Issues in Mental Health Nursing

ISSN: 0161-2840 (Print) 1096-4673 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/imhn20

On Stress and Coping Mechanisms

Jean Tachè & Hans Selye

To cite this article: Jean Tachè & Hans Selye (1985) On Stress and Coping Mechanisms, Issues
in Mental Health Nursing, 7:1-4, 3-24, DOI: 10.3109/01612848509009447

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3109/01612848509009447

Published online: 09 Jul 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 417

Citing articles: 17 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=imhn20
 O n Stress and Coping
Mechanisms

Jean Tache
Hans Selye
International Institute of Stress
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

When internists and physiologists are asked to discuss the topic

of stress with a group composed mainly of psychologists and
psychiatrists, they have no other option than t o analyze the
problems from their own perspective, and then to try t o bridge the
differences between the two points of view. This is precisely the
format used in this chapter, in the hope of presenting our position
very clearly while, at the same time, remaining relevant to the
goals of this NATO institute on coping with stress.

STRESS-FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW

Because the word stress, as used in common language, has a
number of different meanings, it may be necessary to explain how
this term came to be applied to biology. In 1936, research on
endocrinology at McGill University revealed that parenteral injec-
tions of diverse, unrelated substances (e.g., ovarian extracts,
formaldehyde, laboratory dust suspensions) consistently caused a
number of stereotyped changes. There were also modifications that

This chapter was originally Chapter 1 in Volume 5 of this series, and the
figures are nuinbered accordingly.
3
 Fig. 1-1. The typical triad of the alarm reaction. (a)
Adrenals. (b) Thymus. (c) A group of three lymph
nodes. (d) Inner surface of the stomach. On the left
are the organs of a normal rat, on the right, those
of a rat exposed to the frustrating psychological

4
ON STRESS A N D COPING MECHANISMS 5

were characteristic or typical of each agent: the dust suspensions

elicited inflammation, concentrated formaldehyde produced local
cell necrosis, and so on. Most impressive, however, were the
common elements of the systemic response to these agents.
The stress-induced modifications, especially the triad of thy-
micolymphatic involution, adrenal enlargement, and gastric ulcers,
were described at length in previous publications (Selye, 1976a,
1976b), and these observations finally led to the current definition
of stress as the “nonspecific response of the body to any demand.”
The typical effects of stress on the adrenals, the thymus, the
lymph nodes, and the inner surface of the stomach are shown in
Fig. 1-1.

A Common Response that Is Not

Specific of the Agent

The often complex total response of an individual to a stimulus

can frequently be subdivided into reactions that are more or less
closely associated with the agent. For instance, one can usually
conclude that people’s body temperatures are too high if they
sweat profusely or too low if they shiver. Similarly, physical
exercise causes such characteristic changes as increased cardio-
vascular activity and a rise in muscle metabolism. We refer t o these
reactions that are elicited by particular agents as “specific,” in
contrast to “nonspecific” changes that are common to a number of
agents. It is this not-specific-of-the-agent part of the adaptation
process that is stress as defined in modern medical dictionaries and
encyclopedias.
Nonspecific adaptation is a wide-ranging concept, and many of
the mechanisms involved in it still remain to be elucidated. One
known physiological mechanism, the hypothalamus-hypophysis-

stress of being forcibly immobilized. Note the

marked enlargement and dark discoloration of the
adrenals (due to congestion and discharge of fatty
secretion granules), the intense shrinkage of the
thymus and the lymph nodes, as well as the
numerous blood-covered stomach ulcers in the
alarmed rat. (From The Stress of Life, 2nd ed., by
H. Selye. Copyright 1976 by McGraw-Hill. Re-
printed by permission.)
6 J. TACHE AND H. SELYE

