Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

G u e s t e d i t o r i a l : S t r e s s a n dh e a l t h : A p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n

*Correspondence to: Professor Cary L. Cooper, ProVice Chancellor (External Relations), Professor ofOrganizational Psychology and Health, Lancaster Uni-versity, Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK.† E-mail: c.cooper1@lancaster.ac.uk

S t r e s s a n d H e a l t hStress and Health 21: 73–75 (2005)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smi.1053

psychology’s mission the necessity of studyingboth human strengths and positive institutions.Positive psychology, like the positive philosophi-cal tradition, emphasizes human resilience andflourishing.

In calling for positive organizational behavior(POB), Luthans (2002a, 2002b) built upon thepositive psychology framework, and challengedresearchers to focus on identifying and develop-ing human strengths at work rather than alteringweaknesses. He contended that positive statesshould possess three criteria: that they are posi-tive psychological strengths, can be validly mea-sured, and are malleable in terms of interventionsin organizations to improve work performance.Luthans further suggested that ‘hope’, ‘confi-dence’, and ‘resiliency’ are states that meet thesecriteria.

The study of stress has long been recognized as a multidisciplinary endeavor (Cooper, 2005).With areas such as philosophy, health, psychol-ogy and organizational behavior turning towarda positive emphasis, it is high time too for stressresearchers to do the same.

Eustress and savoring

Many stress researchers have acknowledged therole of eustress, the positive stress response, butfew, if any, have studied it. Edwards and Cooper(1988) attributed this to the inadequate theoreti-cal and methodological development of positivepsychological states and their impact on impor-tant outcomes such as health. In addition, basedon reviewing the evidence, they concluded thatpositive assessment of stressors produces a differential physiological response. Accordingly,Edwards and Cooper (1988) suggested that themeasurement of eustress could involve the assess-ment of ‘positive psychological states’.

Simmons and his colleagues (cf. Nelson &Simmons, 2004; Simmons, 2000) developed theHolistic Model of Stress, which positions eustressas a response that is separate and distinct from

We are optimistic that a new day has dawned forstress and health researchers, one that brings withit the opportunity to view stress in a comprehen-sive, holistic fashion. Researchers in multiple disciplines are calling for a more positiveapproach—one that emphasizes and lifts uphuman strengths and defines health as more thanthe absence of disease. In addition, researchersare studying ‘healthy organizations’—those thattake a broader view of human and organizationalpotential and emphasize health, well-being, hap-piness, and performance.

Shifts toward the positive

The roots of the positive movement can be tracedas far back as Aristotle, who defined ‘eudaemo-nia’ as the realization of an individual’s truepotential (Rothman, 1993). Philosophy’s focus onthe positive began with eudaemonia, as writersbegan to explore human thriving and strengths.Russell (l930), for example, identified the causesof happiness as zest, work, and affection. Ryffand Singer (l998, 2002) extended this philosophi-cal analysis into the realm of health research.They pointed out that researchers and practition-ers alike tended to define health as the absence ofthe negative rather than the presence of the posi-tive. They called for a more complete view ofhealth, one that would include both mind–bodyinteractions and wellness.

Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) spear-headed the positive psychology movement, defining ‘positive psychology’ as a science of positive subjective experience. Seligman andCsikszentmihalyi articulated within positive

‘distress’, the negative response. Their model isbased upon the ‘bathtub metaphor.’ When youwant to take a comfortable bath, you use the coldand hot water faucets to control both the tem-perature and the level of the water in the bathtub.The level of water in the bathtub is controlled bytwo things—the flow of water into the tub fromthe faucets, and the flow of water out of the tubfrom the bathtub drain. The temperature of thebath water is controlled by the simultaneous flowof water from both faucets—hot and cold. Thestudy of stress can be described in a similarfashion. Past approaches to research on stress aresimilar to studying a bathtub with only one waterfaucet; that is, only the cold water (distress) hasbeen investigated. Quite a lot has been discoveredabout the sources of cold water, and ways toeither decrease the flow of cold water into thebathtub, or to increase the flow of cold water outof the bathtub (control the distress response orcope with distress). In addition, knowledge of thephysiological, psychological and behavioral con-sequences of sitting in a tub of cold water (dis-tress) for a long time is fairly well developed.

Using this metaphor, it is easy to see that ourknowledge of stress (bathtub) is incomplete. Weneed to study the hot water faucet (eustress) toconstruct a more complete understanding of anindividual’s experience of stress. A more completemodel must contain both faucets (eustress anddistress) to get the level and temperature of thebathtub just right.

‘Hope’, ‘meaningfulness’, and ‘manageability’,among others, are potential indicators of eustress.These indicators were included in a series ofstudies of hospital nurses and home health carenurses. Despite the demands of their work situa-tions, the nurses reported a high degree of thepositive psychological state of hope (Simmons &Nelson, 2001; Simmons, Nelson & Quick, 2004).The nurses remained actively engaged in theirwork, and the positive response to the demandsthey faced showed a significant relationship to their own well-being. Intensive care nurses,whose work entails significantly greater exposureto the stressor death and dying, were even morehopeful and engaged in their work than their colleagues. These studies indicate that even in extremely distressful jobs, eustress can be experienced.

Bret Simmons, of North Dakota State Univer-sity, and his colleagues also highlighted theconcept of ‘savoring’, in which individualspromote or prolong the experience of eustress

(Simmons & Nelson, 2001). They proposed thatmost individuals not only prefer eustress, theyactually savor, or enjoy with appreciation, thispositive response to aspects of demands theyencounter at work.

