Social support and social structure

The burgeoning study of social support in relation to social stress and health would benefit from increased attention to issues of social structure. Three aspects of social relationships, all often referred to as social support, must be more clearly distinguished—(1) their existence or quantity (i.e., social integration), (2) their formal structure (i.e., social networks), and (3) their functional or behavioral content (i.e., the most precise meaning of “social support”)—and the causal relationships between the structure of social relationships (social integration and networks) and their functional content (social support) must be more clearly understood. Research and theory are needed on the determinants of social integration, networks, and support as well as their consequences for stress and health. Among potential determinants, macrosocial structures and processes particularly merit attention.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45658/1/11206_2005_Article_BF01107897.pd

Work stress, nonwork stress, and health

This paper examines the interface between work stress and nonwork stress and how it relates to health. Results indicate that the way people feel at work is largely a function of conditions at work. Similarly, the way people feel outside of work is largely a function of things that occur outside the job. Both work and nonwork stress are independently associated with physical and mental health, although the relationship between nonwork stress and health is slightly stronger. Excessive demands or stresses in one domain can interfere with life in the other. Such conflict operates equally in both directions. When present it can be an added source of stress and adversely affect health. Taken together these findings suggest that the stress people experience at work is not simply a reflection of their “personal problems.” This has implications for the design of health promotion and stress prevention programs in the workplace.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/44811/1/10865_2004_Article_BF00846832.pd

Stress exposure and sensitivity in the clinical high-risk syndrome: Initial findings from the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS)

There is inconsistent evidence for increased stress exposure among individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis. Yet, similar to patients with a diagnosed psychotic illness, the preponderance of evidence suggests that CHR individuals tend to experience stressful life events (LE) and daily hassles (DH) as more subjectively stressful than healthy individuals. The present study utilizes data from the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study Phase 2 (NAPLS-2) to test the hypotheses that 1) CHR individuals manifest higher self-reported stress in response to both LE and DH, when compared to healthy controls (HC), 2) group differences in self-reported stress increase with age, 3) baseline self-reported stress is associated with follow-up clinical status, and 4) there is a sensitization effect of LE on the response to DH. In contrast to some previous research, the present findings indicate that the CHR group (N= 314) reported exposure to more LE when compared to the HC group (N=162). As predicted, CHR participants rated events as more stressful, and those who progressed to psychosis reported a greater frequency of LE and greater stress from events compared to those whose prodromal symptoms remitted. There was also some evidence of stress-sensitization; those who experienced more stress from LE rated current DH as more stressful. The results indicate that the “prodromal” phase is a period of heightened stress and stress sensitivity, and elevated cumulative lifetime exposure to stressful events may increase reactions to current stressors