adrenal axis, has received much attention and can be discussed at

some length. Some pathways that mediate the response to a
stressor agent are shown in Fig. 1-2.
Even while the importance of a demand is being appraised and
possible specific responses are being tested, certain cells in the area
of the hypothalamus are alerted t o a state of emergency. .This
signal, which could be mediated via nervous pathways and/or
chemical substances in the blood, is of a very general nature-
alarm or call for action that induces the secretion of corti-
cotrophin-releasing factor (CRF) by cells located in the median
eminence. CRF travels down the portal-venous system into the
adenohypophysis, where it triggers the release of adrenocorti-
cotrophic hormone (ACTH). Carried through the vascular system,
ACTH acts directly on the adrenal cortex and regulates the
secretion of various hormones, known collectively as corticoids,
among which cortisol and corticosterone are the most well known.
These hormones are transported to all cells of the body, inducing
numerous effects: gluconeogenesis is facilitated at the expense of
fat and carbohydrate reserves and even, if necessary, structure
proteins; thymicolymphatic involution and eosinopenia develop;
and immune-inflammatory reactions decrease. Simultaneously,
gastric or duodenal ulcers are formed through stimulation of the
sympathetic nervous system. The end result of these hormonal
modifications seems to be an increase in the body’s capacity for
many kinds of activities. Because these activities help the body to
meet challenges more efficiently, the stress reaction is deemed to
be natural, adaptive, and useful.
A Nonspecific and Stereotyped Response
At this point, confusion may arise over the nonspecific character
of the stress response and its stereotyped manifestations. We
should not lose sight of the fact that although the stress response
is not characteristic of any one agent, it is by no means vague: it
can be well defined and quantified biochemically. Stress hormones
can be accurately measured and variations in their concentration
can be studied. The response is stereotyped inasmuch as common
reactions take place and the same hormones are secreted; the
pattern, however, can be modified, depending upon the specific
effects of each stressor agent.
Although we constantly refer t o the hypothalamus-hypophysis-
Fig. 1-2. Principal pathways mediating the response to a
stressor agent. When an agent acts upon the body (thick
outer frame of the diagram), the effect will depend upon
three factors. All agents possess both nonspecific stressor
effects and specific properties; the latter are inseparably
attached to the stressor effect and invariably modify it.
Exogenous and endogenous conditioning factors largely
determine the reactivity of the body. Because all
stressors have some specific effects, they cannot elicit
exactly the same response in all organs; furthermore,
even the same agent will act differently on different
individuals, depending upon the internal and external
conditioning factors that determine their reactivity.
(From Stress in Healfh and Disease by H. Selye.
Copyright 1976 by Butterworths. Reprinted by permis-
sion.)

7
8 J. TACHE AND H. SELYE

adrenal axis as a parameter by which the stress response is

measured, stress cannot be equated with this reaction. The
hypophysis or adrenals are sometimes dysfunctional or may be
removed and, as a consequence, ACTH, corticoids, or both may be
secreted excessively, insufficiently, or not at all. Yet, the absence
of these structures does not eliminate the capacity for nonspecific
adaptation. Other mechanisms are then put into action, even
though what seems to be the main pathway of adaptation is absent
and the potential for defense decreased.
The Stimulus or Stressor
The organism’s response during stress has been the central point
of investigation in our laboratories during the past 30 years. At
one time, however, the word stress may have been used to identify
both the stimulus and the response. As the concept evolved, new
terms had to be coined t o distinguish between its different
elements. The word stressor was consequently introduced to
denote the stimulus or eliciting factor. Our studies were always
oriented toward the response, inasmuch as, by definition, no one
stressor agent could be considered equal t o all others.
In the early days of stress research, there probably was a feeling
that only physical or chemical agents could produce the morpho-
logical modifications in the body that came to be known as the
stress triad. Subsequent work proved that psychological com-
ponents also play a decisive role in eliciting a typical stress
response (Selye, 1976a). Some researchers even insist that it is not
the physical or chemical elements of the stressor that produce the
triad, but only the psychological component of the agent, namely,
emotional arousal (Lazarus, 1974; Mason, 1971). However, through
an ingenious surgical intervention involving a specially shaped
knife, neural deafferentation of the hypothalamic region can be
accomplished (HalLz & Pupp, 1965), following which most
stressors such as formaldehyde, tourniquet shock, ether, restraint,
and even unilateral adrenalectomy still cause an increase of ACTH
secretion.
Animal Experimentation
A wide variety of stimuli have been tested in our laboratories
over the years. The agents most frequently employed are chosen
for practical reasons: (1) their specific effects are not such that
ON STRESS AND COPING MECHANISMS 9

they overshadow the nonspecific ones; (2) variations in individual

sensitivity of the animals to the agents are not so great that the
results cannot be submitted to statistical analysis; (3) the stressors
are easy to apply and are neither dangerous to technicians nor time
consuming; ( 4 ) they are simple and do not involve sophisticated or
expensive apparatus.
The agents that we have routinely used to study stress
manifestations in laboratory animals such as rats are prolonged
exposure to cold or heat, physical exercise (in a treadmill),
chemical treatment (parenteral injection of drugs), and restraint in
a spread-eagle position (by fastening the animal’s legs with adhesive
tape t o a board or metal plate). Only those modifications that are
common to all five agents are considered to be stress parameters.
The specific effects are deemed to be relevant only if they interact
with the nonspecific influence of the stressors.
Some investigators object t o the use of these five agents because
they represent more intense forms of trauma than what man
experiences in daily life and, hence, the manifestations they elicit
would seem to be characteristic only of severe stress. In short,
these researchers claim that the whole concept would be repre-
sentative of human suffering only in such stressful situations as
severe infection, burns, war, famine, or some other catastrophe,
but not of everyday life experiences.
Initially, because of the nature of the parameters that were
monitored as indicators of stress (i.e., modifications in the size of
the adrenals and thymus, and the incidence of gastric ulcers), the
stressors chosen had to be quite intense and prolonged. Short-
lasting or mild stress could not be easily studied. Now, however,
biochemical measurement of hormones makes it possible to
appraise the nonspecific modifications induced by mild or even
enjoyable stressors (Collu & Jequier, 1976; Elvidge, Challis,
Robinson, Roper, & Thorbum, 1976).
Parallel modifications can also be monitored. A shift in
hormones secreted by the ACTH-producing adenohypophysis has
been demonstrated after exposure to stress. Chronic immobilization
of rats causes an increase of plasma corticosterone (which is
indicative of plasma ACTH levels) well above normal values, but
the secretion of other adenohypophyseal hormones controlling
growth (GH) and sexual functions (FSH, LH, prolactin) is dramati-
cally decreased (Tache, Du Ruisseau, Tache, Selye, & Collu, 1976).
10 J. TACHE AND H. SELYE

