BACKGROUND: In this study, a complex theoretical model regarding the stress-distress relationship was evaluated. The various components in the model included experienced stress (daily hassles), psychological distress, neuroticism, problem-focused coping, avoidant coping, satisfaction with received social support and unassertiveness. On the basis of various previous findings, experienced stress was assumed to have a direct effect on psychological distress. In addition, neuroticism was assumed to have a direct effect on psychological distress as well as an indirect effect through its association with experienced stress, problem-focused coping, avoidant coping, satisfaction with social support and unassertiveness. Further, both problem-focused and avoidant coping were assumed to affect the level of psychological distress directly as well as indirectly through their influence on experienced stress. Similarly, satisfaction with social support was assumed to have a direct beneficial effect on psychological distress in addition to an indirect effect through its association with coping and experienced stress. Finally, unassertiveness was assumed to have a direct effect on psychological distress as well as an indirect effect through its influence on experienced stress and coping. METHODS: A covariance path analysis technique (LISREL) was used. RESULTS: A considerable predictive power of the model could be demonstrated. Experienced stress and neuroticism turned out to be most predictive of psychological distress. The effects of social support, coping and unassertiveness on psychological distress were seriously attenuated by their common association with neuroticism. CONCLUSION: Above all, the present findings underscore the need to investigate all variables that are expected to play a role simultaneously so as to be able to take their interdependency into account. It is argued that although such comprehensive models may be more difficult to interpret as of yet, they are likely to more closely resemble reality. Copyright 1999 S.Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND: In this study, a complex theoretical model regarding the stress-distress relationship was evaluated. The various components in the model included experienced stress (daily hassles), psychological distress, neuroticism, problem-focused coping, avoidant coping, satisfaction with received social support and unassertiveness. On the basis of various previous findings, experienced stress was assumed to have a direct effect on psychological distress. In addition, neuroticism was assumed to have a direct effect on psychological distress as well as an indirect effect through its association with experienced stress, problem-focused coping, avoidant coping, satisfaction with social support and unassertiveness. Further, both problem-focused and avoidant coping were assumed to affect the level of psychological distress directly as well as indirectly through their influence on experienced stress. Similarly, satisfaction with social support was assumed to have a direct beneficial effect on psychological distress in addition to an indirect effect through its association with coping and experienced stress. Finally, unassertiveness was assumed to have a direct effect on psychological distress as well as an indirect effect through its influence on experienced stress and coping. METHODS: A covariance path analysis technique (LISREL) was used. RESULTS: A considerable predictive power of the model could be demonstrated. Experienced stress and neuroticism turned out to be most predictive of psychological distress. The effects of social support, coping and unassertiveness on psychological distress were seriously attenuated by their common association with neuroticism. CONCLUSION: Above all, the present findings underscore the need to investigate all variables that are expected to play a role simultaneously so as to be able to take their interdependency into account. It is argued that although such comprehensive models may be more difficult to interpret as of yet, they are likely to more closely resemble reality. Copyright 1999 S.Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Bruce Friedman; Peter J Veazie; Benjamin P Chapman; Willard G Manning; Paul R Duberstein Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Benjamin P Chapman; Edwin van Wijngaarden; Christopher L Seplaki; Nancy Talbot; Paul Duberstein; Jan Moynihan Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Jose Szapocznik; Daniel J Feaster; Victoria B Mitrani; Guillermo Prado; Lila Smith; Carleen Robinson-Batista; Seth J Schwartz; Magaly H Mauer; Michael S Robbins Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2004-04
Authors: Benjamin P Chapman; Manish Shah; Bruce Friedman; Rebecca Drayer; Paul R Duberstein; Jeffrey M Lyness Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: N Nakaya; P E Hansen; I R Schapiro; L F Eplov; K Saito-Nakaya; Y Uchitomi; C Johansen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-07-04 Impact factor: 7.640