{"id":1052,"date":"2014-03-14T18:41:21","date_gmt":"2014-03-14T18:41:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/introductiontopsychology\/?post_type=chapter&p=1052"},"modified":"2018-03-20T19:00:35","modified_gmt":"2018-03-20T19:00:35","slug":"15-2-stress-and-coping","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/introductiontopsychology\/chapter\/15-2-stress-and-coping\/","title":{"raw":"16.2 Stress and Coping","rendered":"16.2 Stress and Coping"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Define coping and adaptation.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Understand the various conceptualizations of stress as stimulus, response, and transactional process.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Understand the role of cognition and physiology in coping with stress.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Recognize emotion-focused and problem-focused coping strategies.<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. Understand the relationships and interactions between health, stress, and coping.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\nIn order to understand how people learn to cope with stress, it is important to first reflect on the different conceptualizations of stress and how the coping research has emerged alongside distinct approaches to stress. Stress<\/strong> has been viewed as a response<\/i>, a stimulus,<\/i> and a transaction<\/i>. How an individual\u00a0conceptualizes stress determines his or her\u00a0response, adaptation, or coping strategies.\r\n

    Stress As a Response<\/h2>\r\nStress as a\u00a0response<\/strong> model, initially introduced by Hans Selye (1956), describes stress as a physiological response pattern<\/em> and was captured within his\u00a0general adaptation syndrome (GAS)<\/strong> model (Figure 16.3). This\u00a0model describes stress as a dependent variable and includes three concepts<\/em>:\r\n
      \r\n \t
    1. Stress is a defensive mechanism.<\/li>\r\n \t
    2. Stress follows the three stages of alarm, resistance, <\/i>and exhaustion.<\/i><\/li>\r\n \t
    3. If the stress is prolonged or severe, it could result in diseases of adaptation or even death.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nLater, in The Stress Concept: Past, Present and Future<\/em> (1983), Selye introduced the idea that the stress response could result in positive or negative outcomes based on cognitive interpretations of the physical symptoms or physiological experience (Figure 16.3, \"The General Adaptation to Stress Model\")<\/span>. In this way, stress could be experienced as eustress<\/em> (positive) or dystress<\/em> (negative). However, Selye always considered stress to be a physiologically based construct or response.\u00a0 Gradually, other researchers expanded the thinking on stress to include and involve psychological concepts earlier in the stress model.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_4423\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"400\"]<\/a> Figure 16.3 General Adaptation to Stress (GAS) Model.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe response model of stress incorporates coping within the model itself. The idea of adaptation or coping is inherent to the GAS model\u00a0at both the alarm and resistance stages. When confronted with a negative stimulus, the alarm response initiates the sympathetic nervous system to combat or avoid the stressor (i.e., increased heart rate, temperature, adrenaline, and glucose levels). The resistance response then initiates physiological systems with a\u00a0fight or flight<\/em>\u00a0reaction to the stressor, returning the system to homeostasis, reducing harm, or more generally accommodating the stressor, which can lead to adaptive diseases such as sleep deprivation, mental illness, hypertension, or heart disease. Thus, along with the early conceptualization of stress as a physiological response, early research on coping was also born. As early as 1932, Walter Cannon described the notion of self-regulation in his work The Wisdom of the Body.<\/em>\r\n