individual Differences
Although the word stressor usually refers to a stimulus, such as
an external insult, we must not forget that an effective stressor is
an agent perceived, psychologically or physiologically. What would
normally be an alarming situation, if unnoticed, would cause no
stress.
We often wonder why close friends show very different stress
manifestations when they experience a common stressful episode.
Why does one develop duodenal ulcers and another a cardiac
infarct, while a third is unaffected by the same difficulties that
overpowered the other people? We must recognize that each person
is unique and that, first, the very same stressor does not have the
same impact on all individuals and, second, even when it seems to
be felt with the same intensity, each person develops a unique set
of manifestations. Individual differences in reactions to stressors
are created by a combination of endogenous and exogenous
factors. The endogenous factors are generally inherited or acquired
traits: familial characteristics or diseases, proneness to certain types
of maladies, or weaknesses of certain organs. The exogenous
factors are usually various environmental conditions, including
social, intellectual, and psychological elements as well as climate,
physical surroundings, and nutrition.
Because every person is different, it is unlikely that a given
stimulus will be perceived in the same way by everybody. This is
obviously true when certain physical or chemical agents are
involved. For example, due t o exogenous and/or endogenous
factors, some individuals cannot cope with pollen, ragweed, dust,
and so on.

Stress Tests

The literature on stress has assumed awesome proportions as

stress research has increased by leaps and bounds. The development
of numerous stress tests has further emphasized the importance of
this subject. These tests vary from the subjective evaluation of an
experience t o the behavioral manifestations or physiological and
biochemical modifications that can be precisely quantified. A rapid
survey of the literature would show that various stress tests
appraise different things. It might be concluded, therefore, that
ON S T R E S S AND COPING MECHANISMS 11

some of them do not measure stress and are of no use as stress

indicators.
The hope for the perfect stress test arises from the expectancy
that there should be, in the body, an absolutely nonspecific (i.e., a
specifically nonspecific) modification that could always be relied
upon to measure the level of stress. Inasmuch as this unique
parameter has not been demonstrated, it has been said by some
that the body does not adapt nonspecifically . In determining what
parameters could be used to indicate stress, two facts should be
taken into consideration. First, there are degrees of specificity
(e.g., an effect may be characteristic of a group of stressors), and,
second, the specific effects of a stressor necessarily modify the
nonspecific effects t o some extent.

Galvanic Skin Resistance: lndica tive

of Stress or Anxiety?

Galvanic skin resistance (GSR) is widely employed as a stress

test, and we have selected it, for didactic purposes, from among
such other measures as questionnaires, interviews, ECG, and
electromyograms (EMG). By measuring resistance t o a weak
electrical current through the skin, it is possible to monitor palmar
secretion resulting from mobilization of the autonomic nervous
system. It is generally assumed that palmar secretions result from
certain states of emotional arousal, especially anxiety. Whereas
GSR appears t o be an adequate indicator of psychogenic stress, it
seems unreliable in measuring stress induced by other agents.
Because GSR reflects the level of anxiety in a person, it might just
quantify specific effects and not necessarily the nonspecific
response. As a matter of fact, some use GSR as a specific test for
anxiety. On the other hand, in stress studies, it is employed to
measure one of the many nonspecific responses to stimuli (namely,
autonomic nervous system involvement), and this is no different
from evaluating corticoid secretion.
GSR should not be discarded as a stress test; its significance and
limitations must be realized, however, as should those of other
tests, such as those that measlire catecholamine or corticoid levels.
The observation that some agents cause a much greater increase in
catecholamine, corticoid, or ACTH secretions than others merely
indicates that none of these parameters are totally nonspecific.
12 J. TACHE AND H. S E L Y E

