What are coping strategies?

Introduction

The word “cope” is derived from the Latin word colpus, meaning “to alter,” and, as defined in Webster’s Dictionary, is usually used in the psychological paradigm to denote “dealing with and attempting to overcome problems and difficulties.” In psychology, the word “coping,” in addition to this behavioral application, has been used as a broad heuristic in several other domains, including as a thought process, as a personality characteristic, and in social context.

The concept of coping can be traced back to the defense mechanisms described in the psychoanalytical model by the famous Austrian neurologist
Sigmund Freud. Freud described several methods that a person’s mind uses to protect itself: introjection, isolation, projection reversal, reaction formation, regression, repression, sublimation, turning against the self, and undoing. While defining all these terms is beyond the scope of the present discussion, it is worth noting that, according to Freud, mechanisms ofdefense are the devices that the mind uses in altering one’s perception to situations disturbing the internal milieu or mental balance. He applied the concept in identifying sources of anxiety through free association.

One of Freud’s associates, Austrian physician Alfred Adler, disagreed with Freud and described defense mechanisms as protective against external threats or challenges. Sigmund Freud’s daughter, Anna Freud
, herself a renowned psychologist, included both of these viewpoints and underscored the role of defense mechanisms as protective against both internal and external threats. She also extended the repertoire of defense mechanisms to include denial, intellectualization, ego restriction, and identification with the aggressor. Therefore, it appears that the concept of defense mechanisms was very similar to the present understanding of coping at the thought process level and preceded the concept of coping. However, psychologist Norma Haan, in her book Coping and Defending (1977), clearly distinguishes defense mechanisms from coping. She contends that coping is purposive and involves choices, while defense mechanisms are rigid and set. Coping, according to Haan, is more focused on the present, while defense mechanisms are premised on the past and distort the present.

Psychologist Robert White, in Stress and Coping: An Anthology (1991), contends that coping is derived from the larger biological concept of adaptation. The origin of all species is a result of adaptation mediated through the process of natural selection. This concept of adaptation is extended in the behavioral realm to include dealing with minor problems and frustrations, such as waiting in the grocery line, as well as more complex difficulties, such as dealing with the death of a spouse. In this context, coping is essentially an adaptation under more difficult conditions. White also talks about the term “mastery,” which he contends is quite unpopular with psychologists because of its connotation with “superiority” and “winning and losing.” However, mastery is another way of describing the concept of coping, whereby the anxiety or danger is mastered.

Perhaps the greatest impetus to the contemporary understanding of coping has come from the work of the American psychologist Richard Lazarus, an emeritus professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and his colleagues. Lazarus introduced the transactional model of stress and coping in his 1966 book Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. He elaborated this concept further in 1984 in the book Stress, Appraisal, and Coping (with coauthor Susan Folkman).

According to the transactional model, stressful experiences are perceived as person-environment transactions. In these transactions, the person undergoes a four-stage assessment known as appraisal. When confronted with any possible stressful situation, the first stage is the primary appraisal of the event. In this stage, based on one’s previous experience, knowledge about oneself, and knowledge about the event, the person internally determines whether he or she is in trouble. If the event is perceived to be threatening or has caused harm or loss in the past, then the stage of secondary appraisal occurs. If, on the other hand, the event is judged to be irrelevant or poses no threat, then stress does not develop and no further coping is required. The secondary appraisal determines how much control one has over the situation or the event. Based on this understanding, the individual ascertains what means of control are available. This is the stage known as coping. Finally, the fourth stage is the stage of reappraisal, in which the person determines whether the original event or situation has been effectively negated. The primary focus of Lazarus’s conceptualization of coping is on coping as an application of thought processes and behavioral efforts to combat demands that exceed a person’s resources. The hallmarks of this conceptualization are its focus on the process of coping as opposed to personality traits; the importance of specific stressful situations in inducing coping as opposed to a general physiological response; and a lack of reference to the outcome (whether positive or negative), as opposed to the mastery concept, which emphasizes only the positive aspects.

