2010 Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Journal of Management
http://jom.sagepub.com/ Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress: An Integrative Theoretical Approach to Work Stress
James A. Meurs and Pamela L. Perrew Journal of Management published online 5 November 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0149206310387303 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/04/0149206310387303
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Southern Management Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010
Journal of Management Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX xx-xx DOI: 10.1177/0149206310387303 The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress: An Integrative Theoretical Approach to Work Stress

James A. Meurs
University of Mississippi
Pamela L. Perrew
Florida State University
Workplace stress consistently has received a substantial amount of attention from practitioners and researchers alike. Many occupational health scholars have developed or contributed to our understanding of models detailing theoretical approaches to an individuals experience of stress. Although these theories have improved our understanding of occupational stress, these conceptualizations of stress and much of the subsequent stress research based on these models have been limited in their ability to fully explain individual experience. Organizational stress research could benefit from an integrative approach that seeks to incorporate both the positive aspects and the more traditional negative aspects of the stress experience. Organizational stress researchers should look to a recently elaborated stress theory developed outside of the organizational sciences (i.e., cognitive activation theory of stress) to provide the theoretical framing necessary for such research. The implications of integrating this theory into the organizational sciences are discussed and several avenues for future occupational stress research are provided based on this new conceptualization. Keywords: stress; perseverative cognition; occupational health; learning; expectancy
Acknowledgments: We would like to express our gratitude to Drs. Jos F. Brosschot, Hege R. Eriksen, and Holger Ursin for their valuable feedback on previous versions of this article. We also would like to thank Dr. Mark Griffin and the two anonymous reviewers for their advice and assistance throughout the review process. Corresponding author: James A. Meurs, School of Business Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677 Email: jmeurs@bus.olemiss.edu 1
Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Over the course of several decades, occupational stress research has emerged into a prominent field in the organizational sciences. A recent 15-year review of occupational health psychology research in three major journals, by Macik-Frey, Quick, and Nelson (2007), indicated that the stress perspective dominates the field. Based upon the early theorizing and empirical testing of a few prominent stress scholars (e.g., Cannon, 1932; Elliott & Eisdorfer, 1982; Selye, 1951-1956, 1955, 1974), researchers have proposed various models in an attempt to explain the stress experiences of individuals (e.g., Hobfoll, 1989; Karasek, 1979; Lazarus, 1966; Siegrist, 1996). Early stress researchers argued that stressful experiences did not necessarily demonstrate a damaging effect on the individual. Cannon (1932) suggested that initial or low levels of stressors could be endured but that prolonged or severe stressors resulted in biological breakdown. Selye (1955) articulated the stress experience as a process of adaptation, arguing for what he termed the general adaptation syndrome. According to Selye, the stages of the stress process progress from an alarm reaction to the situation, to resistance to the stressor, to exhaustion. Selye (1955) argued that stress is an important part of life and elaborated that stress is not necessarily negative; thus, stress is not always an experience to be avoided (Selye, 1974). Instead, some stressful experiences (i.e., eustress) can be associated with positive feelings and health. However, the most prominent occupational stress theories developed since that time focus predominantly on the negative consequences of stressors. In our zeal to find the problems of workplaces or individuals, stress researchers largely neglected to consider the adaptive effects of stress. This conclusion is strikingly similar to Seligman and Csikszentmihalyis (2000) contention that for too many years psychology had highlighted the negatives, resulting in their call for research into positive psychology. In the same way that researchers in the psychology field have sought to heal damaged people and, thus, have ignored the characteristics of life that result in flourishing (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), so too until recently have most stress theorists and researchers neglected the aspects of stress that can lead to individual growth. If stress is a necessary and potentially positive aspect of life, then stress research should consider what aspects of stressful experiences help to make life worth living. We argue that, unfortunately, stress researchers have focused their attention predominately on the downsides of workplace stressors. This concentration on the negative is understandable, given the high cost of overwhelming stress to both the individual and the organization (Macik-Frey, Quick, Quick, & Nelson, 2009). However, over a decade ago, Ryff and Singer (1998) argued that stress researchers and health professionals tend to define health and well-being as the absence of negative states rather than the presence of positive states. Further, there has been a recent call for occupational health and stress researchers to place a greater emphasis on the factors that exhibit a positive effect on health and psychological well-being (Macik-Frey et al., 2007; Macik-Frey et al., 2009). Psychological well-being encompasses a number of factors, including autonomy, personal growth, mastery, purpose in life, self-acceptance, efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience (Avey, Luthans, Smith, & Palmer, 2010; Ryff, Singer, & Love, 2004). Clearly, this is more than simply the absence of negative states. We propose that organizational scholars incorporate into their research a theory of individual stress, the cognitive activation theory of stress (CATS; Ursin & Eriksen, 2004), that
Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress
can account for the adaptive aspects and results of workplace stress. We are not suggesting that the adaptive nature of stress is a new discovery; much empirical research recently has been conducted concerning the positives (i.e., health and well-being) of the stress experience. Instead, we believe that this research supports the integration of previous models of occupational stress with CATS to provide a more complete picture of the adaptive characteristics of stressful experiences. In addition, CATS can shed light on two other important issues, namely, the role of time and past experiences in the processing of stressful encounters and how the expected outcome (or outcomes) of a stressful situation drives ones response to stressors. In the sections that follow, we examine the more prominent occupational stress theories and suggest that current approaches are based, in large part, on balance models of stress that provide insufficient explanations for these important issues. Next, we introduce CATS, which is a theory that has been developed within the physiological health literature. We integrate this new (i.e., to the organizational sciences) theory with occupational stress theories and discuss how, by incorporating this new theory, we can advance our understanding of the stress experience in the aforementioned three specific ways. Finally, we conclude with a brief discussion of the directions that this new framework allows for stress researchers.
InfluentialTheoriesofOccupationalStress
It is a sign of confusion in stress research that our primary term (i.e., stress) has been conceptualized as the independent variable, the dependent variable, and the process itself (Cooper, Dewe, & ODriscoll, 2001); further, Hobfoll (1989) detailed how researchers have differed regarding their conceptualizations of stress. However, a widely adopted view of stress considers it to be the experienced condition or feeling when individuals perceive that the demands of a situation exceed their perceived resources and endanger well-being (Lazarus, 1966, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Hence, stress has been thought of as an imbalance between the demands of a situation and the resources available to deal with these demands. This traditional definition seems to have found a consensus of support because it recognizes that stress emerges from the relationship between the person and the environment and it focuses researchers on the process between the two (Cooper et al., 2001). But, as noted below, this definition of stress restricts it to a situation where strain and/or other negative outcomes are the result and, thus, does not allow for a consideration of the adaptive or functional aspects of experienced stress. In this section, we review some of the most prominent work stress theories in the field of organizational behavior and occupational health psychology. We suggest that most of our current approaches to studying occupational stress have been based upon what we have termed balance models. However, we believe that the idea of balance is ill defined and cannot fully explain the adaptive nature of stressful experiences. We briefly discuss four popular approaches to the study of occupational stress: Lazaruss (1991) transactional model, Hobfolls (1989) conservation of resources (COR) theory, the model of effortreward imbalance (ERI) by Siegrist (2001), and the demandscontrol model of job stress by Karasek (1979) and colleagues (Karasek & Theorell, 1990).
Based upon Lazaruss (1991) belief in the primacy of cognition, the transactional model of stress posits that two processes (i.e., cognitive appraisal and coping) mediate between environmental stressors and resulting responses. Stress scholars have continued to use Lazaruss transactional model as their theoretical foundation in empirical studies (e.g., Dewe, Cox, & Ferguson, 1993; van Steenbergen, Ellemers, Haslam, & Urlings, 2008). According to the model, an event in the work environment engages the cognitive appraisal process, or primary appraisal. This consists of an evaluation of whether the event is a threat to the individuals well-being or whether it can be dismissed as benign or perhaps challenging. If the individual perceives a threat to well-being, the secondary appraisal process is engaged to determine if anything can be done to handle the situation. In this secondary appraisal stage, individuals are said to evaluate their available options for coping with the stressor. The transactional model suggests that an imbalance of greater environmental demands than resources to cope with these demands produces strain. According to Hobfolls (1989) COR theory, resources are the objects (e.g., home, vehicles), energies (e.g., money, time, credit), personal characteristics (e.g., self-esteem, mastery), and conditions (e.g., socioeconomic status, valued work role) that are valued by individuals. Stress is said to result from an actual or threatened net loss of resources or from a lack of resource gain following the investment of resources. According to Schaufeli and Bakker (2004: 296), a resource represents physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that serve multiple purposesone of which is to offset the effects of job demands. Theory and empirical work suggest that the effects of stressful situations may be buffered or attenuated if individuals perceive they possess the resources necessary to cope with the stressor (Hochwarter, Perrew, Meurs, & Kacmar, 2007). Similar to the transactional model, COR theory implies that an imbalance of greater environmental demands than resources produces strain. The model of ERI at work is derived from a more general approach toward analyzing the psychosocial dimension of human health and well-being. Siegrist (2001) proposed that personal self-regulation is important for health and well-being in adult life and that this is largely contingent on successful social exchange. The ERI approach focuses on individual appraisals of social reciprocity and social exchange, characterized by mutual cooperative investments based on the norm of return expectancy where efforts are balanced by respective rewards. Failed reciprocity violates this norm and leads to strong negative emotions and sustained strain responses because it threatens the fundamental reciprocity/exchange principle. Further, the ERI model suggests that failed reciprocity (i.e., high efforts spent and low rewards received in turn) is likely to elicit recurrent negative emotions and sustained stress responses in exposed individuals. Although positive emotions evoked by appropriate social rewards and exchanges is argued to promote well-being, health, and survival, the primary focus of research on ERI has been on the appraisal of failed reciprocity and sustained strain (e.g., Preckel, Meinel, Kudielka, Haug, & Fischer, 2007; Siegrist, 1996). In the ERI model, imbalance occurs when one receives fewer rewards than is believed to be deserved (Siegrist, 1996). Finally, the demandscontrol model of job stress was introduced by Karasek (1979) about 30 years ago and has played a dominant role in shaping the research agenda in the field of work stress and health. Control (i.e., decision latitude) includes both the workers authority to make decisions and the breadth of skills that are employed (Karasek, 1979; Verhoeven, Maes, Kraaij, & Joekes, 2003). Karasek argued that in jobs with high control, workers experience low strain if they have low demands, whereas workers play an active or learning role if they
