CAUSES OF EMOTIONAL STRESS 



445 



family background and adult work adjust- 

 ment (32), in which the latter was defined 

 in terms of the individual's over-all adjust" 

 ment, the amount of satisfaction that he 

 was able to find in his work, and his general 

 capacity to use his job qualifications. Some 

 of the significant differences between a well- 

 and poorly-adjusted group are as follows: 

 as children, the former experienced little 

 feeling of rejection as a child, developed 

 strong positive affections (rather than an- 

 tagonisms) for their parents, identified with 

 a stable, mature adult, did not suffer from 

 excessive sibling rivalry, and in general felt 

 little ambivalence toward their early home 

 situation, which was characterized by an 

 atmosphere of family loyalty and unity. 

 The reverse pattern obtained for the poorly- 

 adjusted adults. Such non-emotional fac- 

 tors as mere economic security made no 

 appreciable difference. 



The early attitudes and adjustment pat- 

 terns of both groups tended to continue 

 into their adult home and work relation- 

 ships. For example, the well-adjusted in- 

 dividuals were more able to tolerate tem- 

 porary delays and frustrations and assume 

 responsibility for their actions and lives, 

 showed a stronger tendency to struggle in 

 the face of difficulty, were less reliant on 

 "pull" to get ahead, showed less tendency 

 to have accidents or to spoil their job 

 chances, were more able to use their abih- 

 ties and skills in their work, and in general 

 showed a more objective, realistic attitude 

 in the selection of and preparation for their 

 work. Again, the reverse tendencies ob- 

 tained for the poorly-adjusted individuals. 



Reactions to Stress and Impulse Mastery 



As a general rule, severe emotional dep- 

 rivations and frustrations during childhood, 

 or the previous experience of traumatic 

 (emotional) shock in similar situations, is an 

 important factor in breakdown due to emo- 

 tional stress (29, 66, 90) . This statement is 

 based on the finding that individuals who 

 previously had neurotic symptoms will tend 



to develop more cripphng disabilities when 

 subjected to severe stress, that breakdown 

 (as in combat) is essentially a reactivation 

 of early vulnerabilities by some appropriate 

 stimulus situ ation (2 , 44, 81 ) . Various stud- 

 ies of breakdown incidence of service men 

 have reported that from 50 to 97 percent 

 (usually about 80 per cent) of the patients 

 had suffered previous personality disturb- 

 ances (cf. 5, 33, 55, 57, 70, 77, 88, 98) .^ 



But man is not entirely at the mercy of 

 traimiatic shock experiences or his neurotic 

 symptoms. In fact, it was not an un- 

 common finding that individuals who had 

 traumatic childhood experience, or came 

 from broken homes, or had histories of neu- 

 rotic difficulties, did not break down under 

 the stress of battle, but on the contrary 

 turned in excellent performances (12, 30, 55). 

 The staff of the OSS assessment program 

 (68) also found a striking frequency of such 

 trauma and complexes in the life histories 

 of very effective people. In many cases it 

 appeared that such complexes were related 

 more directly to the proficiencies than to the 

 deficiencies of the individual's personality. 



The nature of the individual's reactions 

 to both external stress and the degree of his 

 control over emotional impulses may hold 

 part of the answer to this question. As 

 mentioned earlier, a stress or emergency sit- 

 uation is one in which the individual's wel- 

 fare, safety, and integrative capacities are 

 threatened, and in such cases, the iadividual 

 mobilizes energies to cope with the threat. 

 If properly directed, these energies enable 

 him to escape or to fight. On the psy- 

 chological level, the individual usually feels 

 fear (or anxiety), aggression, or both. Fear, 

 the warning that threat exists, may be al- 

 leviated by its removal; aggressive impulses 



2 Exclusion of a person on the basis of the 'stop 

 questions' used in psychiatric interviews (cf. 60) 

 and in the various personal inventories (cf. 97) 

 seems justified insofar as the symptoms indicate 

 the individual's inability to resolve or control 

 some underlying emotional difficulty which might 

 interfere with his efficient performance of duty. 