      Stress As a Stimulus<\/h2>\r\nThe theory of stress as a stimulus\u00a0<\/i><\/strong>was\u00a0introduced in the 1960s, and\u00a0viewed stress as a significant life event or change that\u00a0demands response, adjustment, or adaptation.<\/em>\u00a0Holmes\u00a0and<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Rahe<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(1967) created the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) consisting of 42 life events scored according to the estimated degree of adjustment they would each demand of the person experiencing them (e.g.,\u00a0marriage, divorce, relocation, change or loss of job, loss of loved one). Holmes and Rahe theorized that\u00a0stress was\u00a0an independent variable in the health-stress-coping equation\u00a0\u2014\u00a0the cause of an experience rather than the experience itself.<\/span> While some correlations emerged between SRRS scores and illness (Rahe, Mahan, & Arthur, 1970; Johnson & Sarason, 1979), there were problems with the stress as stimulus theory. The stress as stimulus theory assumes:\r\n
        \r\n \t
      1. Change is inherently stressful.<\/li>\r\n \t
      2. Life events demand the same levels of adjustment across the population.<\/li>\r\n \t
      3. There is a common threshold of adjustment beyond which illness will result.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nRahe and Holmes initially viewed the human subject as a passive recipient of stress, one who played no role in determining the degree, intensity, or valence of the stressor. Later, Rahe introduced the concept of interpretation into his research (Rahe & Arthur, 1978), suggesting that a change or life event could be interpreted as a positive or negative experience based on cognitive and emotional factors. However, the stress as stimulus model still ignored important variables such as prior learning, environment, support networks, personality, and life experience.\r\n

        Stress As a Transaction<\/h2>\r\nIn attempting to explain stress as more of a dynamic process, Richard Lazarus developed the transactional theory of stress and coping<\/strong> (TTSC) (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), which presents stress as a product of a transaction between a person (including multiple systems: cognitive, physiological, affective, psychological, neurological)\u00a0and his or her complex environment<\/em>.\u00a0<\/span>Stress as a transaction\u00a0<\/i>was introduced with the most impact when Dr. Susan Kobasa first used\u00a0the concept of hardiness <\/i>(Kobasa, 1979). Hardiness refers to a pattern of personality characteristics that distinguishes people who remain healthy under life stress compared with\u00a0those who develop health problems. In the late 1970s, the concept of hardiness was further developed by Salvatore Maddi, Kobasa, and their graduate students at the University of Chicago (Kobasa, 1982; Kobasa & Maddi, 1981; Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982; Kobasa, Maddi, Puccetti, & Zola, 1985; Maddi & Kobasa, 1984). Hardiness has some notable similarities with other personality constructs in psychology, including locus of control (Rotter, 1966), sense of coherence (Antonovsky, 1987), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), \u00a0and dispositional optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985), all of which will be discussed in the next section. Researchers introduced multiple variables to the stress-as-transaction model, expanding and categorizing various factors to account for the complex systems involved in experiencing a stressor (Werner, 1993). The nature of stress was described in multiple ways: acute, episodic or intermittent, and chronic. Different types of stressors emerged, such as event, situation, cue, and condition, which then fell into categories based on locus of control, predictability, tone, impact, and duration. Figure 16.4 illustrates theories of stress\u00a0as a response, stimulus, and transaction.<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1113\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"400\"]\"Stress<\/a> Figure 16.4 Theories of stress as response, stimulus, and transaction.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn his book Psychological Stress and the Coping Process<\/em> (1966), Lazarus presented an elegant integration of previous research on stress, health, and coping that\u00a0placed a person\u2019s appraisal of a stressor at the centre of the stress experience. How an individual appraises a stressor determines how he or she\u00a0copes with or responds to the stressor. Whether or not a stressor is\u00a0experienced as discomforting is influenced by a variety of personal and contextual factors including capacities, skills and abilities, constraints, resources, and norms (Mechanic, 1978). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) unpacked the concept of interpretation further in their model of stress appraisal, which includes primary, secondary, and reappraisal components (see Figure 16.5, \"The Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping\"). Primary appraisal<\/strong> involves determining whether the stressor poses a threat<\/em>. Secondary appraisal<\/strong> involves the individual's evaluation of the resources or coping strategies at his or her disposal for addressing any perceived threats<\/em>. The process of reappraisal<\/strong> is ongoing and involves continually reappraising both the nature of the stressor and the resources available for responding to the stressor<\/em>.<\/span>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1111\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"584\"]\"""\"<\/a> Figure 16.5 The Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping, by J. Walinga.[\/caption]\r\n

