Introduction
The physiological and emotional impacts of stress have been widely discussed in the fields of social and health psychology. It is no longer a secret that exposure to stress carries a bevy of physiological and psychological detriments, yet the existing research on the best ways to mitigate the detrimental effects of stress is not as conclusive. While stress is frequently studied, the wide variety of operational definitions of stress, as well as the wide variety of stressors in existence make it difficult to create conclusive research. While there is no “one size fits all” approach to stress mitigation, there are some tactics that have shown up in research literature time and time again.
Cohen and Wills' 1985 meta-analysis of the main effect model and the buffering hypothesis served as an important contribution to the field of social psychology. Research leading up to Cohen and Wills' study emphasized the importance of social support on well-being, but did not account for the process in which social support positively impacted well-being. This research moved beyond the simple idea that having social support is vital to well-being and instead sought to answer how social support works to mitigate the negative effects of stress. Cohen and Wills' research paved the way for numerous other studies which sought to tease apart the different components of social support and the role in which they play in emotional and physical well-being.
The Importance of Social Support
Previous research linked social support to a myriad of health benefits, including longer life spans, better physical and emotional health and faster recovery times (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Social interactions with support networks allow humans to have stable, rewarding roles and participate in generally positive activities. In turn, these positive experiences contribute to a person's feelings of self-worth and personal happiness. Having reliable social networks is also seen as a way to lessen the blow of negative life situations, such as financial difficulty or death of a family member. However, when it came to explaining the how and why of the positive effects social support provided for study participants, researchers relied more heavily on speculative ideas that those without appropriate levels of social support were more likely to experience anxiety and depression, which in turn impacted life span and physical health. Another hypothesis suggested that emotions impact the endocrine and immune system, which in turn contributed to the overall well-being of an individual. While there is likely truth to these commonly held hypotheses, delving into the details of how social support works to mitigate stress and other negative health conditions is important in understanding how to move the research away from a purely academic setting and into the realm of the practitioner.
The Buffering Model and the Main Effect Model
The process that takes place when an individual is exposed to a stressful event involves five steps: exposure to a stressful situation, the appraisal process, identification of the event as stressful, an emotionally based physiological response to the event and finally, onset of illness. There are two points at which social support has been identified as an effective way to mitigate or stop the stress cycle; social support can either stop the event from being classified as stressful in the first place, or, after an event has been identified as stressful, social support can cause the individual to reevaluate their appraisal or help the individual to cope with the stressful situation (Cohen & Wills, 1985).
The Main Effect Model is characterized by support measure assessments that show that a person is a part of a large social network. This theory suggests that a person who is dealing with stressful situations will benefit from an increase in social support. The main support for this hypothesis is that conversely, those with limited social networks tend to suffer from more physical and mental health conditions (Cohen & Wills, 1985). While Social Buffering is concerned with the types of support provided to individuals in stressful situations, the Main Effect Model is more concerned with the quantity and quality of social network support available to a given individual.
In order to test this hypothesis, Cohen and Wills worked with the operational definition of stress as what happens when “one appraises a situation as threatening or otherwise demanding and does not have the appropriate coping response” (Cohen & Wills, 1985). The emphasis of this study was on long-term stressful events, as opposed to acute and short-lived stressors.
This study broke down social buffers into different sub-categories which could be tested in an empirical fashion. Esteem support, defined as social feedback that allows the person to feel valued, despite stressful or current hardship conditions, has been linked to stress reduction in previous research. Informational support has also been found to mitigate the negative effects of stress by allowing the individual to as though they have the knowledge they need to make appropriate decisions throughout the stressful situation. Social companionship works to reduce the negative effects of stress by providing the individual with a social outlet in which they can participate in fun activities and positively interact with their peers. Outside of research settings, these three components tend to work together to create a social buffer (Cohen & Wills, 1985).
Existing research on the roles of social buffers and stress employed personal inventories that looked at stressful life situations, such as unemployment, incarceration, financial difficulties, marital issues and health concerns (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Psychological symptoms were screened using traditional intake self-reports and interviewing processes, while physiological symptoms were accounted for through checklists and medical study. Social support levels were analyzed by collecting data through self-reported questionaries and interviews.
The meta-analysis of social buffer research used studies between 1983 and 1985 which included statistical testing for an interaction between stress and social buffers. After analyzing the different studies for evidence of the buffer model and the main effect model. While Cohen and Wills initially hypothesized that the existing research would favor the use of stressor-specific coping mechanisms, such as support groups for substance abuse or marital counseling services, in order to mitigate the negative effects of stress. Instead, the existing body of research either incorporated other aspects of social buffering and social resources into the same study.
There was also strong evidence for the effectiveness of the Main Effect Model on promoting well-being, but the evidence was not as strongly in favor of the Main Effect Model having a strong impact on stress mitigation. While being a part of a social network is a way to maintain already positive esteem and emotions, simply relying on existing social networks to cope with difficult situations is not enough (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Potential reasons for the lack of a positive correlation between stress mitigation and large social networks is the potential that the individual has many friends, but lacks a single confidant. Without a confidant who is capable of employing buffering actions, the benefits of companionship may be limited (Cohen & Wills, 1985).
All in all, despite the efforts to isolate the social buffering and main effect model and the roles which they play in stress management, these two models are not mutually exclusive in research or practical settings. While continued research efforts may be able to isolate the variables more throughly, practitioners would be wise to continue to understand the benefits and shortcomings of each theoretical framework.
Further Explorations
Cohen and Wills identified many different ways in which social buffers can reduce the negative effects of stress. However, the existing research on stress mitigation tends to clump together the different components of social buffering. Future researchers should seek to tease apart the effectiveness of each type of social buffering in independent settings. While social buffering components typically coexist in applied settings, understanding the roles and effectiveness of each component would open the door for changes in the use of stress management research.
Much of the existing research on the Main Effect Model involves convoluted measures in order to show correlations between social networks and stress managements and general well-being. While this initial meta-analysis did not find statistically significant evidence for the use of the Main Effect Model as the only tool in stress management, further research which focused on paring down the variables included in the study may suggest otherwise.
Conclusion
Stress continues to be a frequently studied topic across disciplines. The fields of social and health psychology have worked to provide insight into how stress effects the body and mind, and what can be done to mitigate the negative impact stress has on personal well-being. The body of research surrounding the topics of stress management has grown exponentially since Cohen and Wills completed their 1985 meta-analysis on existing research on the roles of social buffering and the main effect model, yet their research and insight paved the way for future researchers to further explore independent variables in stress management.
References
Cohen, S. & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. The American Psychological Association, 98(2), 310-357.
