Defining Stress: Learn It 1—What Is Stress?

  • Understand the difference between stimulus-based and response-based stress and the difference between good stress and bad stress
  • Describe different types of stressors, the connection between stressors, job strain, and job burnout

The term stress as it relates to the human condition first emerged in scientific literature in the 1930s, but it did not enter the popular vernacular until the 1970s (Lyon, 2012). We use stress to describe many unpleasant states—feeling overwhelmed, angry, exhausted, or stuck. Researchers, too, have struggled to agree on a single definition. Two classic approaches dominate: stimulus‑based and response‑based views.

what is stress?

According to the stimulus-based definition of stress, stress is a stimulus that causes certain reactions.

  • In this definition, stress is a demanding or threatening event or situation (e.g., a high-stress job, overcrowding, and long commutes to work).

  • The issue with this view is that the same situation can feel very different to different people (or to the same person on different days).

In response-based definitions of stress, the focus is on the physiological responses that occur when faced with demanding or threatening situations (e.g., increased arousal). In other words, stress is a response to environmental conditions. 

  • Hans Selye, a famous stress researcher, once defined stress as the “response of the body to any demand, whether it is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions” (Selye, 1976, p. 74). 
  • This view captures physiology, but it cannot explain why similar bodily changes also occur with good news (e.g., an unexpected promotion).

Stress as a Process: Appraisal Matters

A widely used definition treats stress as a process: we perceive and respond to events we judge as overwhelming or threatening to well‑being. Our cognitive appraisal—how we interpret the event—shapes what we feel and do next. Two appraisals are key.

primary and secondary appraisals

  • Primary appraisal: Is this a challenge or a threat?

    • Challenge → potential for growth or gain.

    • Threat → potential for harm, loss, or negative consequences.

  • Secondary appraisal: What can I do about it?  We judge our coping options and their likely effectiveness (closely tied to self‑efficacy—belief in one’s ability to handle the task). If we see effective options, the same event feels less catastrophic.

A concept map begins with a box titled “Stressor” at the top with an arrow underneath that leads to a box labeled “Primary appraisal: challenge or threat?” Below “Primary appraisal: challenge or threat?” is a line leading to the word “challenge” on the left side and “threat” on the right side. Below the word “challenge” is a box labeled “Potential for gain or growth.” There are no additional lines, arrows, or boxes under “Potential for gain or growth.” Below the word “threat,” there is a box labeled “May lead to harm, loss, or negative consequences.” Underneath the box, there is an arrow leading to another box labeled “Secondary appraisal: potential options and how effective?” The box has a line underneath that leads to the words “effective option” on the left side and “ineffective/no option” on the right side. Below the words “effective option,” there is an arrow leading to a box labeled “Low threat.” Below the words “ineffective/no option,” there is an arrow leading to a box labeled “High threat.”
Figure 2. When encountering a stressor, a person judges its potential threat (primary appraisal) and then determines if effective options are available to manage the situation (secondary appraisal). Stress is likely to result if a stressor is perceived as extremely threatening or threatening with few or no effective coping options available.
Imagine the experience of two middle-aged women, Robin and Maria. They both found a lump on their breast. Although both women viewed the breast lump as a potential threat (primary appraisal), their secondary appraisals differed considerably.

In considering the breast lump, some of the thoughts racing through Robin’s mind were, “Oh my God, I could have breast cancer! What if the cancer has spread to the rest of my body and I cannot recover? What if I have to go through chemotherapy? I’ve heard that experience is awful! What if I have to quit my job? My husband and I won’t have enough money to pay the mortgage. Oh, this is just horrible…I can’t deal with it!”

On the other hand, Maria thinks, “Hmm, this may not be good. Although most times these things turn out to be benign, I need to have it checked out. If it turns out to be breast cancer, there are doctors who can take care of it because the medical technology today is quite advanced. I’ll have a lot of different options, and I’ll be just fine.”

Clearly, Robin and Maria have different outlooks on what might turn out to be a very serious situation: Robin seems to think that little could be done about it, whereas Maria believes that, worst-case scenario, a number of options are likely to be effective would be available. As such, Robin would clearly experience greater stress than would Maria.

To be sure, some stressors are inherently more stressful than others in that they are more threatening and leave less potential for variation in cognitive appraisals (e.g., objective threats to one’s health or safety). Nevertheless, the appraisal will still play a role in augmenting or diminishing our reactions to such events (Everly & Lating, 2002).

Think of a time in which you and others you know (family members, friends, and classmates) experienced an event that some viewed as threatening and others viewed as challenging. What were some of the differences in the reactions of those who experienced the event as threatening compared to those who viewed the event as challenging? Why do you think there were differences in how these individuals judged the same event?