have a job with high demands. Demands are considered an appraisal of the work situation and are primarily psychological in nature (Daniels, Beesley, Cheyne, & Wilmarisiri, 2008). Alternatively, workers with low control have passive jobs if they have low demands but experience high strain if high demands are made of them. Control can be viewed as a type of resource for individuals such that they perceive themselves as having the necessary tools to effectively deal with the demands at work. Although there has been some support for the demandscontrol model (e.g., Taris, Kompier, Geurts, Houtman, & van den Heuvel, 2010), researchers have gravitated to an expanded model. In an update to the original model, Karasek and Theorell (1990) proposed that the demands control model add the component of social support as another critical resource in determining responses to job demands. A number of researchers have tested the role of social support in the demandscontrol model, finding stress-reducing effects (e.g., Karasek, 1990; Kristensen, 1995). However, although the demands-control-social support conceptualization has demonstrated relationships with strain outcomes, only modest support has been found for the buffering effect of controlthat is, at most, demonstrating that in order for control to have a buffering effect, it needs to be matched with the types of demands placed on the individual (Jonge & Dormann, 2006; Van der Doef & Maes, 1998, 1999). We suggest that balance models do not fully explain how experiencing stress can be functional, nor do they address the experience of stress when resources exceed (or meet) the demands encountered. For example, it can be inferred from Karaseks (1979) model that balance is achieved when both demands and control are low or high. But, according to the model, when both are low, the individual is in a position of passivity, whereas when both are high, a person is in a more active role. Certainly, while both of these situations achieve balance, the distinction between passive and active roles suggests different outcomes for the individual and different processes leading to these outcomes. However, these differences are not entirely elaborated in this model. In addition, although containing an active or learning situation (i.e., high control and high demands), the focus of the demandscontrol model is on lessening strain rather than increasing learning or activity. Within the Karasek (1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) model, the learning or active role is engaged only if control and/or support are also present at sufficient levels. The implication is that if this is not the case, strain is experienced. In other words, it could have been proposed that demands lead to activity or learning except when something (e.g., lack of control or support) changes that relationship to cause strain. However, the framing of the model places the emphasis on mitigating strain rather than on promoting learning or activity. This distinction may seem to be merely an issue of focus, but we contend that a theoretical model crafted to explain how one learns from stressful encounters would propose constructs and relationships different from those of a model developed to address the mitigation of strain. Similarly, as noted above, the transactional model and COR theory imply that an imbalance of greater environmental demands than resources produces strain (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000; Lazarus, 1966, 2001), and in the ERI model, imbalance occurs when one receives fewer rewards than is believed to be deserved (Siegrist, 1996). But what about the situations where resources meet or exceed demands or where rewards are proportional to or greater than effort? Strain might not be the predominant outcome of such situations, yet the experience of stress is still a part of them. Simply because one is able to manage a stressful
situation with the resources at ones disposal does not mean that it is not stressful to utilize those resources in handling the stressor. Also, even if an individual appraises that rewards will exceed effort, effort must still be made, and with effort comes the stress experience. Stress occurs regardless of the outcome of the stressful encounter. However, likely because of our understandable eagerness to assist employees with the management of workplace stress, our theories have assumed that stress happens only when strain, or another negative outcome, is the result. Thus, even a traditional definition of stress, as given above, suggests this is the case. Consequently, these balance theories neither fully explain the processing of experiences that do not result in overwhelming strain nor do they elucidate their results. However, it is likely the case that individuals experience many such stressful situations throughout the typical workday. To better understand the experience of stress, research needs to include the entirety of stress, and as noted above, scholars have begun to consider the positives of health and well-being. In addition, these balance models specify neither the impact of previous encounters on a present stressful situation nor the duration of a stress experience. However, just as others have noted the importance of prior experiences on present encounters (e.g., Daniels, Harris, & Briner, 2004; Warr, 2006), we argue that past situations impact present ones in a variety of ways, such as through the accumulation of resources, the evaluation of stressors, or the changing of expected outcomes in the present situation based upon previous ones. Moreover, although scholars have begun to empirically analyze issues related to the duration of stress (i.e., stress recovery; e.g., Sonnentag, Perrew, & Ganster, 2009), balance theories are not entirely capable of accounting for these phenomena. Finally, although expectancy has played an important role in motivation research (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999), we believe that stress research has mostly neglected the vital role that future expectations play in present stress experiences. In sum, although providing at least a partial explanation of the consequences of an inability to cope (i.e., strain), these models provide insufficient explanations for three very important aspects of stressful experiences: (1) whether and how individuals adapt and learn from experienced stress, (2) the role of time and past experiences in the processing of stressful encounters, and (3) how the expected outcome (or outcomes) of a stressful situation influences response to stressors. As noted above and discussed below, empirical research already has begun to partially address these issues, and we believe that, in order to more completely understand the stress experience, research would benefit from a conceptual foundation that provides the framing for such research. The following discussion examines CATS, which is a theory of stress that we believe has strong implications for occupational stress research. Further, we provide a general illustration of our interpretation and integration of the CATS framework in work stress research in Figure 1.
CognitiveActivationTheoryofStressandPerseverativeCognition
Overview
Although the experience may produce discomfort for the individual, arousal and stress are vital to the operation of complex brains (Ursin, 2005), and CATS (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004)
Figure1 AnIntegrativeTheoreticalApproachtoWorkStress
Learning Resources Feedback Regarding Outcome Expectancy Conscious Anticipated Outcome Positive Expectancy Stressors Appraisal Negative Expectancy Distortion of Stressor Expectancy Prolonged Behavioral Response Straining Effects (Sustained Activation) Brief Behavioral Response Training Effects (Phasic Activation)
Learning
Subconscious Psychological Defense
suggests that repeated experiences with a stimulus allows individuals to adapt and regulate themselves. The purpose of arousal is to compel the individual to remove the source of the stress alarm and the alarm itself, similar to how it has been argued that the function of affect is to direct action (Frijda, 1986). Or, if not removed, the individual then is able to sustain the activation necessary to handle the stressor. Consequently, the stress experience is part of an adaptive and beneficial system that has survived the test of evolution. CATS argues that because the stress alarm occurs when there is a discrepancy between what is desired and what is reality, individuals will associate a probability with the likelihood of abolishing the alarm and its source. This expectancy will have a strong influence on the level of arousal. At its simplest, if the person has control and expects a desired outcome, then the alarm will not be activated (i.e., stressors will not be felt, psychologically or physiologically). However, if the future is unpredictable and/or an individual does not have the necessary resources to handle the demands, then the alarm is activated. Further, there are instances (e.g., avoidant coping, learned helplessness) when individuals do not possess the necessary resources to handle the situation and remove themselves from it, thus engaging a passive response that provokes a positive outcome expectation, reducing stress activation. Much like previous research (e.g., Daniels et al., 2004; Lazarus, 1999) has argued for the importance of appraisal and cognition to stress and coping, clearly, the cognitive appraisal of a stress experience is a critical element of CATS. In the field of cognition, much research also has examined the importance of appraisal. For instance, it has been argued that appraisals are
based on mental models that are a simplified representation of the self and the environment and that individuals make appraisals through either a controlled or an automatic mechanism of processing information (Power & Dalgleish, 1997). Also, Warr (2006) suggested that when individuals appraise their environments, they judge the environment either intentionally or through routine habit. In a similar vein, CATS (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004) holds that appraisals involve the development of future expectations.
Expectancies
According to CATS (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004), appraisals made by individuals are determinations of expectancies, which can be divided into either stimulus or outcome expectancies. Stimulus expectancies concern the understanding that a particular stressor leads to a particular event, and it provides individuals with the ability to psychologically defend against or distort the stressor. Outcome expectancies connect a response to a stressful situation with an outcome from that response, and individuals develop outcome expectancies that represent positive (i.e., coping), negative (i.e., hopeless), or no (i.e., helpless) expectancy; each of these are detailed below. Carver and Scheier (1990) argued that individuals self-regulate to minimize the discrepancies between expectations and their present state. Further, they stated that expectancies about ones eventual outcome play an important role in whether a response to a challenge is to exert effort to attain a goal or to disengage from such attempts. CATS can be thought of as an extension of this theory because it suggests that the expected favorability of an outcome is critical to determining how a person responds to stressors (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). When a person anticipates that a chosen response to a stressor will lead to a positive outcome, that individual is coping. Thus, coping involves beliefs both that actions taken in response to a stressor can affect an outcome and that these actions will affect the outcome in a positive (i.e., desirable) fashion. Although this conception of coping may seem to be a radical departure from previous theory, it is related to the expectancy theory of motivation. In theories of motivation, expectancy has been defined as the subjective belief that a given effort will lead to a specific outcome on the job. Expectancies are judgments about the relationships between given levels of effort and outcomes (Fudge & Schlacter, 1999; Vroom, 1964). Thus, it is the expectation that effort will lead to a valued outcome that is the motivating force (House, Shapiro, & Wahba, 1974; Wahba & House, 1974). Similarly, the expected outcome is the motivating force for the behavioral response to stressors. As noted by Ursin (1998), although the term coping has been used for the strategy selected or actions taken when confronting a stressful situation (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), it is only when it is used for the expected results from these strategies that coping is predictive of health. For example, in a sample of parachutists, Ursin, Baade, and Levine (1978) found that reported fear and endocrine responses were reduced after the first training session, prior to performance reaching an acceptable level. Thus, neither successful performance nor feedback from performance of parachuting reduced arousal; it was the expectation of being able to perform that decreased the stress response. Similarly, a recent study (i.e., Moreno-Jimenez, Rodriguez-Munoz, Pastor, Sanz-Vergel, & Garrosa, 2009)
found that being psychologically detached from work, compared to being low in psychological detachment from work, resulted in lower psychological strain when facing workplace bullying, suggesting the potentially adaptive nature (i.e., positive outcome expectancy) of avoidant coping. In both of these example studies, individuals were psychologically and/or physiologically coping with the stressful situation because they expected their actions to lead to a positive outcome, not because they engaged in particular actions that uniformly across situations would be considered coping behaviors. In other words, coping is neither a strategy nor a behavior, but instead, it is the adoption of an expected and positive outcome, regardless of the actions (e.g., problem-focused actions, avoidant behavior) one has or has not taken or will take in response to a stressor. Helplessness describes a situation where an individual perceives no relationship between his or her actions and the outcome from a stressful encounter; it is similar to stating that one feels no control or influence over the outcome. Although normally producing increased stress activation, in a prolonged state of helplessness individuals may experience reduced arousal, particularly if it leads to some form of subsequent gain or support from others. In such situations, helplessness would be similar to coping. However, hopelessness can be considered the opposite of coping because it occurs when someones responses to stressors have results, but the effects are perceived as entirely negative. An expectancy of failure also has been connected to hopelessness by motivation researchers (e.g., Weiner, 2010). Further, the expectancies that individuals maintain can be quantified via three dimensions: strength, perceived probability, and affective value (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). The strength of an expectation stems from the salience of the stressful event, the contiguity and number of the events occurrences, and the frequency with which they occur together. The perceived probability concerning stimulus expectancies can be thought of as predictability, whereas for outcome expectancies, it is similar to perceived control or understanding. Lastly, the affective value of an expectancy describes the hedonic value (i.e., positive, negative, neutral) of the expected outcome. Variation in stimulus expectancies stems from psychological defense and distortion (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). This psychological defense is a cognitive filter mechanism that denies or distorts the reality of the stressor based on the level of strength, probability, and value placed on it. As described above, outcome expectancies can be positive (i.e., coping), such as when the strength, probability, and value of the expectancy are high and positive (i.e., instrumental coping) or when the strength and probability are high and positive and the value is high and negative (i.e., avoidant coping). Thus, again, coping is not an action but rather the establishment of positive response outcome expectancies. These characterizations of expectancies also allow for formal differentiations, concerning their relationship to stress experiences, between the emotions of fear, safety, and anxiety, which are all related to future expectancies (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). Fear is high arousal produced by a circumstance where the affective value of a stressor is highly negative and the perceived probability of it happening is high. Although a highly probable event would usually lead to low arousal, because of the highly unattractive nature of this situation, fear is felt. However, when the perceived probability of this undesirable event is low, arousal is low and feelings of safety arise. Finally, when there is uncertainty about the probability of an event (i.e., probability is roughly at chance level), anxiety is produced.
10
The CATS Explanation of the Stress Process

