In cognition, stress is defined as the state of mental or emotional strain resulting from adverse or demanding circumstances. Moreover, stress has a double-sided effect, with one aspect supplying the negative, such as mood and behavior declines, while the positive aspect “tends to facilitate cognitive function, particularly in implicit memory,” which uses past experiences in order to remember events without actively thinking about them. (Sandi 2013)
However, exposure to high levels of stress tends to impair explicit memories, which is the conscious, intent driven recollection of information, experiences, and concepts. Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that moderate levels of stress are beneficial to the formation of the cognitive self, whilst more sufficient levels impede cognitive functions and produce symptoms, such as behavioral and mood swings. Before determining the different sides of stress, it is important to first understand the overall umbrella term of stress. Stress can be divided into three sub concepts: acute, chronic, and episodic. Acute stress is commonly explained as a feeling that is thrilling and frightening at the same time.
Most of the incidences usually cause no harm, since they are traditionally ordinary events that accelerate the rate of brain function. Given this, it is important to note that the brain develops proper strategies to tackle similar matters in the near future. The body restores back to normal once the danger is done. This is because the brain tries to cope with the surrounding, and preserves the chemicals for a similar event that is likely to occur at any time in the future. Frequent occurrences of acute stress result in the generation of episodic stress.
Episodic stress is likely to occur because one gets anxious about the events they suspect will happen to them. For instance, if your life situation is chaotic, you are likely to be ready for the next brawl that might alter proper functioning. The last type of stress is chronic stress. Chronic stress is prolonged and hence it is expected to cause detrimental effects to the health of individuals. In determining the extend of the concept of stress, a set of components are used in order to define the actual, intended experience of stress.
In Robert Stawski’s Examination of the Effects of Exposure to Stress and Stress -Reactivity on Selective Attention, “stressors, events, or environmental demands are experiences or perturbations that require appraisals, or subjective evaluations of whether a situation requires behavioral adaptation.” (Stawski 2006) Furthermore, responses, such as behavioral, psychological, or biological, to these experiences are collectively known as stress responses.
In order to characterize and value these stress responses, the whole experience of stress as a whole is measured under experimental control. Once the experiments are conducted, it is then determined whether acute, chronic, or episodic stress causes changes in cognitive function and processes. Stress and cognition are interrelated, and thus has been the subject of research experiments. In 1968, “a discovery of glucocorticoid receptors in the rodent hippocampus [has led to much] research that has focused on the effects of stress on hippocampal-dependent functions, such as episodic memory.” (Stawski 2006)
Several research studies that emphasize the correlation between stress and decline in cognitive processes include Kuhlmann’s experiment, stating that “exposure to stress impaired young adults’ recall of a list of words 24 hours later, when compared to recall 24 hours after a non-stressful control task.” (Stawski 2006) In a similar experiment, Lupien “showed that older adults recall performance on a paired-associates memory task was poorer after stress compared to before, and that performance did not change after participants were exposed to a non-stressful visual search task.” (Stawski 2006)
These experiments manifest that the negative effects of stress will impact task performance involving “attention control, or effortful cognitive processing.” (Stawski, Sliwinski, & Smyth 2006) The negative aspects of stress on cognition have well been documented however, there are several limitations regarding laboratory testing. One of the main challenges in experimental settings is how to induce stress in a controlled setting.
Acute stress is normally elicited by variable procedures and in spite of this, “variability may lead to reduced comparability between results from different stressors.” (Wu & Yan 2017) Given this, the main issue becomes the lack of a standardized modem of delivery for stress and the associated responses. A secondary issue that arises from laboratory settings is that only moderate levels of stress may be induced. This issue serves as a limitation due to the fact that “moderate stress may not have the same effects on cognition as higher levels of stress.” (Wu & Yan 2017)
Cognitive functioning and negative response to stressors are thought as to have a positive correlation, meaning that as one factor increases, the other follows. However, is it possible that stress can have a positive, profound impact on cognitive performance? In a 2011 experiment, researchers aimed to answer this exact question. First, researchers observed “that stress reactivity consistent with maladaptive, threat response differentially predicted performance on two categorization tasks.” (Ell, Cosley, & McCoy 2011) The first task, information-integration, was mediated by procedural-learning system, while the second task, rule-based learning, was mediated by hypothesis testing.
The hypothesis-testing system “is highly dependent upon working memory,” and working memory is significantly impaired by increased stressors or threat. (Ell, Cosley, & McCoy 2011) Therefore, the it is reasonable to assert that increased stressor activity would be expected to impair the hypothesis-testing system, thus resulting reduced accuracy in the rule-based task. However, researchers hypothesized that the two tasks “operate in parallel, and compete for control of the observable categorization response across trials.” (Ell, Cosley, & McCoy 2011)
Initially, the hypothesis-testing system is in control, but control shifted in favor of the procedural-based learning exhibited in the information-integration task. Due to this completion, researchers hypothesized that “manipulations designed to interfere with the hypothesis-testing system can actually facilitate learning” in information-integration tasks. (Ell, Cosley, & McCoy 2011) To test this hypothesis, researched subjected all the participants to a social stressor in order to induce an arousal response. Immediately following the introduction of the stressor, participants were randomly assigned to complete one of the two tasks.
The experiment concluded that “increased threat reactivity was associated with higher accuracy on the information-integration task,” as initially predicted. (Ell, Cosley, & McCoy 2011) Positive stress facilitates learning by promoting completion among systems, eliminating the negative stressor that is conducive. This experiment proves that stress can be beneficial, and moreover, essential. The determinant that concludes whether stress is beneficial or harmful lies within each individual, as stressors and stress responses differ from one another.
In conclusion, it is indeed true that stress and stress factors fluctuate the way that cognitive processes operate and proceed. The two-sided approach of stress benefits, as equally as harms, cognitive controls. Negative stress illicit unwanted consequences, such as mood and behavioral declines, as well as decline in attention and performance tasks. In contrast, positive stress facilitates learning in procedural-learning tasks, and promotes overall health in psychological and behavioral systems.