Coping Strategies

According to the transactional model, there are two broad categories of coping. The first one is called problem-focused coping,, and the second one is called emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping is based on one’s capability to think about and alter the environmental event or situation. Examples of this strategy at the thought-process level include utilization of problem-solving skills, interpersonal conflict resolution, advice seeking, time management, goal setting, and gathering more information about what is causing one stress. Problem solving requires thinking through various solutions, evaluating the pros and cons of different solutions, and then implementing a solution that seems most advantageous to reduce the stress. Examples of this strategy at the behavioral or action level include activities such as joining a smoking-cessation program, complying with a prescribed medical treatment, adhering to a diabetic diet plan, or scheduling and prioritizing tasks for managing time.

In the emotion-focused strategy, the focus is inward on altering the way one thinks or feels about a situation or an event. Examples of this strategy at the thought-process level include denying the existence of the stressful situation, freely expressing emotions, avoiding the stressful situation, making social comparisons, or minimizing (looking at the bright side of things). Examples of this strategy at the behavioral or action level include seeking social support to negate the influence of the stressful situation; using exercise, relaxation, or meditation; joining support groups; practicing religious rituals; and escaping through the use of alcohol and drugs.

Several predictive empirical studies done using this model have generally shown that problem-focused strategies are quite helpful for stressful events that can be changed, while emotion-focused strategies are more helpful for stressful events that cannot be changed. Some of these coping strategies are healthy, such as applying problem-solving skills; some are neither inherently healthy nor unhealthy, such as practicing some religious rituals; and some are unhealthy or maladaptive, such as denying the existence of a stressful situation or escaping through the use of drugs.

Choice of coping strategy is influenced by the quantity and quality of available resources for coping that may be available to a person. These resources include knowledge (for example, knowledge of the functioning at a workplace), skills (such as analytical skills), attitudes (for example, self-efficacy or confidence in one’s ability to perform a specific behavior), social resources (people with whom a person can exchange information), physical resources (health and stamina), material resources (money), and societal resources (policies and laws).

Measurement of Coping Strategies

Self-reported, paper-and-pencil tools are commonly used in measuring coping strategies. A popular assessment tool for measuring coping strategies is the Ways of Coping (WOC) Checklist developed by Lazarus and Folkman, which contains sixty-eight different items. These responses have been divided into eight categories: accepting of responsibility (such as criticizing or lecturing oneself), confrontational coping (expressing anger), distancing (trivializing the situation), escape avoidance (wishing that the situation would go away), planned problem solving (making a plan of action and following it), positive reappraisal (changing or growing as a person in a good way), seeking of social support (talking to someone to find out about more about the situation), and self-controlling (keeping feelings to oneself). A further revision of this scale, the Ways of Coping Checklist-Revised, contains a list of forty-two coping behaviors.

American psychologist Charles S. Carver and his colleagues have designed the Coping Orientations to Problems Experienced (COPE) scale. The COPE scale has twelve component scales for types of coping strategies that include acceptance, active coping, denial, disengagement, humor, planning, positive reframing, religion, restraint, social support, self-distraction, and suppression of competing activities. Carver has also designed and tested a brief version of the COPE scale for use with other large protocols that has been found to be efficacious. Other scales have been developed to measure the daily utilization of coping.

Personality Traits and Coping

The relationship between personality trait characteristics and coping has been suggested and studied by several researchers. American psychologist Suzanne Kobasa, in her 1977 University of Chicago doctoral dissertation, studied the role of personality and coping. Specifically, she examined the characteristics of highly stressed people among those who remained healthy and those who did not manifest any illness following stressful times. She coined the term “hardiness” to depict the personality profile of people who remained healthy. Her research found three general characteristics of hardiness: the belief of control or the ability to influence the events of one’s experience, commitment to activities in life or a feeling of deep involvement, and challenge to further development or anticipation of change.