As discussed by Ursin and Eriksen (2004), CATS proposes four components to the stress process. The first part is the stress stimuli (i.e., stressors), or load. It is argued that it is not the physical characteristics of a stimulus that elicit the stress response (Levine & Ursin, 1991) but a persons appraisal (i.e., the second stage in the process) based on (previous) experience and (future) expectations that translates a situation into a stressful experience. Certainly, some stressors would be regarded as negative across persons, time, and situation. However, individual and situational differences (e.g., prior learning, personality, contextual setting) are likely to influence evaluations of most stressors. Second in the stress process is the stress experience (i.e., appraised and felt stress). The stressors most often reported in the literature are those that stem from the stress experience itself. These are the physical, physiological, psychological, and emotional loads or demands felt by the individual that are reported as stress to the extent that they are deemed a loss or a threat. It is this feeling of stress that some could argue is the most relevant to occupational stress, and as noted by Ursin and Eriksen (2004), it is what is reported on job stress questionnaires when individuals are asked whether something is a source of stress. The respondent is reporting the expectancies developed for this situation or source of stress. Similarly, Jex, Beehr, and Roberts (1992) suggested that survey measures using the word stress are likely to assess respondents postappraisal evaluations of the stressor, not merely the presence of the stressor. The third part is the individuals general response (alarm) to the stress experience. Similarly, Selye (1955) argued that an alarm reaction occurs prior to adaptation. In this phase, as argued by Ursin and Eriksen (2004), the individual has an increase in arousal, and there is a specific response to handle the cause of the alarm. Like above, individual and situational differences play a role in the alarm reaction (e.g., strength and duration of alarm) elicited in the individual during this stage. Because arousal affects many physiological systems, this is the most reliable and consistent part of the process to analyze (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). As argued by Ursin and Eriksen (2004), examining stress alarm behaviors, such as coping behaviors, coping strategies, or ways of coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), is problematic because these behaviors can occur under different degrees of arousal and future expectancy. Also, it is too simplistic to argue that certain coping behaviors are necessarily always adaptive (e.g., problem-focused coping) or maladaptive (e.g., emotion-focused coping), because the response to the stressor is determined by expectations of whether coping (i.e., a positive outcome) will occur, not by the particular coping strategy taken (Eriksen, Murison, Pensgaard, & Ursin, 2005). Consequently, the internal state of the individual, which is predictive of health, is not connected to the coping strategy chosen. The final component of the process is the persons experience (feedback) of the stress response. After responding to a stressor, the individual receives feedback regarding the results of his or her response, and this feedback can influence the feeling of being stressed. Also, the individual can alter the perception of the stressor and/or the outcome expectancies regarding future experiences based upon this feedback. Ursin and Eriksen (2004) suggest that it is often attempted to evaluate feedback through questionnaires, such as those concerning health complaints. But, they contend that respondents would have difficulty distinguishing between the
11
stress experience (Step 2 of the process) and the feedback response because of the feedback loop necessary to the evaluation of stress stimuli. Similarly, Lazarus (1993) argued that four concepts must be elaborated when detailing the stress process, including the stressor (or causal agent); the evaluation of the stressor, differentiating between the stressful and nonstressful components; the processes by which the person copes with these stressful demands; and the effects or stress reactions of the individual (see Dewe, 2001). Although Lazarus (1993: 4) argued that a clear distinction between physiological stress and psychological stress is personal meaning, these core components of the stress process appear to be recognized by psychological, organizational, and physiological scholars.
Perseverative Cognition
Stress theories have focused on the reactions of individuals during stressors and have suggested that the more frequent and stronger responses to stressors are the primary pathogens in stress (Brosschot, Pieper, & Thayer, 2005). Consequently, these theories and the measures developed from them have failed to measure the duration of the stress response (i.e., stress responses before, during, and after the stressful experience), which is likely key in explaining the connection between stressors and outcomes (Brosschot & Thayer, 1998). Certainly, there are some researchers (e.g., Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997; Daniels, et al., 2004; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010) who have endeavored to examine stressful experiences beyond the short term. However, the majority of empirical research has neglected what are likely the major factors in the stress response, namely, anticipatory (i.e., the prolonging of activation preceding a stressor), recovery (i.e., the prolonging of activation immediately following a stressor), and recurrent (i.e., the prolonging of activation after recovery through the stressors mental re-creation by the individual) stress experiences (Brosschot et al., 2005; Pieper & Brosschot, 2005). Further, Pieper and Brosschot suggested that these mental representations of stressors could be characterized as perseverative cognitive processes that act to prolong the experience of stress. CATS argues that health is threatened only by sustained activation, not by short-term arousal. As discussed in greater detail below, this suggests that short-term (phasic) activation has training effects, whereas sustained activation produces strain. However, not long after CATS was proposed, Brosschot et al. (2005) noted that stress theories have neglected to explain the cause of sustained physiological activation. For example, although CATS suggests that negative expectancy produces sustained activation, what causes negative expectancy to be prolonged? Eriksen and Ursin (2006: 63) suggested that the protraction of negative expectancy is due in part to sensitization, increased efficiency in a neural circuit, in response to stressors and to a cognitive mirror of sensitization. Brosschot and colleagues (2005) elaborated the argument concerning this cognitive counterpart by arguing that individuals only experience prolonged activation when they continue to lend support to their negative outcome expectancies, and by focusing or ruminating on these stressors, individuals are prolonging their experience of stressful events. Brosschot and colleagues (2005) offered a detailed description of the prolonging of stressful experiences, arguing that extended activation is the result of a cognitive representation of
12
stressors they termed perseverative cognition. It is worth noting that Pieper and Brosschot (2005) suggest that at least part of the perseverating occurs when an individual is unconscious, such as during sleep. Thus, the concept of perseverative cognition provides a more thorough explanation of the mechanism underlying the prolonging of stressors than that provided in CATS, and consequently, it is a useful addition to this theory. We suggest that, within our framework in Figure 1, perseverative cognition represents an individual characteristic or resource that clearly could have a detrimental influence on the experience of stress. Although in general prior stress research has conceptualized resources as only beneficial for the individual, we contend that researchers should recognize that resources not only can mitigate but also can exacerbate stressful experiences through their impact on expectancies of and responses to stressful encounters. We will provide a further discussion of resources in our directions for future research.
Empirical Support of CATS and Perseverative Cognition

