In the article “Effects of Effort and Distress Coping Processes on Psychophysiological and Psychological Stress Responses”, Shin-ichi Suzukia, Hiroaki Kumanob, and Yuji Sakanoc investigated the effects of different stress coping processes that include combinations of effort and distress on the autonomic nervous system and psychological responses like fear and anger, in stressful situations. There are three stress coping processes mentioned in the article, that of which included effort coping, distress coping, and effort-distress coping. Effort is when the individual has control and is showing active coping behavior, whereas distress is when the individual is losing control and is showing signs of avoidant coping behavior. The article goes through some examples as to what would constitute as being either effort or distress coping processes related to work. Effort without distress can be seen as someone doing their job without being interrupted, and it is followed by catecholamine secretion. Distress without effort can be seen as someone who is doing a difficult task, which is followed by cortisol secretion. Effort with distress can be seen as someone who works in a repetitive job like working on the assembly line, which is followed by both catecholamine and cortisol secretion. According to Frankenhaeuser, individuals who show commitment to tasks given and are involved, are relating to the effort state where as individuals who believe that the tasks are difficult and are avoidant, are relating to the distress state (1982,1986). In the article we are given examples as to what different levels/patterns of effort and distress give off such as high effort and low distress: commitment and active coping behavior, low effort and high distress: losing control, feeling threatened with avoidant coping behavior, high effort and high distress: losing control, feeling threatened but at the same time showing good performance, avoidant cognitive coping- adjusting emotionally, giving up and being involved behaviorally, low effort and low distress: stress not shown and appraised. In the research study there were a total of 40 undergraduate male students ranging from 18-22 years of age. Each individual was randomly placed in 1 of the 4 groups (10 in each group) being either effort coping, distress coping, effort-distress coping, and a control group that participated in a 60-minute session. Researchers recorded psychophysiological measures which included heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and skin conductance level (SCL). They also recorded psychological stress measures by evaluating mood change and looking for signs of depression/anxiety, irritability/anger, and helplessness. Effort and distress was measured using the effort and distress rating scale (EDRS) that measures cognitive appraisals and coping behavior after each session. Words used that showed commitment to tasks and active coping such as ‘ It was important that I accomplish this task’ would be measured as effort, whereas words used that showed any form of threat/uncontrollability and avoidant coping such as ‘ the task was threatening and I didn’t know how to cope with it so I gave up’ would be measured as distress. Each group of participants were given 4 numbers (used only once) and were asked to find the order of operations necessary to get the final answer of 10. The set of numbers were shown on a screen for 20 seconds and participants had to answer within the time given. There was a total of 10 tasks given for each session. While each participant was given the same tasks for sessions 1 and 2, the instructions in session 2 were different in order to get the various coping processes. The effort coping group was given instructions that they would receive a reward, this would then make the individuals committed; tasks in session 2 will be easier than in first and if you answer more right you get 1000-yen. The distress group was given instructions that they would get punished, this would then make them lose control; tasks in session 2 will be harder and if you can’t answer more than in the previous task you’ll get an electric shock on the leg after the session. The effort with distress group was given instructions that they would receive a reward which would lead them to be involved but could also be punished which would them make them lose control and feel threatened that they would give up; tasks in session 2 would be harder than in first, if you answer more right you get a reward and if you answer less you will get an electric shock on your leg. The control group was told that the second session would be just as difficult as the first. The results from the study indicated that the instructions given to each group effectively manipulated coping processes such that commitment and active engagement was increased in effort and effort-distress group, and threatened/ no control and avoidant coping was increased in the distress and effort-distress group. They found that effort/ effort-distress coping resulted in cardiovascular responses like blood pressure (found in active coping). They also found that distress/ effort-distress coping intensified skin conductance levels (found in avoidant coping). This suggested that different coping processes affect different psychophysiological and psychological response systems. With this knowledge one could recommend different stress coping strategies for example someone that rushes to solve a problem could try relaxation training that would calm their cardiovascular responses. Individuals who use avoidant coping could try cognitive behavioral therapy to lower their stress and the feeling of no control. One thing that this article added to the literature was more in-depth knowledge about the different coping processes of effort ad distress coping. Effort coping for example, would show an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. One thing that I would have done differently would be adding females into the study to include more ranged psychophysiological and psychological responses that can differ between sexes. Females may show different coping responses to stressful situations than the males. Overall, I thought the article was well organized and that it gave enough details and background on the processes that they were studying. Two discussion questions to think about are 1) Would there be any significant difference in the results if they were to include female participants in their research? And 2) What other stressors or responses could be measured if we were to look at a wider variety of stressful situations or settings?