Using a Battery of Tests to

Achieve Some Precision
Because no one parameter can reliably reflect stress either
qualitatively or quantitatively, it is necessary t o fall back on a
battery of tests t o measure different indexes in an individual under
stress. This approach has been utilized by J. W. Mason (1974,
1975) whose work in psychosomatic medicine is known interna-
tionally. After studying the effects of several stressors on certain
parameters, he noted that the resulting modifications were not
always the same. Not only were there differences in the degree of
response, but these differences were sometimes quite the opposite
of each other (e.g., increased or decreased).
Mason contends that there does not seem to be any agent-
nonspecific response in the body. It is our view that, in the
interpretation of Mason's results, insufficient attention was given to
the specific actions of the stressors, which could have interfered
or interacted with their nonspecific effects (Selye, 1975). Contrary
to expectations, a typical parameter may not be modified during a
stressful experience if the specific effect of the eliciting agent can
inhibit the nonspecific response.
Stress in laboratory animals is almost always associated with a
loss of body weight (or decreased growth); this physiological
change is as characteristic of stress as is the triad. Certain stressors
(forced gavages, for instance) d o not diminish body weight,
however, which again illustrates that there is no purely nonspecific
response of the body.
Temperature regulation is also affected during acute stress.
Unlike people, rats react to most acute stressors (e.g., restraint) by
significantly lowering their body temperature (hypothermia), and
both species, when they are exposed to acute stress situations,
share the common denominators of gastric ulcers, adrenal enlarge-
ment, and involution of the thymicolymphatic system. These
parametersas we noted earlier-form the classical triad of the
stress response. However, hypothermia is minimal (36°C) and no
gastric ulcers develop when restrained rats are maintained at an
elevated room temperature of 32" f 2°C. In contrast, the body
temperature of similarly stressed rats falls to 25OC if the ambient
temperature is kept at 24" t 2"C, and these animals show all the
typical manifestations of stress (Salas, Tuchweber, Kourounakis, &
Selye, 1977).
O N STRESS A N D COPING M E C H A N I S M S 13

This experiment indicates that gastric ulcers are an agent-

nonspecific response mediated through hypothermia. It also under-
scores the importance of using a battery of parameters instead of
only one or two measures t o evaluate the level of stress induced by
a stimulus. The stress-elicited modifications reported by Mason
(1974) impressed him in terms of their differences, but they were
impressive t o us because of their similarities.
The following essential points can be extrapolated from the
model of stress:

1. All life events cause some stress. Physical, chemical, and

psychological agents, directly or indirectly (through the emo-
tions they provoke, for instance), can elicit the stress reac-
tion.
2. Stress is not bad per se, but excessive or unnecessary stress
should be avoided whenever possible. The body's capacity for
nonspecific adaptation has developed over millions of years and
has been preserved during the course of recent evolution, but
adaptation is always acquired a t a cost that has t o be evaluated
against the long-term survival value of adaptation.
3. The stressor is the stimulus eliciting the need for adaptation;
stress is the response t o the stimulus but it is not the total
response of the body.
4. The nonspecific aspects o f the body's reaction to an agent may
not be as obuious as the specific effects. The same pathways of
nonspecific adaptation can be mobilized dozens of times a day,
however, without the individuals being aware of this as they
experience diverse situations. Sometimes, only disease or dys-
function will make individuals realize they are under stress.
5. Stress should be monitored through a battery of parameters.
The secretion of ACTH and corticoids (namely cortisol, corti-
costerone, and their metabolites) as well as catecholamines are,
however, fairly reliable indicators of stress.
6 . Stress cannot be equated with ACTH, corticoid, or catechola-
mine secretion. These are but a few elements of a very complex
scheme of modifications although they seem to be the main
pathways of nonspecific adaptation.
7. Removal of the stressor eliminates stress. Because stress is part
of the response t o an agent, it can be dealt with most easily by
avoiding the stimulus or resolving the conflict that it gene-
rates.
14 J. TACHE A N D H. S E L Y E

APPLICATION OF THE STRESS CONCEPT

TO DAILY LIFE
Adaptation to the environment is vital for the survival of all
living beings. Throughout history, people have lived in close
relationship to nature in developing the special skills and traits
necessary for their survival. We easily lose sight of this relationship
between human beings’ environment and their physiology. In the
course of millenia, homo supiens adapted to living in small groups,
earning their survival through labor (hunting, agriculture) in an
environment that was not greatly modified from generation to
generation. Their options in response to quite diverse situations
were limited; in most cases, they involved physical activity, and
thus, stereotyped psychological and physiological processes devel-
oped.
As the human brain evolved and people became less
primitive, many other ways of coping were devised that depended
less on strength or force. In the last few hundred years, human
dependence on nature for survival has become more indirect and,
in this sense, one might say that people have lost contact with
nature. Thus, modem people’s daily activities bear little resem-
blance to those of their not-too-distant ancestors, but their
biological reactions to environmental stressors continue t o be
mediated via the same nonspecific coping mechanisms that they
have acquired through evolution, and they still respond to
challenges and to survival-directed emotions in the same age-old
way. It is clear that, in an ever-increasing segment of the
population, these responses have lost some of their original
timeliness because they involve coping mechanisms that are often
obsolete in a well-organized, well-policed, left-hemisphere kind of
society.
Stress-From Other Points of View
Stress is obviously a twentieth-century word and it seems to be
gaining in popularity. Its connotation varies considerably according
to the ways in which people use it. A survey of formal and
working definitions leads to the conclusion that the term is
employed to characterize an area of special interest to the indi-
vidual with important and potentially harmful repercussions on human
life. Not surprisingly, this area often lies in the realm of the
O N STRESS A N D COPING M E C H A N I S M S 15