Although little research has provided direct tests of the importance of anticipatory stress, in a study examining cortisol stress response (Gaab, Rohleder, Nater, & Ehlert, 2005), personality factors (i.e., competence and control orientation) were found to influence cortisol response through situation-specific appraisal (i.e., anticipatory stress). In addition, anticipatory cognitive appraisal demonstrated a stronger relationship with cortisol response than did personality or retrospective cognitive appraisal. These results support arguments for the importance of anticipating stress on the biological stress response. Cognitive perseveration is evidenced in the constructs of worry and rumination, which are thought to be related to the delayed disengagement from threatening information. Some research (i.e., Pieper, Brosschot, Van der Leeden, & Thayer, 2007) supports the belief that worry might have a stronger relationship with health than with stressful events, because the experience of worry about a stressor generally is longer than that of the event itself. Pieper and colleagues found that worry episodes, particularly those concerning work episodes and future stressors, and stressful events had similar and independent associations with elevated heart rate and decreased heart rate variability, even after adding biobehavioral constructs (i.e., gender, age, body mass, and negative health behaviors), trait factors (i.e., worry, depression, anxiety, and hostility), and job strain to their statistical model. Another study (i.e., Brosschot, van Dijk, & Thayer, 2007) found that worry demonstrated a greater impact on heart rate and heart rate variability than did the stressors (i.e., annoying or disturbing events). Worry and rumination also have been linked either directly or indirectly to important health outcomes, such as sleep quality, increased cortisol, higher heart rate, and increased mortality (see Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006; Brosschot & Thayer, 2004). Also, a study (i.e., Verkuil, Brosschot, Putman, & Thayer, 2009) provided support for the contention that pathological (anxious) worry is related to an inadequate ability to prevent or disengage from the processing of threatening information, and this deficit could be an indicator of perseverative cognition. It also has been shown that trait worry accounts for only a partial explanation of daily worry (Verkuil, Brosschot, & Thayer, 2007).
13
Further, in a study assessing heart rate response after negative and positive emotions, Brosschot and Thayer (2003) found that heart rate activity after a negative emotional experience was longer than heart rate activity after a positive episode, suggesting that a primary distinction between the effects of positive and negative emotional responses could be the ability of negative emotions to prolong the experience of the stressor. Also, studies have demonstrated the role of rumination in, for instance, experiences of anger (Ray, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2008), anxiety and depression symptoms (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000), and major depression (Kuehner & Weber, 1999). The research findings concerning worry, negative emotions, and rumination suggest that regardless of whether a future, stressful event occurs, an inability to prevent the mind from dwelling on this possibility is a strong predictor of negative health outcomes. Further, we would suggest that in an organizational setting, employees who engage in worry and rumination are more likely to interpret job stressors (e.g., deadlines, interpersonal conflict) with negative expectancies (i.e., hopelessness and helplessness) such that they believe either they will fail or that there is nothing they can do about the stressor. Positive and negative outcome expectancies, as described by CATS, are similar to optimism and pessimism, respectively. Optimism and pessimism have been argued to be generalized outcome expectancies (OConnor & Cassidy, 2007), describing whether an individual expects positive or negative experiences in the future (Carver & Scheier, 1998). Across two cross-sectional studies, it was demonstrated that positive expectations buffered the relationship between stress and hopelessness, such that those experiencing high perceived stress who reported greater positive future thoughts reported lower hopelessness than did those experiencing high stress and fewer positive thoughts (OConnor, OConnor, OConnor, Smallwood, & Miles, 2004). OConnor and Cassidy (2007) found that these general expectancies can be moderated by specific outcome expectancies. One particularly interesting finding was that, for pessimists experiencing stress, high levels of positive future thinking about specific events was related to increased hopelessness. This might suggest that when persons who tend to expect negative outcomes (e.g., pessimists) experience stress, they will interpret even positive future expectancies in a negative light. These findings shed light on the strength of generalized outcome expectancies (e.g., worry, rumination, anxiety, pessimism) when individuals face specific, stressful situations.
HowCATSCanInformOurUnderstanding ofOccupationalStress
Arnetz (2005) used the CATS theoretical lens in an organizational setting, finding that the clarity of a departments goals were associated with the stress level (i.e., mental energy and work-related exhaustion) of that departments employees. However, the CATS perspective primarily has been of assistance to nonorganizational phenomena, such as for chronic fatigue syndrome (Wyller, Eriksen, & Malterud, 2009) and for health differences due to socioeconomic status (SES). For example, within the context of CATS, it can be argued that the stress responses that function as mediators between SES and health are determined by
14
the acquired expectancies (i.e., coping or inability to cope) of individuals (Kristenson, Eriksen, Sluiter, Starke, & Ursin, 2004). It could be that, concerning those lower in SES, generally, their response to stress is hampered by an increased difficulty with both recovering after stressors and responding to new ones. In addition, we believe that CATS can provide greater understanding of occupational stressrelated phenomena, regarding areas that have received some research attention and those that research generally has neglected. We suggest that CATS offers a theoretical framework for speaking to three stress-related issues that other occupational stress theories have struggled to address, including whether and how individuals learn from experiences of stress, the role of time in the stress experience, and how expectancies direct ones response to stressors. Below, we explain how we believe CATS can assist organizational researchers in each of these areas, and we then conclude with a review of several potential avenues for future research.
Learning
As noted in a recent review of occupational health research (i.e., Macik-Frey et al., 2007), positive health has not received substantial research attention, and the authors agreed with Wright and Cropanzano (2000) that researchers have instead taken a disease perspective on occupational health issues. The disease perspective has dominated stress research as well. The principal theories (e.g., job demandscontrol support, appraisal, COR) provide substantially more insight into the detrimental effects of strain than into the adaptive aspects of the stress experience. Unlike the negative outcome of stressful encounters (i.e., strain), the occupational stress field does not have a singular concept to describe the potentially favorable aspects of stressful experiences. A number of different variables could be offered as describing the beneficial effects of experienced stress, such as challenge (LePine, LePine, & Saul, 2007), hardiness, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, locus of control, or engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). However, these concepts provide inadequate explanations for the upside of experienced stress. For instance, if engagement is necessarily a positive outcome, it would imply that disengagement or avoidant behaviors are maladaptive, which as argued earlier, is not the case (Moreno-Jimenez et al., 2009). Also, hardiness (Maddi, Harvey, Khoshaba, Lu, Persico, & Brow, 2006) and general self-efficacy (Eden & Kinnar, 1991; Eden & Zuk, 1995) have been conceptualized as stable individual differences, and job satisfaction limits the positive outcomes of stress to the workplace. Even if one were to suggest that these approaches provide adequate explanations for the positives of stressful situations, it is unarguable that, as a whole, empirical organizational stress research has focused attention on the damage to the individual experiencing stress and that our theories of stress have failed to provide a singular concept, to mirror that of strain, that explains the adaptive nature of stressful encounters. CATS provides an avenue for the investigation and explanation of these functional results from stress. Stress is not viewed as detrimental to the individual by default, with the negative effects only mitigated by introducing something positive (e.g., control, social support, resources). Instead, the experience of stress itself has both positive (i.e., training effects) and negative
15
(i.e., straining effects) ramifications for the individual, as driven by expectancies. With that in mind, researchers can investigate how and which resources influence the stress experience, prolonging either negative or positive expectancies as well as behavioral responses. Certainly, outcomes proximal to the stress experience (e.g., job tension, workplace engagement, workfamily conflict) can be indicators of the (mal)adaptive properties of stress, but these represent only one category of variables that would be useful to organizational research. In addition, scholars need to consider the long-term consequences of stressful experiences, and many have investigated the detrimental impact of chronic strain through constructs such as burnout (Halbesleben, 2006). However, what are the long-term consequences of adaptation to stress? Aside from the active role in Karaseks (1979) job demandscontrol model, there has been relatively little theoretical consideration of the healthful aspects of stress by organizational researchers. In the context of CATS, it becomes clear that the positive (i.e., training) results of stress yield a singular, distal construct that provides the connection between stressful encounters and long-term adaptationlearning. Ursin (1998) argued that the most important reason for a decrease in the stress response is that the individual has learned something about the situation, because acquiring expectancies necessitates learning (Ursin & Eriksen, 2010). In other words, individual differences in outcome expectancies are conceptualized as primarily stemming from differences in learning experiences (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). Learning provides a reduction in uncertainty and expectations for future outcomes of stressful encounters, whether they are positive expectancies of coping or negative expectancies (e.g., psychological defense, learned helplessness). Further, the findings from a cross-sectional study of employees at an organization facing downsizing suggest that the survivors of previous organizational changes, which included many of the employees, developed positive outcome expectancies based on their past experiences (Svensen, Neset, & Eriksen, 2007). Outside of the CATS literature, occupational research has begun to consider the construct of learning as an important outcome of stressful experiences. For instance, some have considered perceived mastery and self-efficacy (e.g., Parker & Sprigg, 1999) or learning computer software (i.e., Bond & Flaxman, 2006) as learning-related outcomes of stress. Taris and Feij (2004) found that high levels of strain had a negative impact on skill enlargement and skill acquisition, and another study (i.e., Daniels, Boocock, Glover, Hartley, & Holland, 2009) demonstrated that work-related learning mediated the relationship between responses to work demands (e.g., changing aspects of work activities) and pleasant affect. We believe that these results suggest that, for example, if employees are allowed to make mistakes without being subjected to punishment or abuse and they are encouraged to learn from their mistakes, they will be more likely to anticipate positive outcomes and interpret their environment as challenging as opposed to threatening. Also, using both structural equation modeling and longitudinal hierarchical regression analyses across three samples, Holman and Wall (2002) tested direct, mediated, and moderated models of the relationships between work characteristics, learning-related outcomes (i.e., skill utilization and self-efficacy), and strain. Their results demonstrated that mediated models best fit the data and supported the argument that learning and strain have reciprocal relationships, such that learning reduces strain and strain impedes learning. Further, as noted by Roberts (2006), the findings across a range of studies suggest that
16
hardship can lead to improved outcomes for individuals because individuals are able to learn from their experiences. In sum, the likely path through which the stress experience affects subsequent behavior is individual learning. When appraising a situation, the individuals stated or unstated desired outcome is to learn from this experience, and this is particularly the case when it is believed that the circumstance will recur in the future, as many stressful workplace situations actually do. Thus far, research in this emerging area has mostly examined perceived job-related learning and self-efficacy as learning-related outcomes of experienced stress. However, research also could examine other types of learning, such as learning related to the stress experience itself (i.e., stressors, expectancies of outcomes, responses to stressors, effectiveness of responses). For example, scholars could consider what changes the relationship between expectancies and an individuals short- and long-term arousal level. In other words, when an employee expects a negative (or chance) outcome from a particular circumstance, but experiences and recognizes positive results from the stressful encounter, would not that be potentially the situation (and its converse) that is most likely to characterize learning related to stressful experiences? Thus, CATS allows researchers to theoretically frame and empirically test how negative appraisals can become positive experiences for employees and how learning influences long-term stress activation and future appraisals of stressors.
Time and the Prolonging of the Stress Experience

