From W. B. Cannon's identification of adrenaline with "ftght or flight" to modern views of stress, negative views of peripheral physiological arousal predominate. Sympathetic nervous system (SNS) arousal is associated with anxiety, neuroticism, the Type A personality, cardiovascular disease, and immune system suppression; illness susceptibility is associated with life events requiring adjustments. "Stress control" has become almost synonymous with arousal reduction. A contrary positive view of peripheral arousal follows from studies of subjects exposed to intermittent stressors. Such exposure leads to low SNS arousal base rates, but to strong and responsive challenge-or stressinduced SNS-adrenal-medullary arousal, with resistance to brain catecholamine depletion and with suppression of pituitary adrenal-cortical responses. That pattern of arousal defines physiological toughness and, in interaction with psychological coping, corresponds with positive performance in even complex tasks, with emotional stability, and with immune system enhancement. The toughness concept suggests an opposition between effective short-and long-term coping, with implications for effective therapies and stress-inoculating life-styles.Confrontations with stressors and challenges evoke central and peripheral physiological arousal. Characterizations of that peripheral arousal traditionally have been negative, but some modern views are more positive. After providing some definitions, I discuss the apparent contradictions between literatures whose basis is an assumption of the harmfulness of peripheral physiological arousal and those whose basis is not.
DefinitionsAccording to Folkman and Lazarus (1985), the term stress implies "a relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as relevant to his or her well-being and in which the person's resources are taxed or exceeded" (p. 152). As components of stress, Folkman and Lazarus described threat as "potential for harm or loss," challenge as "potential for growth," and harm-loss as "injury already done" (p. 152). However, because I often emphasize the differences between challenge, on the one hand, and threat and loss, on the other, I use the term challenge separately, using stress to capture only the components of the concept associated with threat and harm/loss.