A Historical View of the Stress Field

TLDR

The paper reviews stress theory and research in biology and medicine before and after Selye’s formulations, highlighting their major influence on the field. It aims to identify sources of confusion and controversy in the stress field and to propose new research strategies, including an experimental reevaluation of the nonspecificity of pituitary‑adrenal responses, to clarify and update stress concepts. The authors review recent experimental studies that suggest the nonspecificity concept has been misapplied to lower‑level physiological mechanisms rather than higher‑level psychological processes. They discuss how this reinterpretation could clarify current concepts and guide future research directions in stress studies.

Abstract

Abstract An analysis is presented of selected aspects of stress theory and research in biology and medicine, both before and after the introduction of Selye's stress formulations, which have been of major importance in the development and popularity of this research area. An attempt is made to explore some possible sources of present confusion and controversy in the stress field, with a view to the development of new research strategies that may enable us to clarify, update, and revise stress concepts and to facilitate future progress. In particular, it is suggested that an experimental reevaluation of the concept of the nonspecificity of pituitary-adrenal cortical response is a matter of particular strategic importance, if we are to move out of the present prolonged period of stalemate and confusion over stress theory and terminology. Recent experimental studies which suggest that the nonspecificity concept may have been applied erroneously to lower level physiological mechanisms, rather than to higher level psychological processes, are reviewed. The possible implications of this development are discussed in terms of clarifying current concepts and providing guidelines for future lines of approach in stress research.