Related to learning, the stress response develops over time (Eriksen, Olff, Murison, & Ursin, 1999). As shown by CATS, when individuals develop an efficient way of coping with stress, their psychological and physiological reactions tend to involve only brief arousal. Whereas when persons engage in psychological defense (i.e., denial or distortion of the stressor) or when they have an inability to cope with stressors, their activation levels are prolonged and the influence of the stressful situation is lengthened. Thus, it could be said that the effect of stress on the individual is more due to the inability to recover from work than to what happens during the workday (Ursin, 2000). Further, research on stress recovery has demonstrated that some individuals have greater difficulties than others in recouping after a stressful situation. Geurts and Sonnentag (2006: 483) argued that the essence of recovery is that the psychophysiological systems that were activated during work will return to and stabilize at a baseline level, that is, a level that appears in a situation in which no special demands are made on the individual. Successful recovery, however, differs across individuals (Rook & Zijlstra, 2006). For example, some persons may be able to recover by simply taking regular short breaks or vacations (Cartwright & Cooper, 1997), while others may need physical activity on a daily basis to be able to recover well (Rook & Zijlstra, 2006). Scholars recently have highlighted the importance of recovery in the stress process (see Sonnentag et al., 2009) and that rumination prolongs physiological activation, hindering the recovery process (McCullough, Orsulak, Brandon, & Akers, 2007). Recovery could be considered a form of prolonged activation (Brosschot et al., 2005; Kristenson et al., 2004), and some evidence suggests that a poor ability to recover from stressors might be an important
17
factor linking sustained activation to ill health (Harris, Ursin, Murison, & Eriksen, 2007). These findings highlight the importance of recovery from stress and lend support to the foundational arguments of CATS and perseverative cognition, namely, that typically it is less that the stressful event itself has ill health effects and more that an individuals response to the stressor (e.g., anticipatory stress, worry, rumination, anxiety, recovery) has profound effects on health and well-being. In addition, the harboring of negative or uncertain outcome expectations also promotes the extension of arousal by preventing disengagement from previous threatening or stressful situations (Verkuil et al., 2009), encouraging recurrence of the stressor through its mental re-creation (Pieper et al., 2007). Moreover, before establishing the outcome expectancy in a particular situation, individuals often spend time vacillating from considering one coping strategy to contemplating another, as they ponder which one is likely to lead to a positive outcome. Consequently, even outside of what is typically measured as the stress experience, strain can be prolonged through an inability to recover, it may reoccur through mental representations of the stressor, and it may be maintained or increased during a stressful episode when an individual vacillates between different strategies for handling the stressor. Thus, it can be seen that anticipatory stress, which has received little research attention, becomes an important variable in the true experience of stress. For instance, one group of researchers (i.e., Waugh, Panage, Mendes, & Gotlib, 2010) found that anticipating a speech and giving a speech, although they had different underlying affective mechanisms, yielded similar cardiovascular recovery, suggesting that recovering from an anticipated stressor and recovering from the stressful event involve a similar cardiovascular profile. Also, an experimental study demonstrated that those participants in a gambling task who were placed in an anticipatory stress condition took longer to make advantageous decisions in the task (i.e., Preston, Buchanan, Stansfield, & Bechara, 2007). This finding could suggest that the addition of anticipatory stress (e.g., worry) to the stressful brooding and vacillating over coping strategies that individuals naturally do in stressful situations intensifies and elongates the experience of stress. Clearly, there is a substantial amount of time in the experience of stress and in the transfer of learning from one stressful experience to another that has yet to be fully examined by research. However, if effective, such studies would improve our knowledge of the link between short-term stressors that are internally prolonged by the individual and the long-term consequences of stress, such as cardiovascular disease. This particularly would be the case for research that tracks an individual moving through multiple, potentially stressful encounters. However, there are many other potential issues for researchers to consider as they relate to time. For example, does the expected duration of a stressor influence ones response to a stressful situation? It seems likely that a subordinate would have a greater ability to cope with a demanding supervisor who needs to be satisfied for only one day than one that needs to be contented for several months. Even if the employee expects a positive eventual outcome, a greater duration of the stressor leading up to that outcome would likely take an increased toll on the individual. In a similar fashion, the length of time a resource is available would seem to have an influence on a persons appraisal of a stressful situation. There are many other such potential research questions where considerations of time add another layer to our understanding of the experience of stress. Such studies would provide organizational scholars with
18
crucial insight into the development of the stress response over time, and CATS, when combined with a more elaborate explanation of the prolonged cognitive representation of stressors, as is provided by the perseverative cognition hypothesis, can serve as a theoretical guide for researchers conducting this type of research.
Expectancies Guide Response to Stressors

