This reply to the commentaries by Cohen, Giannaros, and Manuck (2016, this issue) and McEwen and McEwen (2016, this issue) acknowledges investigators’ reluctance to relinquish the term stress, despite the lack of agreement on its meaning and the evidence that is a sign of its presence. This brief reply urges scientists studying the exemplars of this ambiguous concept to search for robust relations that specify the type of event, the properties of the agent, the agent’s circumstances, and the behavioral or biological consequences. The accumulation of these relations will reveal that the word stress adds little to our understanding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CohenS.GiannarosP. J.ManuckS. B. (2016). A stage model of stress and disease. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 456–463.
2.
KaganJ. (2016). An overly permissive extension. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 442–450.
3.
McEwenB. S.McEwenC. A. (2016). Response to Jerome Kagan’s essay on stress (2016). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 451–455.
4.
PabayoR.KawachiI.GilmanS. E. (2015). US state-level income inequality and risks of heart attack and coronary risk behaviors. International Journal of Public Health, 60, 573–588.
