Exploring Stress Models and Theories in Disability

Stress is not a single, uniform experience. Two people living with similar disabilities can face the same barriers-inaccessible transport, employer resistance, chronic pain-and yet respond to them in entirely different ways. One may feel overwhelmed; the other may adapt and cope effectively. The reason for this difference lies not just in personality, but in how stress itself operates as a complex, multi-dimensional process. Psychological research has produced several influential models and theories to explain this-each offering a different lens through which to understand stress, particularly in the context of disability.

The biopsychosocial model of stress 🔗

The biopsychosocial model, first introduced by George Engel in 1977, moved away from the narrow biomedical view that illness is solely the result of physical dysfunction. Instead, it proposes that health and illness emerge from a dynamic interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors. This shift matters deeply when thinking about stress in disability.

According to this model, stress involves three interconnected components: an external component (environmental stressors and events), an internal component (an individual’s cognitive and emotional responses), and critically, the interaction between the two. According to the Biopsychosocial Model of Stress, these stressors fall into four broad categories: personal, social/familial, work-related, and environmental-all of which are particularly relevant for people with disabilities.

For example, a person with a mobility impairment may face physical health challenges (biological), experience anxiety about social participation (psychological), and encounter systemic barriers such as inaccessible buildings or discriminatory attitudes (social). Research confirms that chronic stress functions as the key mechanism linking these psychosocial factors to poor physical and mental health outcomes-making the biopsychosocial framework indispensable for understanding the full picture of disability-related stress.

Why the biomedical model falls short 🔗

The older biomedical model focused exclusively on biological processes-disordered cells, chemical imbalances-and largely ignored psychological or environmental influences. As reviewed in recent literature, the biopsychosocial model was developed precisely to address this gap, offering a framework where psychological and social processes are recognized as genuinely causal-not merely secondary-factors in health and illness. For individuals with disabilities, this recognition is empowering: it validates the reality that stress does not exist in isolation from one’s social and environmental context.

Cognitive appraisal theory (Lazarus, 1984) 🔗

Perhaps the most widely applied theory of psychological stress is Richard Lazarus’s Cognitive Appraisal Theory, developed in collaboration with Susan Folkman and published in their landmark 1984 text Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. The core insight of this theory is straightforward but profound: stress is perceived as the imbalance between the demands placed on the individual and the individual’s resources to cope. In other words, it is not events themselves that cause stress-it is how we interpret and evaluate them.

Primary appraisal: assessing the threat 🔗

The first step in Lazarus’s model is primary appraisal-a rapid cognitive assessment of whether an event is relevant to one’s well-being. In this stage, individuals classify a situation as a threat, a challenge, or a harm/loss. A threat involves anticipation of future harm; a challenge involves potential for growth or mastery; and harm/loss refers to damage that has already occurred. If the situation is judged irrelevant, no significant stress response follows. For a person with a disability, receiving a denial for accommodation might be immediately appraised as a threat to livelihood and independence.

Secondary appraisal: evaluating coping resources 🔗

Once a situation is judged as significant, secondary appraisal begins. This is where individuals assess available resources to cope with the identified threat or harm-including social support networks, financial stability, energy, skills, and personal abilities. If an individual perceives sufficient resources, the emotional impact of the stressor is reduced. If resources are perceived as inadequate, distress intensifies. Crucially, secondary appraisal examines both internal capacities and external support, making social support and access to services particularly powerful buffers of stress for people with disabilities.

Two people with the same disability can assess identical barriers very differently based on their history, available resources, and sense of personal control. This is why cognitive appraisal theory remains central to disability stress research-it explains variability in stress responses without reducing individuals to their diagnosis.

General Adaptation Syndrome (Selye, 1936/1978) 🔗

While Lazarus focused on cognitive processes, Hans Selye approached stress from a physiological standpoint. Selye described stress as the “nonspecific response of the body to any demand” and proposed that the body follows a predictable, three-stage pattern in response to prolonged stress-which he termed the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS).

Stage 1: alarm 🔗

The first stage is the alarm reaction, in which the body mobilizes its defenses via the fight-or-flight response. The adrenal glands release cortisol and adrenaline, heart rate increases, and energy is rapidly mobilized. For someone with a disability encountering an acute stressor-such as a medical emergency or a sudden loss of support services-this alarm response is activated immediately.

Stage 2: resistance 🔗

If the stressor continues, the body moves into the resistance stage, where it attempts to adapt and return to homeostasis. Stress hormone levels begin to normalize, and the body’s focus shifts from alertness to repair. A person adapting to a new assistive device or learning to navigate a changed living situation may be in this stage-functioning, but operating at a physiologically elevated level of effort.

Stage 3: exhaustion 🔗

The third and most consequential stage is exhaustion. When prolonged stress continues beyond the body’s adaptive capacity, resistance breaks down and vulnerability to illness increases significantly. Selye coined the term “diseases of adaptation” to describe conditions-hypertension, gastric ulcers, immune suppression-that emerge not from the stressor itself but from the body’s sustained effort to cope with it. For individuals with disabilities, chronic stressors such as systemic inaccessibility, ongoing medical management, or social discrimination can drive the body toward exhaustion, compounding existing health challenges.