For many years, appraisal has been an important component of stress theory. As discussed earlier, Lazaruss appraisal model (1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) has shaped the approach of many stress researchers, and numerous studies could be cited that framed research within the context of this model. However, some have continued to emphasize a desire for a greater consideration of appraisal when analyzing stress arousal and response (i.e., Day & Walker, 2007). Appraisal is an important component of CATS because it is through appraisal that a person develops expectations, and expectations determine whether a stimulus becomes a stressor and whether an individual believes that coping can be accomplished. These subjective and personally constructed expectations (i.e., related to the response and to the outcome) are the crucial links between potential stressors and the stress experience. Without the conceptualization of appraisals or expectations, stress theories are underappreciating what might be the most fundamental aspect of the typical stress experienceindividual interpretation of stimuli. Further, the adoption of expectancies is the result of learning (Ursin & Eriksen, 2010). Related to expectancies, it appears that some confusion exists in the research community concerning the place of hopelessness and helplessness in the stress experience. For instance, a well-researched hopelessness scale (i.e., Beck, Weissman, Lester, & Trexler, 1974) operationalizes the construct in line with the CATS definition of it (i.e., negative outcome expectancy). In addition, the concepts of learned helplessness (Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993) and hopelessness depression (Abramson, Alloy, & Metalsky, 1995) are in line with the CATS explanations of helplessness and hopelessness. However, Luthans and Youssef (2007: 332) noted that helplessness is the conceptual opposite of an optimistic explanatory style. Using the CATS formulations, hopelessness (i.e., negative outcome expectancy regardless of coping response) could be considered conceptually opposite of optimism, but helplessness (i.e., no relation between coping response and expected outcome) could not be. OConnor and Cassidy (2007: 598) also suggested that individuals experience hopelessness when there is no relationship between their behaviour and subsequent outcomes, but that, instead, should be considered a description of helplessness. We believe that by having more distinct definitions of hopelessness and helplessness, as described by Ursin and Eriksen (2004), researchers will be better able to juxtapose these concepts against others and develop clearer explanations of how each of these fit within the stress experience.
DirectionsforFutureResearch
As Whetten, Felin, and King (2009) argued, organizational research frequently borrows theories and concepts from other disciplines without modifying them, where needed, to fit
19
the organizational context. Thus, our primary suggestions for future occupational stress research are not only to empirically test relationships in the CATS model, as discussed in various directions given below, but also to consider the organizational context as an important aspect of how CATS is adapted to occupational stress research. Due to the recent development of CATS, and because research using CATS has occurred almost exclusively outside of the organizational sciences, we do not believe we are yet able to construct a complete occupational CATS model. Instead, occupational stress researchers need to consider the occupational or organizational features that would assist in adjusting the CATS model to the workplace environment. Below, we detail several potential avenues for future research based on the CATS model, where scholars could work to expand our knowledge of stressful experiences in ways that would elaborate and/or expand the model we have presented.
Resources
Karaseks (1979) model suggests that job control is the most salient on-the-job resource, and Hobfolls (1989) COR theory argued that a number of resource categories (i.e., conditions, objects, personal characteristics, energies) are of use to individuals facing stressors. However, occupational stress researchers have characterized resources as only being of benefit to the individual in a stressful situation. But, as noted earlier regarding perseverative cognition, resources can be helpful or detrimental to individuals coping with stressors. In addition, the (un)helpfulness of a particular resource often would be dependent on the particular situation and the outcome assessed. For instance, those high on neuroticism, typically considered a disadvantageous personality trait, have been found to obtain higher performance ratings when in a busy work environment (Smillie, Yeo, Furnham, & Jackson, 2006). Thus, when considering both the training and straining effects of stressful experiences, it could be argued that a particular resource is not necessarily always and entirely beneficial or harmful to the individual across a range of situations and outcomes but more likely that it has both adaptive and maladaptive features depending on a variety of factors. Also, researchers could examine the influence of prior learning from stressful encounters on resource accumulation. Further, can stressors become so demanding that resources are irrelevant to the individual? At what level and type of stressors do particular resources become unimportant? Similarly, stressors and resources likely differ in their stability and/or availability to the individual. In sum, research could vary the transience, quality, and quantity of appraised stressors and resources to more accurately explain resource value.
Cognitive Defense
CATS argues that defending against or distorting stressors is the method for consciously altering ones stimulus expectancythe predictability that a stressor will be followed by a particular eventand that the stimulus expectancy is learned from previous stressful encounters (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). However, psychologicaldefense mechanisms have received relatively little attention in occupational stress research when compared with coping mechanisms.
20
Although psychological defense has been found to be related to lower psychological wellbeing (Kernis, Lakey, & Heppner, 2008), other findings might suggest inconsistent relationships between defense and physiological reactivity to stress (Cramer, 2003). However, the apparent inconsistency could be explained by the possibility that individuals differentially adopt various defense strategies. Future research could investigate whether defense strategy preference has an influence on physiological and psychological responses to stressors. Potentially even more valuable to organizational stress research is the possibility that psychological defense mechanisms could partially explain the discrepancies between self-report and physiological report of strain, as suggested by other scholars (e.g., Cramer, 2003; Shedler, Mayman, & Manis, 1993).
Coping Generalization
Ursin and Eriksen (2004) suggest that coping generalizes across situations, leading to future expectations of success and failure in a range of situations. However, how and to what extent does ones learning from previous stressful encounters generalize to the approach taken to other, future stressors? In a study reporting that specific future expectancies moderated the relationship between general expectancies (i.e., optimism and pessimism) and hopelessness, OConnor and Cassidy (2007) suggested that the relationship between generalized and specific expectancies lacks clarity, implying that future research should address this matter. Also, when and how does perceived learning develop into unrealistic expectations or narcissistic beliefs about ones capabilities? This substantial number of unknown relationships concerning the generalization of coping provides scholars many avenues of research.
The Beginning and the Ending

Pieper and Brosschot (2005) argued that future research should clearly establish the onset and offset of stressful experiences. Research on stress recovery suggests that the effects of a stressor extend beyond any objective presence it may have. In addition, the ability of resources to prolong stressful activation supports the same notion. Consequently, without an empirically based understanding, the beginning and ending of strain (and learning) become indistinct. As highlighted above, research already has begun to address the recovery needs of individuals facing stressors, and future research along these lines should continue and also consider how individual differences (e.g., perseverative cognition) might change these relationships. However, much less attention has been directed to anticipatory stress, and a fruitful avenue of research would be to consider when anticipatory (psychological or physiological) stress begins, what moderates when it begins, and what its trajectory is to a stressful event. In addition, scholars could research how long-term individual learning relates to the onset and offset of workplace stress. The role of emotions in the production of health and resiliency over time has begun to draw greater research attention, such as through the broadenand-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). Positive emotions could emerge as the result of learning from stressful experiences, and this growing body of research
21
seems to suggest that positive emotions, as examples, build psychological resources (Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003), produce a wide range of personal resources that lead to greater life satisfaction (Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel, 2008), and promote a broadened cognitive state (i.e., holistic processing and attention flexibility; Johnson, Waugh, & Fredrickson, 2010). Consequently, stress researchers could further our understanding of learning by examining how stressful experiences relate to positive emotions, cognitive states, and stress-related learning over time.
The Importance of Interdisciplinary Research

