Since its introduction into the field of psychology, the topic of stress has generated an enormous amount of theory and research. A variety of paradigms - consistent ways of viewing or framing the topic theoretically - have since emerged. For example, some theory and research emphasizes the distinction between distress and eustress (and challenge and hindrance appraisals), others emphasize demands and resources (e.g., Conservation of Resources Theory, the Job Demands-Resources Model) and still others view stress through the lens of coping (e.g., problem focused vs. emotion focused). These and other paradigms provide their own ways of conceptualizing stress and stress management, suggest research designs appropriate for that paradigm, and provide the foundation on which recommendations for practical application are based. However, these paradigms may also create an unintended negative consequence within the academic literature: they may serve to limit the publication of quality theory and research that contradict those existing paradigms. For example, while it is commonly accepted that "stress" occurs, how is this different from the experience of emotion in general? How do we know that there is a difference between distress and eustress? Are demands and resources the best way to conceptualize the interaction between the person and environment? Are some definitions of resources more valid than others? Are there conclusions that have been derived about stress, the stress process, and stress management that might be incorrect?
The purpose of this Research Topic is to explore these types of questions. We are specifically looking for articles of a high quality that may challenge some of the existing paradigms that exist within the stress and stress management literature. These articles may offer new (or refined) theoretical perspectives, they may offer a commentary on flaws within a given paradigm or conceptualization, they may offer a review of file drawer failed attempts to obtain results expected from existing paradigms, or they may provide new research that pushes the boundaries of the existing stress and stress management literature.
Full manuscript submissions will be considered if they are preceded by an abstract submission.
Since its introduction into the field of psychology, the topic of stress has generated an enormous amount of theory and research. A variety of paradigms - consistent ways of viewing or framing the topic theoretically - have since emerged. For example, some theory and research emphasizes the distinction between distress and eustress (and challenge and hindrance appraisals), others emphasize demands and resources (e.g., Conservation of Resources Theory, the Job Demands-Resources Model) and still others view stress through the lens of coping (e.g., problem focused vs. emotion focused). These and other paradigms provide their own ways of conceptualizing stress and stress management, suggest research designs appropriate for that paradigm, and provide the foundation on which recommendations for practical application are based. However, these paradigms may also create an unintended negative consequence within the academic literature: they may serve to limit the publication of quality theory and research that contradict those existing paradigms. For example, while it is commonly accepted that "stress" occurs, how is this different from the experience of emotion in general? How do we know that there is a difference between distress and eustress? Are demands and resources the best way to conceptualize the interaction between the person and environment? Are some definitions of resources more valid than others? Are there conclusions that have been derived about stress, the stress process, and stress management that might be incorrect?
The purpose of this Research Topic is to explore these types of questions. We are specifically looking for articles of a high quality that may challenge some of the existing paradigms that exist within the stress and stress management literature. These articles may offer new (or refined) theoretical perspectives, they may offer a commentary on flaws within a given paradigm or conceptualization, they may offer a review of file drawer failed attempts to obtain results expected from existing paradigms, or they may provide new research that pushes the boundaries of the existing stress and stress management literature.
Full manuscript submissions will be considered if they are preceded by an abstract submission.