Physiological toughening model (Dienstbier, 1989) 🔗

Richard Dienstbier’s Physiological Toughening Model, published in Psychological Review in 1989, offered a significant challenge to the prevailing pessimism about stress. Rather than treating all stress as harmful, Dienstbier argued that the relationship between stress and health is far more nuanced-and that the type and timing of stressors matters enormously.

Three categories of stressors 🔗

Dienstbier distinguishes between three types of stressors based on duration. Acute stressors are brief and typically involve an identifiable threat. Chronic stressors are prolonged, often ambiguous, and easily overlooked-making them particularly dangerous because they may go unrecognized and unmanaged. Intermittent stressors, the focus of the toughening model, alternate between periods of stress and calm.

How toughening works 🔗

According to Dienstbier’s research, exposure to intermittent stressors-when they are perceived as manageable challenges rather than threats-leads to a distinct physiological profile: low baseline levels of sympathetic nervous system arousal, but strong and responsive activation when needed. This pattern is associated with greater resilience, better performance under pressure, and reduced vulnerability to the negative effects of stress. Importantly, Dienstbier also argued that when an event is appraised as a challenge rather than a threat, it produces meaningfully different physiological consequences-supporting more positive emotional outcomes.

For disability contexts, this model carries a hopeful implication: when individuals with disabilities face manageable challenges and develop strategies to navigate them, they may build genuine psychological and physiological resilience over time-rather than simply enduring stress.

Transactional model of stress and coping 🔗

Closely related to cognitive appraisal theory, the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping-rooted in the foundational work of Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and later applied to disability contexts by researchers including Kilickaya and Karakas (2017)-places the interaction between person and environment at the very center of the stress experience.

Stress as a transaction, not an event 🔗

According to this model, stress arises not from external events themselves but from the ongoing transaction between individuals and their surroundings. Stress occurs when the demands of that transaction are perceived to exceed the individual’s available resources. This framing is particularly relevant in disability studies because it rejects the idea that stress is inherent to having a disability. Instead, it recognizes that stress is produced by the interaction between a person’s capacities and the environment in which they live.

Personal and environmental factors in disability 🔗

Within disability contexts, the transactional model highlights two categories of factors that shape stress experiences. Personal factors include personality traits, coping skills, prior experiences with advocacy, and access to internal resources. Environmental factors include physical accessibility, social attitudes, institutional policies, and available support services. Research confirms that this model generally proposes stress as an interaction between individuals and environmental factors-and that both domains must be addressed to reduce stress effectively.

What makes this model especially valuable is its emphasis on change. Social support can play a crucial role in how individuals cope with stress, as it enhances one’s resources during secondary appraisal. As individuals build new skills, as environments become more accessible, and as social attitudes toward disability evolve, the very nature of stress transactions can shift. This dynamic view reframes disability-related stress not as a fixed condition but as something that can genuinely be reduced through targeted changes to either personal resources or environmental conditions.

Comparing the models: what each contributes 🔗

Each of these models captures a different facet of stress that is relevant to disability experience. The biopsychosocial model insists that we look at the whole person-biology, mind, and social context-simultaneously, rather than reducing stress to any single dimension. The cognitive appraisal theory explains why the same situation produces radically different stress levels in different people, and it points toward the power of perception and coping resources as targets for intervention. The General Adaptation Syndrome makes clear that the body keeps score: chronic, unresolved stress causes measurable physiological damage, and individuals with disabilities who face persistent systemic barriers are physiologically at risk. The physiological toughening model offers a counterpoint-not all stress is harmful, and managed challenges can build resilience. Finally, the transactional model reframes the question entirely, locating stress not within the person or the environment alone, but in the dynamic space between them.

Together, these frameworks make a compelling case that stress in disability is neither inevitable nor purely internal. It is shaped by bodies, minds, histories, environments, and the ongoing negotiations between them-all of which can be understood, and meaningfully changed.

What do you think? If stress is shaped more by how we appraise a situation than by the situation itself, what does that imply for how support services and rehabilitation programs should be designed for people with disabilities? And considering Dienstbier’s toughening model, how might we distinguish between stress that builds resilience and stress that simply depletes it?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model
2. http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/stress.htm
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK552028/
4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10755226/
5. https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_1115
6. https://explorable.com/stress-and-cognitive-appraisal
7. https://www.jove.com/science-education/v/18587/lazarus-s-cognitive-appraisal-theory
8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11274181/
9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5915631/
10. https://www.healthline.com/health/general-adaptation-syndrome
11. https://med.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Health_and_Fitness/Exercise_and_Nutrition_(Markell_Peterson_and_Johnson)/09:_Stress/9.02:_General_Adaptation_Syndrome
12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/adaptation-syndrome
13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2538855/
14. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1215&context=psychfacpub
15. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/psychology/transactional-model-stress-and-coping
16. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76339-4
17. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/adolescent-development/transactional-model-of-stress