Kessler R C, Price R H, Wortman C B
Annu Rev Psychol. 1985;36:531-72. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.36.020185.002531.
Our review has focused centrally on the etiologic significance of social factors in the development of psychopathology. Our implicit assumption has been that social factors in general, and stressors in particular, may play a causal role in the development of psychopathology. Yet the evidence is clear that the vast majority of people who are exposed to stressful life events or to chronic stress situations do not develop significant psychiatric impairments. For this reason, research interest over the past decade has shifted to factors like social support and coping strategies that may ameliorate the impact of stress. We have examined some of the important empirical results from recent studies of stress, support, and coping, and we have discussed ways in which these new understandings have informed long-standing attempts to explain group differences in emotional functioning. In each section of the review we have attempted not only to summarize existing results but also to provide some evaluation of the literature and suggestions for future research. It is important to recognize that the contributors to the work reviewed here do not all share a common research agenda. Some of them are primarily committed to unraveling the psychosocial determinants of a particular clinical disorder. Others are mainly concerned with the effects of a particular stressor. Still others are interested in the processes that link stress to health across a broad array of stress situations and health outcomes. In the face of these diverse interests, it is little wonder that our understanding of social factors in psychopathology is uneven. There is good reason to believe, however that these diverse strands of research are beginning to converge on a common conception of the stress process and on a common research design. The conception at present is only in rough form, but its outlines are nonetheless capable of description. At its center is the notion that stress exposure sets off a process of adaptation. It recognizes that this process unfolds over time, and it acknowledges that this process is modified by structural factors as well as by personal dispositions and vulnerabilities. There is growing recognition that the analysis of this process requires longitudinal methods. Also, it is becoming increasingly clear that experimental interventions are required to unravel the parts of this process that link stress and health. It is too early to know if this nascent convergence will lead to an integrative theory of adaptation, yet it is almost certain to promote methodological and conceptual rigor and facilitate replication and cumulation of findings.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
我们的综述主要聚焦于社会因素在精神病理学发展中的病因学意义。我们隐含的假设是,一般而言社会因素,尤其是应激源,可能在精神病理学的发展中起因果作用。然而,有明确证据表明,绝大多数经历过应激性生活事件或长期处于应激状态的人并未出现明显的精神障碍。因此,在过去十年中,研究兴趣已转向诸如社会支持和应对策略等可能减轻应激影响的因素。我们审视了近期关于应激、支持和应对研究的一些重要实证结果,并讨论了这些新认识如何为长期以来解释情绪功能方面群体差异的尝试提供信息。在综述的每一部分,我们不仅试图总结现有结果,还对文献进行了一些评估,并为未来研究提出了建议。必须认识到,此处所综述工作的贡献者并非都有共同的研究议程。其中一些人主要致力于揭示特定临床疾病的心理社会决定因素。另一些人主要关注特定应激源的影响。还有一些人则对在广泛的应激情况和健康结果中将应激与健康联系起来的过程感兴趣。面对这些不同的兴趣,难怪我们对精神病理学中社会因素的理解并不均衡。然而,有充分理由相信,这些不同的研究方向正开始趋向于对应激过程的共同概念以及共同的研究设计。目前这个概念还只是大致形式,但仍能描述其轮廓。其核心观点是应激暴露引发一个适应过程。它认识到这个过程随时间展开,并承认这个过程会受到结构因素以及个人性格和易感性的影响。人们越来越认识到对这个过程的分析需要纵向研究方法。此外,越来越清楚的是,需要通过实验干预来阐明这个过程中连接应激与健康的部分。现在判断这种初步的趋同是否会导致一种综合的适应理论还为时过早,但几乎可以肯定的是,它将促进方法和概念的严谨性,并有助于研究结果的重复和积累。(摘要截选至400字)