Faculty of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK.
Med Hypotheses. 2010 Apr;74(4):644-8. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.10.043. Epub 2009 Nov 25.
The terminology relating to 'psychological stress' is so confused and ambiguous that research in this field - and application of its results - must surely be hampered. Relevant words with conflicting usages and scientific definitions include 'stress' itself, 'stressor', 'strain', 'challenge', 'demand', 'threat', 'resource', 'coping' and 'mental load'. 'Stress' and 'anxiety' are often confounded. Because of this confusion it can be hard to decide how closely one view of stress matches another and to integrate the variety of published conceptual frameworks. The word 'stress' is therefore useful only as a deliberately vague umbrella term. Nevertheless there is moderate consensus in the literature that the mental state characterizing 'stress' (which, to avoid ambiguity, we call 'psystress') results from awareness that one is not coping with something, a perceived stressor, that relates to a need that is deemed personally important. Other definitions and models of 'stress' are compared. 'Stress' is often applied to situations that actually cause pleasurable excitement. We propose the unambiguous term 'euchallenge' for such enjoyable demands, because 'eustress' and 'challenge' also have other meanings. Supposedly adverse stress responses are sometimes studied using tasks or situations, which are assumed to be stressors, but which for some individuals might be euchallenges or in others produce apathy through perceived irrelevance to personal needs. Much research utilizes self-report stress questionnaires and many of these are composed with poor regard to theory. Some, for example, mix psystress causation with a variety of response factors or pay inadequate attention to 'chronic' and 'acute' time scales. Testees may even be required to interpret words on which psychologists themselves disagree - notably 'stress' itself. It is important, therefore, to evaluate carefully every test in the context of its purpose, but, most importantly for scientific advance, to relate it to a comprehensive testable theoretical model.
与“心理压力”相关的术语如此混乱和模糊,以至于该领域的研究——及其成果的应用——肯定会受到阻碍。相关的词汇有相互矛盾的用法和科学定义,包括“压力”本身、“压力源”、“应变”、“挑战”、“需求”、“威胁”、“资源”、“应对”和“心理负荷”。“压力”和“焦虑”经常被混淆。由于这种混淆,很难确定一种压力观与另一种压力观有多吻合,并整合各种已发表的概念框架。因此,“压力”一词只能作为一个故意模糊的总括术语。尽管如此,文献中有一定程度的共识,即构成“压力”的心理状态(为避免歧义,我们称之为“心理压力”)是由于意识到自己无法应对某件事情,即感知到的压力源,而这件事情与被认为是个人重要的需求有关。其他的“压力”定义和模型也进行了比较。“压力”通常适用于实际上会引起愉快兴奋的情况。我们提出了一个明确的术语“愉快挑战”来表示这种令人愉快的需求,因为“正压力”和“挑战”也有其他含义。有时,人们会用一些被认为是压力源的任务或情况来研究所谓的不利的压力反应,但对某些人来说,这些任务或情况可能是愉快挑战,而对其他人来说,由于与个人需求无关,这些任务或情况可能会导致冷漠。许多研究利用自我报告的压力问卷,其中许多问卷的编制都没有很好地考虑理论。例如,有些问卷将心理压力的原因与各种反应因素混合在一起,或者没有充分关注“慢性”和“急性”时间尺度。测试者甚至可能被要求解释心理学家自己都有分歧的词——尤其是“压力”本身。因此,在评估每个测试时,重要的是要根据其目的仔细评估,但最重要的是为了科学进步,要将其与一个全面的可测试理论模型联系起来。