multifaceted causes, before providing a critical evaluation of the different methods used to measure it, with a particular focus on physiological techniques. With reference to relevant British studies, theoretical models, and practical considerations, the discussion will elucidate both the strengths and shortcomings of current approaches, ending with reflections on the broader implications for research, healthcare, and everyday contexts.
---
Understanding the Causes of Stress
Biological Factors
Although the experience of stress is often associated with external pressures, significant variability lies in the predispositions inherited at birth. Genetic factors play a notable role in determining how susceptible an individual might be to stressful situations. For example, recent research conducted at King’s College London indicates that variations in certain genes affect the sensitivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the body’s central stress response system. This helps explain why two students facing the same upcoming university deadline might react so differently: one may tackle the challenge confidently, while the other experiences acute anxiety and physical symptoms.Furthermore, neurochemical factors are central to understanding stress. The fluctuating levels of hormones such as cortisol—notorious as the ‘stress hormone’—fundamentally alter mood, concentration, and energy. For instance, medical evidence drawn from the Whitehall Studies, which explored stress among British civil servants, uncovered that chronic workplace stress could lead to sustained high cortisol levels, impacting heart health and immunological function in the long term.
Environmental Stressors
Our environment presents a catalogue of stressors, both acute and chronic. Acute stressors, such as a sudden family bereavement or the anxiety experienced before an Ofsted inspection by a primary school teacher, generate intense but typically short-lived pressures. Conversely, chronic stressors—the sort that persist over months or years—are perhaps even more pernicious. Persistent job insecurity, complicated family dynamics, economic disadvantage and social deprivation, as highlighted in countless UK charities’ reports, represent just a handful of examples.In recent years, the influence of modern technology has exponentially increased the daily ‘noise’ people must process. Negative interactions on platforms like Twitter can fuel persistent low-level stress, particularly for adolescents. Figures from the Mental Health Foundation suggest a marked rise in anxiety among young people correlating with increased social media exposure, suggesting that the digital landscape has become an additional, ever-present stressor.
Psychological and Cognitive Causes
It is not merely what happens to us, but how we interpret it, that shapes the stress response. The transactional model of stress, developed by Lazarus and Folkman—widely studied in the UK as part of A-Level psychology—emphasises the importance of appraisal. One student might see a demanding coursework deadline as an opportunity to shine, another as a looming disaster. These cognitive evaluations determine whether the situation is experienced as a threat or a challenge.Furthermore, certain personality traits increase vulnerability to stress. The so-called Type A personality (characterised by competitiveness and impatience), for instance, has been linked to a higher risk of stress-related illness, as famously explored in British heart disease studies from the 1970s. Similarly, individuals with high levels of neuroticism or low self-esteem—a common focus in the works of British psychologists such as Hans Eysenck—may appraise situations as overwhelming and struggle to cope adaptively.
Social and Cultural Influences
Social context exerts a profound influence on the causes and experience of stress. The presence or absence of social support can make crises either manageable or unbearable. Research conducted by the University of Sheffield, for example, found that university students with strong peer networks reported significantly lower stress during exam periods than their isolated counterparts.Cultural attitudes also shape how stress is recognised and coped with. In some British communities, stiff-upper-lip stoicism still prevails, potentially discouraging individuals from seeking help. Simultaneously, there is increasing visibility of stress as a legitimate health concern, reflected in campaigns by Mind and other mental health organisations to destigmatise stress-related illness.
