Advertisement

Constructive Stress

  • Per Øystein SaksvikEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

There is a common view in the stress literature that there exists a curvilinear relationship between positive stress (eustress) and negative stress (distress). This model does not imply that eustress is at one end of the scale and distress at the other, but rather the model has a bell-shaped curve. At one end of the curve, less challenging tasks with low work demands cause distress. The top of the curve is where moderate work demands of moderately challenging tasks cause maximal eustress. At the other end of the curve, distress is characterized by tasks that are too challenging and work demands too high. This model, called the Yerkes–Dodson law, is one of the oldest in the history of psychology, dating back to 1908.

References

  1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II. USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  2. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns, J. S. (2004). Chaos theory and leadership studies: Exploring uncharted seas. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 42–56.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, C. L., & Payne, R. (1992). International perspectives on research into work, well-being, and stress management. In J. C. Quick, L. R. Murphy, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Stress and well-being at work (ss (pp. 348–368). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  5. Hammer, T. H., Saksvik, P. Ø., Nytro, K., Torvatn, H., & Bayazit, M. (2004). Expanding the psychosocial work environment: Workplace norms and work-family conflict as correlates of stress and health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 83–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hasle, P., & Møller, N. (2007). From conflict to shared development: Social capital in a Tayloristic environment. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 3, 401–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lansisalmi, H., Peiro, J. M., & Kivimaki, M., IV. (2000). Collective stress and coping in the context of organizational culture. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), 527–559. doi: 10.1080/13594320050203120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nelson, D., & Cooper, C. (2005). Stress and health: A positive direction. Stress and Health, 21, 73–75. doi: 10.1002/smi.1053
  9. Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (2003). Health psychology and work stress: A more positive approach. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (ss. 97–118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  10. Nytrø, K., Saksvik, P. Ø., Mikkelsen, A., Bohle, P., & Quinlan, M. (2000). An appraisal of key factors in the implementation of occupational stress interventions. Work & Stress, 13, 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Oksanen, T., Kouvonen, A., Kivimäki, M., & Pentti, J. (2008). Social capital at work as a predictor of employee health: multilevel evidence from work units in Finland. Social Science and Medicine, 3, 637–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Saksvik, I. B., Saksvik, P. Ø., & Nordvik, H. (2004). Personlighetens rolle for hvordan stress oppleves i arbeidslivet. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 41, 612–619.Google Scholar
  14. Saksvik, P. Ø., & Tvedt, S. D. (2009). Leading change in a healthy way. Scandinavian journal of Organizational Psychology, 1, 20–29.Google Scholar
  15. Saksvik, P. Ø., Tvedt, S. D., Nytrø, K., Buvik, M. P., Andersen, G. R., Andersen, T. K., et al. (2007). Developing criteria for healthy organizational change. Work & Stress., 21, 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tvedt, S. D., Saksvik, P. Ø., & Nytrø, K. (2009). Healthy organizational change processes as a prerequisite for a good psychological work environment. Work & Stress, 23, 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations