Abstract
This paper deals with two different models of stress theory; namely the response based model of stress which is known as the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) and the Transactional model of stress known as the interaction theory. The General Adaptation Syndrome was developed by Hans Selye while the interaction theory was developed by Lazarus and Folkman. This paper discusses these theories in detail along with the frameworks of coping with stress and its impacts on the subject as developed by these theories. First responders are personnel of different departments and institutions that respond to emergency events and situations to assist in mitigating the detrimental effects of these events. First responders include but are not limited to police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. This paper also focuses on the response to stress of first responders, or emergency responders, in the light of these theories. This paper presents an insight into the methodological framework through which the first responders, and their families, cope with the stress that they encounter in their routine lives.
The personnel who are designated to be the first ones to respond to a case of emergency are known as first responders, also known as emergency responders. First responders include emergency personnel such as police officers, firefighters, and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). Due to the nature of their job, first responders are often exposed to such horrors which normal human beings are almost never exposed to in their entire lifetimes. The exposure, of first responders, to such horrific events and scenes induces work related stress and may even be the cause of mental and physical disorders in some cases.
The work that emergency responders do have a tremendous effect on them and their families due to the traumatic situations they face as part of their everyday lives. There are several factors that enhance or mitigate the traumatic impacts on the lives of first responders and their families. There are several theories that deal with understanding the level of stress and its implications. These theories examine the overall impact of working and living in stressful environments. There are models that are based on these theories as well. These models include crisis theory, trauma theory, and secondary vicarious trauma theory. There is another theory that deals with the effects of workplace rules and regulations on the lives of the first responders due to the combination of these rules and regulations and the stressful environments that they work in.
Regehr & Bober (2005) present these theories and models in order to better understand the cumulative effect of stress on first responders. They define stress as the relationship between the person and the environment which the person evaluates to be exceeding his resources and endangering his well-being.
The two models of stress that will be discusses in this paper are the response based model of stress and the transactional model of stress. The response based model of stress emphasizes on the common physiological significances of taxing circumstances. This model is explained in the renowned theory by Hans Selye (Selye, 1977). The model is similar to the “Fight or Flight” response. Such a response is observed in situations which are usually appraised to be at a high level of threat by the one facing it. The response to such situations is usually physiological in nature accompanying the stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system. As a consequence, numerous changes including physiological and somatic changes take place. The ultimate consequence is usually the disruption of homeostasis. Applying this situation to first responders, it may be said that most of the times, their response would be “Fight” rather than “Flight” because this is what they do and what they are trained for. Flight responses might also be observed, nevertheless, in rare cases.
The response based model of stress was developed by Selye into a theoretical model of stress known as the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS). Selye defined stress to be a “non-specific response and demand made upon the body”. He further went on to propose that similar physiological responses might emerge as a result of multiple types of stimuli.
The General Adaptation Syndrome has three phases. These phases are developed on the assumption of a normal level of resistance to stress by the body. The first phase involves an initial alarm which results in a minor drop in the resistance to stress. This phase is sometimes referred to as the shock stage. The reduction to stress relapses to the original level in the stage known as the counter shock stage. The fight of flight response formulates the body for instantaneous action. The second phase encompasses a high resistance to stress until the final stage of exhaustion approaches, whereby the resistance to stress is swiftly diminished. This phase is not intense as compared to the alarm stage, but the body still releases high levels of hormones. This release of hormones quickly returns to the normal condition if the stress is removed. This phase is also referred to as the adaptation phase. The third phase begins when exhaustion occurs. This phase is known as the “Collapse” and is the stage at which the disease occurs. The systems of the body collapse due to prolonged exposure to stressful situations and the resistance to such situations.
The second model of stress theory discussed in this paper, as also mentioned above, is the transactional model. Lazarus and Folkman presented this model in 1980 which develops on the shortcomings of other models of stress theory (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). This model is based on the assumption that human beings are able to reflect, appraise, and respond to a situation accordingly. The reflection on the situations of stress may make the stress to reduce or increase. An interaction theory was developed by Lazarus highlighting the role of cognition. The interaction theory involves a process of appraisal comprising of two stages. The first or the primary appraisal process is the determination of the existence of threat, due to the event, to the subject. The determination has three possible outcomes; namely the event may be appraised to be irrelevant, positive to well-being, or negative to well-being. If the appraisal is negative or taxing to well-being, it takes to another appraisal process, which is referred to as the secondary appraisal process, and is the second of the two processes. The secondary appraisal process is one in which the subject evaluates the available resources for coping with stress. The resources range from environmental factors to social support. This may include assistance, information, and the ability to reduce such stressful situations.
The appraisal of stress differs in different people. Some people might feel additional stress in situations in which others would not feel even small levels of stress. This is true for all types of events, and hence it is true for first responders as well. The appraisal is dependent on two important factors. These factors include the controllability and the predictability of events. An event becomes instantly more stressful if it is uncontrollable and especially when it is unpredictable. This is very apt in the case of first responders, in that they face situations which might be controllable at times, although not all the time, but are always unpredictable. This unpredictability immensely adds to the amount of stress associated with such events. However, it should be kept in mind that first responders face such unpredictable situations all the time, so that may reduce the effect to some extent. The outcomes of coping to stressful situations depends on the nature of the events. If the subject is successful in coping with the stress, adaptation to such events is what happens. But in the event of being unsuccessful in coping with the stressful event or situation leads to physical and mental disorders.
It could be said to conclude that the case of first responders is very interesting and needs further research in order to develop mechanisms through which they might be able to cope with the stressful, traumatic, and horrific situations they have to face in their line of work.
References
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An Analysis of Coping in a Middle-Aged Community Sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21(3), 219. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136617
Regehr, C., & Bober, T. (2005). In the Line of Fire: Trauma in the Emergency Services. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Selye, H. (1977). Stress Without Distress. School Guidance Worker.
