The response argument has been strengthened by work dome by HANS Selye. Selye observed an identical series of biochemical changes in a number of organisms ADAPTING to a variety of environmental conditions. He termed this series of changes the general adaptation syndrome (Selye, 1936). Selye’s DISCOVERY of the biochemical and PHYSIOLOGICAL pathways of the stress response has been of immense significance.

His concern to find the psychological mediators of the response to stress has, for example, created the field of psychoneuroimmunology, an interdisciplinary area of research exploring the varied and COMPLEX way the immune system reacts to stressors. A critique of Selye’s approach has been that it is too simplistic. It cannot, for example explain the stress associated, with difficult relationships in the workplace.

A number of psychologists also believe that there are sources of stress which impact fairly uniformly on individuals, for example in the workplace. The criticism of this approach is essentially the same as of Selye’s response approach – it is too simplistic. It does not take into account enormous individual differences in our ability to handle stressful circumstances.

The response argument has been strengthened by work dome by Hans Selye. Selye observed an identical series of biochemical changes in a number of organisms adapting to a variety of environmental conditions. He termed this series of changes the general adaptation syndrome (Selye, 1936). Selye’s discovery of the biochemical and physiological pathways of the stress response has been of immense significance.

His concern to find the psychological mediators of the response to stress has, for example, created the field of psychoneuroimmunology, an interdisciplinary area of research exploring the varied and complex way the immune system reacts to stressors. A critique of Selye’s approach has been that it is too simplistic. It cannot, for example explain the stress associated, with difficult relationships in the workplace.

A number of psychologists also believe that there are sources of stress which impact fairly uniformly on individuals, for example in the workplace. The criticism of this approach is essentially the same as of Selye’s response approach – it is too simplistic. It does not take into account enormous individual differences in our ability to handle stressful circumstances.