user’s professional activity. In this context, there are various

definitions of stress that cannot be faulted on theoretical grounds
as long as they remain consistent and logmil and add something
new to what other words already say. It is not our intention to
review all the different meanings of the term stress. However, at
least two definitions have been brought to our attention by
speakers at this NATO institute and it seems useful t o reach
beyond the word itself and try t o reconcile diverse points of
view. ’
Charles D. Spielberger (1971) defines stress as the external
forces that act on an individual, i.e., the objective properties of
environmental or stimulus conditions that are characterized by
some degree of objective danger (see Chapter 9, this volume). This
is an extension of the definition of stress that is used in mechanics
and engineering in which the effect on material subjected t o
physical stress is known as strain. Such a definition of biologcal
stress has the advantage of an analogy t o the physical sciences.
Aside from the need t o have a definition close t o that of physics,
using the word stress to characterize the external agents or stimuli
indicates a concern that could be phrased approximately in these
terms: given many individuals, it is of interest that certain events
or situations will affect most in a special way that presumably will
influence their interpretation of reality and their behavior.
The importance of stimuli has led some researchers t o study
stressful life events (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1974) and draw
up life-event scales (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). This approach may
prove t o be useful since, ideally, it would identify some of the
causes of massive copping out, of many psychosomatic illnesses, of
social unrest, and of general dissatisfaction. It may also lead t o the
development of “tools” (administrative, professional, or personal,
such as counseling or help provided through government agencies)
t o enable individuals to cope with specific situations.
Irwin G. Sarason defines stress as a person’s assessment of what
he or she finds is asked from the environment (see Chapter 10, this
volume). It contains strong subjective elements and is clearly
dfferent from the objective stimulus. The essence of this usage of
the word stress could be expressed as follows: Given a stimulus,

Readers are advised to consult Chapters 9 and 10 in this volume, in which

these two definitions are presented in greater detail.
16 J. TACHE A N D H.S E L Y E

what really is of importance is not so much its objective meaning

as its subjective impact. Events that are pleasant to most people
can cause distress in some individuals who tend to become quite
depressed and anxious upon observing a beautiful sunset; certain
energy-drained executives may go to pieces at the mere thought of
a holiday. This approach is relevant, not only to entire popula-
tions, but also to each individual without exception because the
objective stimuli are evaluated through sociocultural background,
personal experience, and idiosyncrasies. Of course, we cannot agree
with the use of the word stress t o express what we, and many
other authors, have been calling for some years the objective
stressor and its subjective counterpart, but we think that under any
name these two areas should be clearly differentiated and investi-
gated.
If we were t o phrase our views in the same language, we would
have to say that, given an objective stimulus that is assessed by the
body, there are many responses, strategies, and coping mech-
anisms-other than the agent-specific ones-that are put into action
to ensure survival of the individual. These reactions pertain
basically to the two well-known systems of behavior: fight
(physical, metabolic, what we recently have called “catatoxic
activity”) and flight (physical withdrawal from a situation and the
psychological variants such as daydreaming, mental suppression of
unpleasant ideas or events, etc.).
In discussing stress, our expression shows strong overtones of a
physiologist’s preoccupations, but, although the problems of
perception and interpretation were not developed because they
were somewhat outside the expertise of physiologists, provisions
were made for them nevertheless, and cognitive and deliberative
processes can be integrated into this model. We feel that none of
the points of view presented up to now are irreconcilable. To the
contrary, each underlines one important element of human
encounter with the environment. We have tried to integrate them
all in a simple diagram in Fig. 1-3,which is based on the elements
of stress that have been discussed so far.
Homeostatic Imbalance
Ever since Claude Bernard developed the concept of the milieu
interieur and Walter Cannon (1939) coined the term homeostasis
to refer to the fluid stability of the milieu interieur, scientists have
ON STRESS A N D COPING MECHANISMS 17