Israeli medical sociologist Aaron Antonovsky described the concept of “sense of coherence,” also related to personality traits, as being central to coping. He described three components as being representative of this concept: comprehensibility, meaningfulness, and manageability. Comprehensibility means that the person believes that the world around him or her is making some sense, there is some set structure, and there is some level of predictability. Manageability implies the faith that a person has in his or her ability to meet the various demands in life in one way or another. Meaningfulness implies the belief that whatever one does has a purpose in life. Antonovsky proposed that people who possess a higher sense of coherence tend to cope better in life.

Another personality characteristic that has been studied in relation to coping is optimism. Optimism is the tendency to look at the brighter side of things and to expect positive outcomes from one’s actions. Research has shown that optimism improves effective coping. Carver and his colleagues studied the effects of optimism in patients suffering from breast cancer, heart rehabilitation patients, and people in other stressful situations and found the beneficial effect of optimism on coping.

American cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman, in their observations of heart disease patients, described two types of personalities: Type A and Type B. People with type A behavior pattern are characterized by time urgency impatience, competitiveness, and hostility. Those with type B show the opposites of these characteristics, exemplified by no time urgency and being cooperative and patient in their disposition. Type A personalities have been found to demonstrate negative coping styles in terms of showing more negative physiological and psychological outcomes.

Social Environment and Coping

Coping does not occur in vacuum. Most stressful situations entail involvement with people. Therefore, social environment influences stress and coping. Social environment can be conceptualized at a broader level as the social structure, and it can also be conceptualized in a specific, narrow way as close social relationships. The latter are often described as social support and depict the most common way researchers have studied the social relationship in the context of coping. The broader effect of social structure on coping is rather obvious. For example, a person on the higher rung of the social ladder would have access to greater resources and thus would be able to apply a variety of coping resources, while a person at the bottom of the social ladder, living in poverty, would have fewer resources at his or her disposal.

Social support has been conceptualized from different perspectives. American sociologist James House defined social support as the “aid and assistance that one receives through social relationships and interpersonal exchanges” and classified it into four types. The first is emotional social support, or the empathy, love, trust, and caring that one receives from others. The second kind is instrumental social support, or the tangible aid and service that one receives from others. The third type is informational social support, or the advice, suggestions, and information that one receives from others. The fourth type is appraisal social support, or the information that one receives for self-assessment. Social support has a direct effect on lowering stress levels and improving effective coping, as well as providing stress “buffering effects,” or what statisticians call effect modulation. For example, a person undergoing stress may talk to a friend, who may provide a tangible aid to cope (direct effect), may modify the receiver’s perception of the stressful event, or may enhance the receiver’s belief that he or she can cope with the stressful event (buffering effect).

Bibliography

Bloona, Richard, ed. Coping with Stress in a Changing World. 5th ed. New York: McGraw, 2011. Print.

Dewe, Philip. “Determinants of Coping: Some Alternative Explanations and Measurement Issues.” Psychological Reports 88.3 (2001): 832–34. Print.

Eckenrode, John, ed. The Social Context of Coping. New York: Plenum, 1991. Print.

Field, Tiffany M., Philip M. McCabe, and Neil Schneiderman, eds. Stress and Coping. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1985. Print.

Lazarus, Richard S., and Susan Folkman. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer, 2006. Print.

Monat, Alan, and Richard S. Lazarus, eds. Stress and Coping: An Anthology. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia UP, 1991. Print.

Rice, Virginia H., ed. Handbook of Stress, Coping, and Health: Implications for Nursing Research, Theory, and Practice. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2012. Print.

Robbins, Paul R. Coping with Stress: Commonsense Strategies. Jefferson: McFarland, 2007. Print.

Romas, John A., and Manoj Sharma. Practical Stress Management: A Comprehensive Workbook for Managing Change and Promoting Health. 6th ed. San Francisco: Pearson, 2013. Print.

Snyder, C. R., ed. Coping: The Psychology of What Works. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.