There are encouraging signs that eustress isnow being studied, and that savoring eustress hasbeen proposed for study, as a complement tosimply coping with distress. Much work remainsto be done in this area. The need to refine the con-structs of eustress and of savoring is one greatchallenge. Equally positive is that research isbeing conducted on the positive states andstrengths that are associated with health and well-being.

Positive states and strengths

For too long, we as researchers have focused onindividual traits and states associated with vul-nerability to ill health, such as Type A behavior,neuroticism, negative affect, and the like. This isimportant work, but we are calling for a shift inemphasis; that is, we must investigate traits andstates that promote health and well-being. Severalresearchers have begun to take this path.

Simmons and his colleagues, for example, havediscovered that hope, meaningfulness, and man-ageability, among others, are viable indicators ofeustress. Arie Shirom and his colleagues (Shirom,2004) at Tel Aviv University are focusing on‘vigor’, described as a positive affective responseto ongoing interactions with significant elementsin one’s work. Vigor is associated with feelings of ‘physical strength’, ‘cognitive liveliness’, and‘emotional energy’. Thomas Britt, of ClemsonUniversity, and his colleagues are studyingengagement (Britt, Adler & Bartone, 2001). Intheir studies of soldiers, hardiness was associatedwith engagement in meaningful work, which inturn was associated with deriving benefits frommilitary deployment long after it ended. Theirresearch shows that individuals confronted withdistressful situations can derive positive out-comes, and that certain individual characteristics(e.g. hardiness) can facilitate this process.

Jim Quick of the University of Texas at Arlington, and his colleagues are investigating therole of ‘attachment style’ in relation to health(Quick, Joplin, Nelson, Mangelsdorff, & Fiedler,1996). Specifically, ‘interdependence’, which is apattern of forming reciprocal, secure relation-ships with others and how this is related to health

Guest Editorial

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 21: 73–75 (2005)74

and well-being. Verena Kusstatscher and CaryCooper (2005) at Lancaster University are inves-tigating the role of ‘positive emotions’ within thecontext of mergers and acquisitions in industry.Even in the admittedly distressful context ofmergers, positive emotions emerged in associa-tion with merger success. Tom Wright of the University of Nevada, Reno, and his colleaguesare studying intent to remain in organizations (asopposed to intent to leave) along with psycho-logical well-being (Wright, & Bonett, 1992).Their research indicates that psychological well-being is associated with employee retention andjob performance. These are but a few of thepromising research streams that focus on humanstrengths in relation to health, defined as the presence of the positive.

Call to researchers

As stress researchers, we have long studied thenegative, and rightly so. We are not suggestingthat distress has no place in stress research.Instead, we are calling for an equal emphasis onthe positive; that is, we must study eustress, indi-vidual strengths, and savoring. In addition, wemust view health as the presence of the positive,not merely the absence of the negative. For toolong we have focused on distress; let’s giveeustress its place in stress research. The result willbe a more holistic, and realistic, portrayal of theindividual’s stress experience, and the organiza-tion’s ability to promote health and well-being.

References

Britt, T.W., Adler, A.B., & Bartone, P.T. (2001). Deriving ben-efits from stressful events: The role of engagement in mean-ingful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 6, 53–63.

Cooper, C.L. (2005). Handbook of stress medicine and health.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Edwards, J.R., & Cooper, C.L. (1988). The impacts of posi-tive psychological states on physical health: A review andtheoretical framework. Social Science Medicine, 27, 1147–1459.

Kusstatscher, V., & Cooper, C.L. (2005). Managing emotionin mergers and acquisitions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positiveorganizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 23, 695–706.

Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Devel-oping and managing psychological strengths. Academy ofManagement Executive, 16, 57–72.

Nelson, D.L., & Simmons B. (2004). Eustress: An elusive con-struct, an engaging pursuit. In P.L. Perrewe, & D.C. Ganster(Eds), Research in occupational stress and well being, Vol.3: Emotional and physiological processes and positive inter-vention strategies, (pp. 265–322). Oxford: Elsevies.

Quick, J.C., Joplin, J.R., Nelson, D.L., Mangelsdorff, A.D.,& Fiedler, E. (1996). Self-reliance and military service train-ing outcomes. Military Psychology, 8, 279–293.

Rothman, J.C. (1993). Aristotitle’s eudaemonia, terminal ill-ness, and the question of life support. New York: P. Lang.

Russell, B. (l958). The conquest of happiness. New York: Liveright, (original work published 1930).

Ryff, C.D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positivehuman health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.

Ryff, C.D., & Singer, B. (2002). From social structures tobiology: Integrative science in pursuit of human health andwell-being. In C.R. Snyder, & S.J. Lopez (Eds), Handbookof positive psychology, (pp. 541–555). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positivepsychology. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.

Shirom, A. (2004). Feeling vigorous at work? The constructof vigor and the study of positive affect in organizations. In P.L. Perrewe, & D.C. Ganster (Eds) Research in occu-pational stress and well-being, Vol. 3: Emotional and phy-siological processes and positive intervention strategies(pp. 135–164). Oxford Elsevier.

Simmons, B.L. (2000). Eustress at work: Accentuating thepositive. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, OklahomaState University.

Simmons, B.L., & Nelson, D.L. (2001). Eustress at work: Therelationship between hope and health in hospital nurses.Health Care Management Review, 26, 7–18.

Simmons, B.L., Nelson, D.L., & Quick, J.C. (2004). Healthfor the hopeful: A study of attachment behavior in homehealth care nurses. International Journal of Stress Manage-ment, 10, 361–371.

Wright, T.A., & Bonett, D.G. (1992). The effect of turnoveron work satisfaction and mental health: Support for a situ-ational perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior,13, 603–615.

Debra NelsonOklahoma State University, USA

Cary CooperLancaster University, UK

Guest Editorial

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 21: 73–75 (2005) 75