Interaction of Causes
Ultimately, stress arises out of an intricate interplay of biology, environment, cognition, and social context. No two experiences of stress are identical—for example, two nurses in the same A&E ward may have different genetic sensitivities, different family support, and varying interpretations of workplace pressures. This complexity highlights the need for holistic approaches in both research and practice.---
Overview of Methods for Measuring Stress
Self-report Measures
Among the most common means of assessing stress are self-report questionnaires, such as the Perceived Stress Scale (commonly used in NHS settings) or daily diaries. These tools are simple, inexpensive, and provide valuable insight into the subjective experience of stress over time. However, self-reports are susceptible to social desirability bias—participants may underreport stress to appear resilient—or to memory distortions. A British study on medical students found that reported stress varied greatly depending on how questions were framed and the time elapsed since the stressful event.Behavioural Measures
Behavioural indicators of stress—such as fidgeting, nail-biting, or frequent absences—offer another window into how individuals respond. Classroom observations in several UK secondary schools, for instance, have shown increases in off-task behaviour and irritability during exam periods. While these behaviours can highlight who is struggling, they are not always specific to stress and can be influenced by a range of unrelated factors, such as tiredness or boredom.Physiological Measures
Physiological measures arguably offer the most objective approach to assessing stress. These include monitoring heart rate, blood pressure, galvanic skin response (electrical changes in the skin due to sweating), and hormone levels—particularly cortisol—using saliva, urine, or blood samples. For advanced research, techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalogram (EEG) are sometimes employed to observe stress-related changes in brain activity. In British labs, the Trier Social Stress Test—originally developed in Germany but widely adapted in the UK—regularly relies on such measures to track participants’ physical responses to public speaking tasks.Combining Multiple Measures
Given the limitations of any single approach, combining subjective, behavioural, and physiological measures allows researchers to construct a more nuanced picture of stress. For example, a study of junior doctors at a London hospital coupled self-report scales with saliva cortisol and heart-rate monitoring, offering a holistic understanding of both felt experience and bodily reaction.---
In-depth Evaluation of Physiological Measures of Stress
Advantages
Physiological measures of stress stand out for their objectivity and precision. Unlike personal accounts, which can be coloured by memory or a desire to please, heart rate and cortisol readings are quantifiable and comparable. They also capture subconscious responses—someone may insist they are unaffected by an impending job interview, but a spike in blood pressure or sweaty palms may suggest otherwise.Baseline measures further strengthen reliability; by comparing an individual's typical (resting) physiological state with readings taken after exposure to a stressor, researchers can attribute changes more confidently to external events. The rigorous, scientific case linking stress to heart disease rests significantly on such evidence, as in the seminal Whitehall Studies.
Limitations and Challenges
Despite these strengths, physiological approaches are not without major pitfalls. Bodily arousal is provoked not just by stress, but also excitement, fear, caffeine, or even minor infections, muddying interpretation. A student’s elevated heart rate might owe more to a pre-exam energy drink than anxiety itself.These tests may also be intrusive. Being strapped to sensors or providing biological samples can make participants feel uncomfortable or watched, ironically inducing stress. Such concerns have been raised in ethical reviews of hospital-based sleep studies and mental health research at British universities.
Furthermore, physiological data, devoid of context, risks missing the subjective meaning of an experience. Two colleagues might show similar spikes in blood pressure after a team meeting—but for one, those feelings are tied to anger, for the other, excitement.
Timing, too, is critical. Hormone levels like cortisol have a natural rhythm—peaking in the morning and dropping at night—so a measurement taken at the wrong hour might mislead. Researchers must standardise collection times or risk confounding variables. Saliva samples present a non-invasive alternative to blood, but results can still be affected by factors such as eating or dental hygiene.
Specific Considerations about Hormonal Measures
Cortisol is a biomarker of choice, especially for chronic stress. However, the collection method matters; saliva is easy but sometimes less reliable, while blood draws are more accurate but invasive. Diurnal fluctuation (the "cortisol awakening response") means one must control timing carefully, a challenge especially in large-scale field studies.Ethical Considerations
Ethical guidelines, such as those from the British Psychological Society, require full informed consent and safeguarding participant welfare. Researchers must balance scientific gain with the discomfort involved in biological monitoring, particularly with sensitive groups like children or psychiatric patients. Confidentiality considerations become paramount with biological specimens, necessitating strict data protection protocols.---
Practical Applications and Implications
Research Context
Physiological measures have illuminated how stress “gets under the skin”, elucidating processes behind cardiovascular disease, weakened immunity, and mental health conditions. British research combining physiological markers with qualitative assessments has deepened understanding of the interplay between feelings, behaviour, and bodily changes, underscoring the value of multifaceted approaches.Clinical and Workplace Settings
In clinical practice, objective measurements of stress support diagnosis and inform interventions—from monitoring the progress of treatments like cognitive behavioural therapy, to evaluating the impact of staff wellbeing programmes in the NHS. Workplace initiatives, such as stress management through biofeedback or mindfulness, increasingly utilise wearable technology to give feedback on physiological arousal.Future Developments
Technological advances promise less obtrusive, continuous stress monitoring via smartwatches and sensors. British start-ups are already piloting mobile devices that detect stress-related changes in heart rate variability, flagging the need for rest or intervention. Coupled with AI-driven big data analytics, these hold promise for tailoring support to individual stress profiles.---
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in