Recently, Heaphy and Dutton (2008) encouraged the integration of physiological data into organizational research, urging researchers to pursue interdisciplinary research. Certainly, we join with Heaphy and Duttons encouragement, and this article could be viewed as an attempt to integrate an outside theory into occupational stress research. However, although we believe that the CATS model of stress can be of great assistance to occupational stress researchers, research has yet to elucidate many of the complex relationships between physiology, psychology, and stress. For example, one study (i.e., Wirtz et al., 2006), utilizing an appraisal perspective (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) on stress, found that a greater fibrin stress response was produced when individuals evaluated a stressor as more challenging or threatening (i.e., primary appraisals). But there was no significant relationship with fibrin stress response for perceived control or beliefs about ones abilities to cope (i.e., secondary appraisals), and this finding would appear to run contrary to much of the occupational stress literature, which suggests that beliefs about control and self-efficacy are important to the individuals psychological responses to stressors. However, as noted by Day and Walker (2007), there are multiple components to an individuals physiological response to stress. Also, in a review of ambulatory assessment in industrial and organizational psychology, Klumb, Elfering, and Herre (2009) suggested that the determination of the best indicator (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, EEG) of the relationship between stressors and strains depends on the type of strain under investigation (e.g., physical, musculoskeletal, mental). For occupational stress researchers to benefit from the integration of physiological data, it is important that not only do we seek such data but that we carefully consider what it measures and how we will be able to integrate it into our present knowledge.
Conclusion
Macik-Frey, Quick, and Nelson (2007) presented findings suggesting that despite the fact that the field of occupational health is broader than the theme of stress, stress remains a dominant issue in the field of workplace well-being. We believe that CATS can provide stress researchers with the perspective necessary to better integrate our future studies with the new directions of occupational health research (e.g., positive health). Consequently, although
22
occupational stress might continue to be a widely investigated topic in the broader area of occupational health and well-being, it also can be of better service to the occupational health field as a whole.
References
Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L. B., & Metalsky, G. I. 1995. Hopelessness depression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. 1999. Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25: 231-292. Arnetz, B. B. 2005. Subjective indicators as a gauge for improving organizational well-being: An attempt to apply the cognitive activation theory to organizations. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30: 1022-1026. Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. 1997. A stitch in time: Self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychological Bulletin, 121: 417-436. Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F. 2010. Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15: 17-29. Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L. 1974. The measurement of pessimism: The hopelessness scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42: 861-865. Bond, F. W., & Flaxman, P. E. 2006. The ability of psychological flexibility and job control to predict learning, job performance, and mental health. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 26: 113-130. Brosschot, J. F., Gerin, W., & Thayer, J. F. 2006. The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A review of worry, prolonged stress-related physiological activation, and health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60: 113-124. Brosschot, J. F., Pieper, S., & Thayer, J. F. 2005. Expanding stress theory: Prolonged activation and perseverative cognition. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30: 1043-1049. Brosschot, J. F., & Thayer, J. F. 1998. Anger inhibition, cardiovascular recovery and vagal function: A model of the link between hostility and cardiovascular disease. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 20: 1-8. Brosschot, J. F., & Thayer, J. F. 2003. Heart rate response is longer after negative emotions than after positive emotions. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 50: 181-187. Brosschot, J. F., & Thayer, J. F. 2004. Worry, perseverative thinking and health. In I. Nyklicek, L. R. Temoshok & A. J. J. M. Vingerhoets (Eds.), Emotional expression and health: Advances in theory, assessment and clinical applications: 99-115. London, UK: Taylor and Francis. Brosschot, J. F., van Dijk, E., & Thayer, J. F. 2007. Daily worry is related to low heart rate variability during waking and the subsequent nocturnal sleep period. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63: 39-47. Cannon, W. B. 1932. The wisdom of the body (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. 1997. Managing workplace stress. London: Sage. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 1990. Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97: 19-35. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 1998. On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & ODriscoll, M. P. 2001. Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cramer, P. 2003. Defense mechanisms and physiological reactivity to stress. Journal of Personality, 71: 221-244. Daniels, K., Beesley, N. J., Cheyne, A. J. T., & Wilmarisiri, V. P. 2008. Coping processes linking the demandscontrol-support model, affect, and risky decisions at work. Human Relations, 61: 845-874. Daniels, K., Boocock, G., Glover, J., Hartley, R., & Holland, J. 2009. An experience sampling study of learning, affect, and the demands control support model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1003-1017. Daniels, K., Harris, C., & Briner, R. B. 2004. Linking work conditions to unpleasant affect: Cognition, categorization and goals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 343-363. Day, T. A., & Walker, R. 2007. More appraisal please: A commentary on Pfaff et al. (2007) Relations between mechanisms of CNS arousal and mechanisms of stress. Stress, 10: 311-313.
23
Dewe, P. J. 2001. Work stress, coping, and well-being: Implementing strategies to better understand the relationship. In P. L. Perrew & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 1): 63-96. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Dewe, P. J., Cox, T., & Ferguson, E. 1993. Individual strategies for coping with stress at work: A review. Work and Stress, 7: 5-15. Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. 1991. Modeling galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteering. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 770-780. Eden, D., & Zuk, Y. 1995. Seasickness as a self-fulfulling prophecy: Raising self-efficacy to boost performance at sea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 628-635. Elliott, G. R., & Eisdorfer, C. 1982. Stress and human health. New York: Springer. Eriksen, H. R., Murison, R., Pensgaard, A. M., & Ursin, H. 2005. Cognitive activation theory of stress (CATS): From fish brains to the olympics. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30: 933-938. Eriksen, H. R., Olff, M., Murison, R., & Ursin, H. 1999. The time dimension in stress response: Relevance for survival and health. Psychiatry Research, 85: 39-50. Eriksen, H. R., & Ursin, H. 2006. Stress: It is all in the brain. In B. B. Arnetz & R. Ekman (Eds.), Stress in health and disease: 46-68. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. 1985. If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 150-170. Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2: 300-319. Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56: 218-226. Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. 2008. Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95: 1045-1062. Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. 2003. What good are positive emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 365-376. Frijda, N. H. 1986. The Emotions. London: Cambridge University Press. Fudge, R. S., & Schlacter, J. L. 1999. Motivating employees to act ethically: An expectancy theory approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 18: 295-304. Gaab, J., Rohleder, N., Nater, U., & Ehlert. 2005. Psychological determinants of the cortisol stress response: The role of anticipatory cognitive appraisal. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30: 599-610. Geurts, S. A. E., & Sonnentag, S. 2006. Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation between acute stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 32: 482-492. Halbesleben, J. R. 2006. Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1134-1145. Harris, A., Ursin, H., Murison, R., & Eriksen, H. R. 2007. Coffee, stress and cortisol in nursing staff. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32: 322-330. Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. 2008. Positive social interactions and the human body at work: Linking organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33: 137-162. Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44: 513-524. Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. 2000. Conservation of resources theory: Application to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organization behavior: 57-81. New York: Marcel Dekker. Hochwarter, W. A., Perrew, P. L., Meurs, J. A., & Kacmar, C. J. 2007. The interactive effects of work-induced guilt and ability to manage resources on job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12: 125-135. Holman, D. J., & Wall, T., D. 2002. Work characteristics, learning-related outcomes, and strain: A test of competing direct effects, mediated, and moderated models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7: 283-301. House, R. J., Shapiro, H. J., & Wahba, M. A. 1974. Expectancy theory as a predictor of work behavior and attitude: A re-evaluation of empirical evidence. Decision Sciences, 5: 481-506.
24