Fig. 1-3. Dealing with stressors usually entails finding the right specific
response to the demand. Because endogenous and exogenous factors preside
over the stimulus-to-response process, assessment may be modified by
bringing a new outlook or by analyzing the situation from a different
viewpoint. The nonspecifically secreted hormones are also meant to play a
role in preparing for the specific response phase. With the human being’s
evolved neocortex and with the variety of specific responses now available,
however, these hormones may not be helpful in coping well with certain
aspects of the environment. Dotted arrows indicate possible feedback.

used the notions-knowingly or not-to explain many phenomena

that extend well beyond the limits of traditional physiology. We
like t o express people’s daily encounter with the environment in
terms of homeostasis. Because harmony with the internal and
external environment conditions survival, the individual fights to
preserve or restore it. An event in the environment becomes a
stimulus--or a stressor-whenever an individual’s homeostatic equi-
librium is disrupted by it.
Homeostasis can be endangered and restored at many different
levels, for instance, vasoconstriction helps maintain adequate
arterial tension after an important loss of blood. Psychological
stimuli differ from physiological ones in that they are much more
subject to interpretation. Human needs being more complex than
those of an amoeba, the human network of communication with
the environment is correspondingly much more elaborate. Most
often, the brain is seen as an organ of thought that enables people
18 J. TACHE A N D H.SELYE

to philosophize or enter into other highly thought of intellectual

activities. To a biologist, the prime function of the nervous system
is to allow individuals t o deal with their environment, that is, to
bring about perception and evaluation of events that may affect
their well-being or survival, and also to elicit certain kinds of
activity to reestablish harmony.
When the body has to adapt to the demands of an external
event (see Fig. 1-3),perception and interpretation of the stimulus
lead t o an assessment of the phenomenon and its implications; this
may be considered the input. Then, specific potentially adaptive
responses are tested, and one or many will be chosen and utilized;
this is the output. If the response is adequate to the challenge,
adaptation will follow as the stimulus is dealt with or a new level
of homeostasis is reached.
Evaluation of the demand is based partly on an individual’s
background (e.g., genetic makeup, natural capacities, basic educa-
tion, and recent experiences), which an individual draws upon for
points of reference in assessing the significance of the stimulus.
These factors are, in a way, the cast that will mold certain events,
or the diffracting crystal that will give special colors to our
experiences. These aspects of stress have been expertly discussed
by the authors of other chapters of this book; our intention is
only to underline the importance of the endogenous and exoge-
nous factors that are referred to in Fig. 1-2.
Specific responses may be intellectual, emotional, or metabolic,
and they are not necessarily elicited late in the stimulus-to-response
process. Specific physiological modifications may arise all along the
process, starting with perception and carrying over into the specific
reaction phase. The emotional arousal may begin with a growing
awareness of the magnitude of the demand and subside once a
specific countermeasure has been chosen. The intellectual responses
depend upon individual predisposition, experience, and expertise,
and these can be abetted through learning.
This diagram is very simple and does not comprise the various
phases leading t o assessment or specific responses; in reality, many
feedback loops are necessary t o adequately reflect the process. This
process may involve requests for additional information on the
nature of the stimulus and the circumstances surrounding it, or a
decision on a specific response may be arrived at after much
internal dialogue and testing of possibilities. For the sake of
ON STRESS A N D COPING MECHANISMS 19

simplicity, these details are not included here, for they are not
essential for our discussion.
Stress (the nonspecific response of the body) is initiated at a
very early stage. In fact, nonspecific physiological adaptation starts
as soon as the body becomes aware of a demand, which could be
physiological as well as psychological, and this nonspecific response
grows with the magnitude of the demand. If for some reason
(internal conflict or lack of experience) the specific response is not
easy t o elicit, the stimulus-to-response process will be slowed down
or stopped as evaluation of the situation is prolonged and as
tentative, inadequate reactions are probed, thereby increasing
stress.
Nonspecific behavioral coping mechanisms may also be put into
action, such as distracting one’s attention from the problem or
orienting one’s attention t o a secondary problem that suddenly
seems t o become most important. In rats, mild tail pinching several
times a day leads t o immediate hyperphagia, and other behavior
patterns are also modified, for example, male infighting, sexual
intercourse, and maternal attention t o young pups are all increased
by this stress procedure (Rowland & Antelman, 1976). Normal
behavioral activity for this species becomes abnormal in that it
occurs more frequently. These responses are not agent specific
although they are goal oriented (and the goal is determined by the
environment ).

STRESS AND COPING MECHANISMS

Stress develops in people whenever survival is at stake. We have
previously noted that this response increases people’s resistance and
therefore improves their chances of survival. Obviously, people d o
not like these stressful events, for so many of their efforts have
been directed t o doing away with them. In the modern world,
well-organized, well-policed, welfare-oriented states have made our
physiological stress response less relevant by removing many of the
stressors that our ancestors knew.
Stress nowadays is not so much associated with physical survival
as with a certain idea of survival. Society has identified new values
that have been tagged as “necessary for survival,” and part of the
nonspecific response is needlessly elicited. Sitting for an exam,
applying for a job, the climate of competition in which money
20 J. T A C H E AND H.SELYE

and power are the criteria of success-these are some of today’s

stressors that elicit the old physiological response preparing the
human organism for physical activity.
We have already discussed some of the principles that could be
used as guidelines for adapting to stress situations. Of course, a
serious neurosis or severe anxiety will affect an individual’s
capacity to deal with stress. This problem, however, should be left
for specialists t o discuss, and we would like t o confine our remarks
as much as possible to the “normal and healthy” public.
Broadly speaking, coping with stress in our society can be
accomplished a t four levels: (1) by removing stressors from our
lives, (2) by not allowing certain neutral events to become
stressors, (3) by developing a proficiency in dealing with conditions
we d o not want to avoid, and (4) by seeking relaxation or
diversion from the demand.
1. Changing the environment-In some cases at least, it would
be easier to alter social conditions to human needs than to force
people to waste their energy trying to adapt to changes in the
environment that are of their own making and that they could
easily modify. Think of the uselessness, for example, of daily
traffic jams, overpopulated housing projects, and the irrelevance of
much of our schooling. When society has a choice in determining
certain parameters of the environment, it should not disregard the
needs of people t o relate, to communicate, and to exercise
physically, etc., which have been forgotten in recent times.
2. Handling the potential stressors-Modifying one’s perspective
of things is an effective individual way of coping with stress. Very
often, severe stress is induced unnecessarily when there is little or
no correspondence between the objective and subjective stressors
(e.g., the boss’s remarks and the secretary’s interpretation). It is
not so much t o what we react, but how we react that is at the
root of the problem.
There is a parallel in the field of pathology, namely, allergy.
Although most people d o not react to common allergens, certain
individuals will mobilize important immunological defense mechan-
isms against them. In this case, it is not the allergens (what they
react to) but the response (how they react) that is the cause of
disease. The allergen per se is not injurious to their health, but by
mobilizing unnecessary defense reactions, people make themselves
sick.
ON STRESS A N D COPING MECHANISMS 21

Taking an exam does not have the same survival significance as

living through a drought o r facing a pack of wolves, yet we have
not learned to respond in a different way t o these stressors. The
prevalent value system needs constant rethinking by individuals.
For example, a t times, during a workshop or seminar, one of the
authors (Tache) has asked executives t o fill in the Holmes and
Rahe (1967) Social Readjustment Rating questionnaire in which
various life events are graded, with marriage as the point of
reference. Contrary t o the norms for this instrument, “being fired
from work” was rated by senior government managers above
“divorce” and “death of a close family member.” When made
aware of these ratings, however, many wished t o modify their
evaluation.
Competition is not made by our society; it is a law of nature, a
condition of survival. People have always competed against animals
and other people for food, possession of territory, or shelter. These
necessities are basic inasmuch as, without their acquisition, survival
is impossible. They are replaced by the “luxury” necessities that
are now proposed to us as being basic. From the two-family house
of some years ago, we have evolved t o the two-house family, which
in itself would not be bad were it not for the fact that it has now
become an “essential,” a criterion of success. Obviously a new set
of values needs t o be proposed so that the inborn tendency t o
compete will be more usefully oriented toward goals that will not
be shrouded by an aura of the “need for survival.”
3. Finding adequate specific responses-In all cases in which an
event has become a stressor, an adequate specific response elicited
as rapidly as possible will relieve stress. Barring quantitative
overload, stress levels will decrease, as one becomes an expert,
develops the tools of the trade, and learns how t o use them. In
other words, when the capacity t o elicit the specific response has
been developed, the demand of a stressor will be assessed
differently. A manager once told us that she spent three days (and
nearly as many nights) writing her first letter as special assistant to
a deputy minister; at the time of relating her case, she claimed that
she could now write important letters without becoming personally
involved.
4. Seeking relaxation or diversion from the demand-After a
hard day’s work, even highly trained people may find that tension
has accumulated and they feel tired. Although the objective
22 J. TACHE AND H. SELYE