Jex, S. M., Beehr, T. A., & Roberts, C. K. 1992. The meaning of occupational stress items to survey respondents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 623-628. Johnson, K. J., Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. 2010. Smile to see the forest: Facially expressed positive emotions broaden cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 24: 299-321. Jonge, d. J., & Dormann, C. 2006. Stressors, resources, and strain at work: A longitudinal test of the triple-match principle. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1359-1374. Karasek, R. A. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 285-307. Karasek, R. A. 1990. Lower health risk with increased job control among white collar workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11: 171-185. Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. 1990. Healthy work, stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books. Kernis, M. H., Lakey, C. E., & Heppner, W. L. 2008. Secure versus fragile high self-esteem as a predictor of verbal defensiveness: Converging findings across three different markers. Journal of Personality, 76: 477-512. Klumb, P., Elfering, A., & Herre, C. 2009. Ambulatory assessment in industrial/organizational psychology. European Psychologist, 14: 120-131. Kristensen, T. S. 1995. The demand-control-support model: Methodological challenges for future research. Stress Medicine, 11: 17-26. Kristenson, M., Eriksen, H. R., Sluiter, J. K., Starke, D., & Ursin, H. 2004. Psychobiological mechanisms of socioeconomic differences in health. Social Science and Medicine, 58: 1511-1522. Kuehner, C., & Weber, I. 1999. Responses to depression in unipolar depressed patients: An investigation of NolenHoeksemas response styles theory. Psychological Medicine, 29: 1323-1333. Lazarus, R. S. 1966. Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Psychological stress in the workplace. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (Special issue: Handbook on job stress): 1-13. Lazarus, R. S. 1993. From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 1-21. Lazarus, R. S. 1999. Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer. Lazarus, R. S. 2001. Conservation of resources theory (COR): Little more than words masquerading as a new theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50: 381-391. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Saul, J. R. 2007. Relationships among work and non-work challenge and hindrance stressors and non-work and work criteria: A model of cross-domain stressor effects. In P. L. Perrew & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 6): 35-72. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Levine, S., & Ursin, H. 1991. What is stress? In M. R. Brown, G. F. Koob, & C. Rivier (Eds.), Stress: Neurobiology and neuroendocrinology: 3-21. New York: Marcel Dekker. Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. 2007. Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33: 321-349. Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J. C., & Nelson, D. L. 2007. Advances in occupational health: From a stressful beginning to a positive future. Journal of Management, 33: 809-840. Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J. D., Quick, J. C., & Nelson, D. L. 2009. Occupational health psychology: From preventative medicine to psychologically healthy workplaces. In A. G. Antoniou, C. L. Cooper, G. P. Chrousos, C. D. Spielberger, & M. W. Eysenck (Eds.), Handbook of managerial behavior and occupational health: 3-19. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Maddi, S. R., Harvey, R. H., Khoshaba, D. M., Lu, J. L., Persico, M., & Brow, M. 2006. The personality construct of hardiness, III: Relationships with repression, innovativeness, authoritarianism, and performance. Journal of Personality, 74: 575-597. McCullough, M. E., Orsulak, P., Brandon, A., & Akers, L. 2007. Rumination, fear, and cortisol: An in vivo study of interpersonal transgressions. Health Psychology, 26: 126-132. Moreno-Jimenez, B., Rodriguez-Munoz, A., Pastor, J. C., Sanz-Vergel, A. I., & Garrosa, E. 2009. The moderating effects of psychological detachment and thoughts of revenge in workplace bullying. Personality and Individual Differences, 46: 359-364.
25
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. 2000. The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109: 504-511. OConnor, R. C., & Cassidy, C. 2007. Predicting hopelessness: The interaction between optimism/pessimism and specific future expectancies. Cognition and Emotion, 21: 596-613. OConnor, R. C., OConnor, D. B., OConnor, S. M., Smallwood, J., & Miles, J. 2004. Hopelesness, stress and perfectionism: The moderating effects of future thinking. Cognition and Emotion, 18: 1099-1120. Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. 1999. Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 925-939. Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. 1993. Learned helplessness: A theory for the age of personal control. New York: Oxford University Press. Pieper, S., & Brosschot, J. F. 2005. Prolonged stress-related cardiovascular activation: Is there any? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 30: 91-103. Pieper, S., Brosschot, J. F., Van der Leeden, R., & Thayer, J. F. 2007. Cardiac effects of momentary assessed worry episodes and stressful events. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69: 901-909. Power, M., & Dalgleish, T. 1997. Cognition and emotion: From order to disorder. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Preckel, D., Meinel, M., Kudielka, B. M., Haug, H.-J., & Fischer, J. E. 2007. Effort-reward-imbalance, overcommitment and self-reported health: Is it the interaction that matters? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 91-107. Preston, S. D., Buchanan, T. W., Stansfield, R. B., & Bechara, A. 2007. Effects of anticipatory stress on decision making in a gambling task. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121: 257-263. Ray, R. D., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. 2008. All in the minds eye? Anger rumination and reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94: 133-145. Roberts, L. M. 2006. Shifting the lens on organizational life: The added value of positive scholarship. Academy of Management Review, 31: 292-305. Rook, J., & Zijlstra, F. 2006. The contribution of various types of activities to recovery. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15: 218-240. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. 1998. The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9: 1-28. Ryff, C. D., Singer, B., & Love, G. D. 2004. Positive health: Connecting well-being with biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 359: 1383-1394. Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 293-315. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000. Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55: 5-14. Selye, H. 1951-1956. Annual report of stress. New York: McGraw-Hill. Selye, H. 1955. Stress and disease. Science, 122: 625-631. Selye, H. 1974. Stress without distress. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott. Shedler, J., Mayman, M., & Manis, M. 1993. The illusion of mental health. American Psychologist, 48: 1117-1131. Siegrist, J. 1996. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1: 27-41. Siegrist, J. 2001. A theory of occupational stress. In J. Dunham (Ed.), Stress in the workplace: Past, present, and future: 52-66. Philadelphia, PA: Whurr. Smillie, L. D., Yeo, G. B., Furnham, A. F., & Jackson, C. J. 2006. Benefits of all work and no play: The relationship between neuroticism and performance as a function of resource allocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 139-155. Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. 2007. The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12: 204-221. Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. 2010. Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multisource study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76: 355-365. Sonnentag, S., Perrew, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. 2009. Research in occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 7). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Svensen, E., Neset, G., & Eriksen, H. R. 2007. Factors associated with a positive attitude towards change among employees during the early phase of a downsizing process. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48: 153-159.
26
Taris, T. W., & Feij, J. A. 2004. Learning and strain among newcomers: A three-wave study on the effects of job demands and job control. Journal of Psychology, 138: 543-563. Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Geurts, S. A. E., Houtman, I. L. D., & van den Heuvel, F. F. M. 2010. Professional efficacy, exhaustion, and work characteristics among police officers: A longitudinal test of the learning-related predictions of the demand-control model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83: 455-474. Ursin, H. 1998. The psychology in psychoneuroendocrinology. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23: 555-570. Ursin, H. 2000. Psychosomatic medicine: State of the art. Annals of Medicine, 32: 323-328. Ursin, H. 2005. Press stop to start: The role of inhibition for choice and health. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30: 1059-1065. Ursin, H., Baade, E., & Levine, S. 1978. Psychobiology of stress: A study of coping men. New York: Academic Press. Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. 2004. The cognitive activation theory of stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29: 567-592. Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. 2010. Cognitive activation theory of stress (CATS). Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34: 877-881. Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. 1998. The job demand-control (-support) model and physical health outcomes: A review of the strain and buffer hypotheses. Psychology and Health, 13: 909-936. Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. 1999. The job demand-control (-support) model and psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress, 13: 87-114. van Steenbergen, E. F., Ellemers, N., Haslam, S. A., & Urlings, F. 2008. There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so: Informational support and cognitive appraisal of the workfamily interface. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81: 349-367. Verhoeven, C., Maes, S., Kraaij, V., & Joekes, K. 2003. The job-demand-control-social support model and wellness/ health outcomes: A European study. Psychology and Health, 18: 421-440. Verkuil, B., Brosschot, J. F., Putman, P., & Thayer, J. F. 2009. Interacting effects of worry and anxiety on attentional disengagement from threat. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47: 146-152. Verkuil, B., Brosschot, J. F., & Thayer, J. F. 2007. Capturing worry in daily life: Are trait questionnaires sufficient? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45: 1835-1844. Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Wahba, M. A., & House, R. J. 1974. Expectancy theory in work and motivation: Some logical and methodological issues. Human Relations, 27: 121-147. Warr, P. 2006. Differential activation of judgments in employee well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79: 225-244. Waugh, C. E., Panage, S., Mendes, W. B., & Gotlib, I. H. 2010. Cardiovascular and affective recovery from anticipatory threat. Biological Psychology, 84: 169-175. Weiner, B. 2010. The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45: 28-36. Whetten, D. A., Felin, T., & King, B. G. 2009. The practice of theory borrowing in organizational studies: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Management, 35: 537-563. Wirtz, P. H., Ehlert, U., Emini, L., Rdisli, K., Groessbauer, S., Gaab, J., Elsenbruch, S., & von Knel, R. 2006. Anticipatory cognitive stress appraisal and the acute procoagulant stress response in men. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68: 851-858. Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. 2000. The role of organizational behavior in occupational health psychology: A view as we approach the millennium. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 5-10. Wyller, V. B., Eriksen, H. R., & Malterud, K. 2009. Can sustained arousal explain the chronic fatigue syndrome? Behavioral and Brain Functions, 5. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions .com/content/5/1/10.

2010 Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2010 Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Management

Southern Management Association

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress: An Integrative Theoretical Approach to Work Stress

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Subconscious Psychological Defense

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

The CATS Explanation of the Stress Process

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Empirical Support of CATS and Perseverative Cognition

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Time and the Prolonging of the Stress Experience

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Expectancies Guide Response to Stressors

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

The Beginning and the Ending

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

The Importance of Interdisciplinary Research

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Meurs, Perrew / Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010

Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on December 19, 2010