stimulus is no longer present, the body keeps responding to it. The

brain still seems to be working and imposing on us a tension that
we want t o relieve.
It is often said that if you can relax your muscles, the
psychological cause of your tension will disappear. Whether this is
true or not, we cannot but be impressed by the number of people
claiming that such exercises are beneficial and do help them to get
away from the demands. Numerous techniques are now being
proposed, from Transcendental Meditation (Bloomfield & Kory,
1976; see also Chapter 13, this volume), the Relaxation Response
(Benson, Beary, & Carol, 1974), and autogenic training (Luthe,
1969), t o transactional analysis and yoga. Physical exercise would
be similar in its effects. For some, these are replacing the five
o’clock martini in pleasant surroundings. Although such techniques
do not seem to work equally well for all, it may still be worth the
time and effort to take a close look at them.
Priorities in Choosing Coping Techniques
The most popular stress-reducing techniques may not be the
most effective or the most useful for a particular person. Reducing
stress sometimes entails refusing to be placed under stress and, up
to a point, refusing to meet challenges. While this may make you a
healthier animal, it would hardly facilitate your becoming an
executive vice-president. Regular hours, good eating habits, physical
exercise, and physical withdrawal from stressful situations are
reported to be associated with less stress symptoms than other
more result-oriented techniques such as a change to a different
work activity, a new strategy of attack on work, etc. (Howard,
Rechnitzer, & Cunningham, 1975).
Stress is the price that individuals have had to pay to survive
as animals; humans now pay the same price t o accomplish what
they consider great things. There should be a proportion between
what people want to do and what they can do, between the
significance of challenges they rise to meet and the prices they will
have to pay as a consequence. Their goals and priorities should be
established accordingly.

In this chapter, we have extended ourselves well beyond our

field of competence, but we have done so in an effort to bridge
the gap between the different disciplines. We hope that psycholo-
ON S T R E S S AND COPING MECHANISMS 23

gists and sociologists working on problems of stress will also give

their attention t o correlating their observations with those made in
different fields.

REFERENCES
Benson, H., Beary, J. F., & Carol, M. P. The relaxation response. Psychiatry,
1974, 37, 37-46.
Bloomfield, H. H., & Kory, R. B. Happiness: The TM program, psychiatry,
and enlightenment. New York: Simon & Schuster, Dawn Press, 1976.
Cannon, W. B. The wisdom o f the body. New York: Norton, 1939.
Collu, R., & JCquier, J. C. Pituitary response to auditory stress: Effect of
treatment with a-methyl-p-tyrosine. Usefulness of a factorial mixed design
for statistical analysis. Canadian Journal o f Physiology and Pharmacology,
1976, 5 4 , 594-602.
Dohrenwend, B. S., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (Eds.). Stressful life events: Their
nature and effects. New York: Wiley, 1974.
Elvidge, H., Challis, J. R. G., Robinson, J. S., Roper, C., & Thorburn, G. D.
Influence of handling and sedation on plasma cortisol in Rhesus monkeys
(Macaca mulatta). Journal o f Endocrinology, 1976, 70, 325-326.
Halkz, B., & Pupp, L. Hormone secretion of the anterior pituitary gland after
physical interruption of all nervous pathways to the hypophysiotrophic
area. Endocrinology, 1965, 77, 553-562.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. The social readjustment rating scale. Journal o f
Psychosomatic Research, 1967, 1 1 , 213-218.
Howard, J. H., Rechnitzer, P. A., & Cunningham, D. A. Coping with job
tension: Effective and ineffective methods. Public Personnel Management,
1 9 7 5 , 4, 317-325.
Lazarus, R. S . Psychological stress and coping in adaptation and illness.
International Journal o f Psychiatry and Medicine, 1974, 5 , 321-333.
Luthe, W. Autogenic therapy. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1969.
Mason, J. W. A re-evaluation of the concept of “non-specificity” in stress
theory. Journal of Psychiatry Research, 1971, 8 , 323-333.
Mason, J. W. Specificity in the organization of neuroendocrine response
profiles. In P. Seeman & G. M. Brown (Eds.), Frontiers in neurology and
neuroscience research. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1974, 68-80.
Mason, J. W. A historical view of the stress field. Journal of Humon Stress,
1975, 1 (l),6-12; 1 (2), 22-36.
Rowland, N. E., & Antelman, S. M. Stress-induced hyperphagia and obesity in
rats: A possible model for understanding human obesity. Science, 1976,
191, 310-312.
Salas, M., Tuchweber, B., Kourounakis, P., & Selye, H. Temperature-
dependence of stress-induced hepatic autophagy. Experientia, 1977, 33,
612-614.
Selye, H. Confusion and controversy in the stress field. Journal o f Human
Stress, 1975, 1(2), 37-44.
24 J. TACHE AND H.SELYE

Selye, H. The stress of life (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976. (a)
Selye, H. Stress in health and disease. Reading, Mass.: Butterworth, 1976. (b)
Spielberger, C. D. Trait-state anxiety and motor behavior. Journal of Motor
Behavior, 1971, 3 , 265-279.
Tach6, Y., Du Ruisseau, P., TachC, J., Selye, H., & Collu, R. Shift in
adenohypophyseal activity during chronic intermittent immobilization of
rats. Neuroendocrinology, 1976, 22, 325-336.