        Coping with Stress<\/h2>\r\nThere are many ways that people strive to cope with stressors and feelings of stress in their lives. A host of literature, both popular and academic, extols the practice of stress management and whole industries are devoted to it.\u00a0Many techniques are available to help individuals cope with the stresses that life brings. Some of the techniques listed in Figure 16.6, \"Stress Management Techniques,\"\u00a0 induce a lower than usual stress level temporarily to compensate the biological tissues involved; others face the stressor at a higher level of abstraction.\u00a0Stress management techniques are more general and range from cognitive (mindfulness, cognitive therapy, meditation) to physical (yoga, art, natural medicine, deep breathing) to environmental (spa visits, music, pets, nature).\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_2580\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"400\"]\"Stress<\/a> Figure 16.6 Stress Management Techniques [Long Description]<\/a>[\/caption]Stress coping<\/strong>,<\/strong> <\/i>as described by researchers such as Lazarus and Folkman, implies a more specific process of cognitive appraisal to determine whether an individual believes he or she has the resources to respond effectively to the challenges of a stressor<\/em> or change (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). The appraisal literature explains the response or coping process in terms of problem-focused coping or emotion-focused coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), also referred to as active<\/em> and passive<\/em> coping styles (Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001). As well, approach<\/em> and avoidance-style<\/em> measures of coping exist involving assertiveness or withdrawal (Anshel, 1996; Anshel & Weinberg, 1999; Roth & Cohen, 1986). When faced with a challenge, an individual primarily appraises the challenge as either threatening or non-threatening, and secondarily in terms of whether he or she has the resources to respond to or cope with the challenge effectively. If the individual does not believe he or she has the capacity to respond to the challenge or feels a lack of control, he or she is most likely to turn to an emotion-focused coping response such as wishful thinking (e.g.,\u00a0I wish that I could\u00a0change what is happening or how I feel), distancing (e.g.,\u00a0I\u2019ll try to forget the whole thing), or emphasizing the positive (e.g.,\u00a0I\u2019ll just look for the silver lining)\u00a0(Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). If the person\u00a0has the resources to manage the challenge, he or she will usually develop a problem-focused coping response such as analysis (e.g.,\u00a0I try to analyze the problem in order to understand it better; I'm making a plan of action and following it). It is theorized and empirically demonstrated that a person's\u00a0secondary appraisal then determines coping strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Coping strategies vary from positive thinking to denial (see Figure 16.7, \"COPE Inventory\") and are measured and tested using a variety of instruments and scales such as the COPE inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989).\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_2745\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"300\"]\"Coping<\/a> Figure 16.7 COPE Inventory. The COPE inventory scale of coping techniques. [Long Description]<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n
        \r\n

        Research Focus: Stress and Playing Soccer<\/h3>\r\nWalinga (2008), in her work with a university soccer team that was undergoing several stressful changes in addition to\u00a0the usual performance stressors, recently elaborated upon the appraisal model by suggesting that reappraisal more specifically involves a reiteration of the primary-secondary appraisal process. Once a person determines that a stressor is indeed a threat, and secondarily appraises resources as lacking, he or she\u00a0then primarily appraises the\u00a0secondary appraisal. In other words, the person\u00a0determines whether having a lack of resources indeed poses some sort of threat. If lack of resources is deemed not to be a threat, the person is much more likely to generate creative solutions to the initial stressor and therefore\u00a0cope effectively. But if a lack of resources is deemed to be a threat, then the person tends to focus on finding resources rather than addressing the initial stressor, and arrives at ineffective control-focused coping strategies.\r\n\r\nIn the case of the university soccer players, some initial stressors were identified as \u201ca particularly challenging or sizable opponent,\u201d \u201crainy conditions,\u201d\u00a0\u201cthe cold,\u201d\u00a0\u201cnot connecting with the coach,\u201d\u00a0or \u201cnegative attitudes on the field.\u201d\u00a0Typical emotion- or control-focused coping strategies included \u201cworking harder\u201d and \u201csucking it up,\u201d as well as avoidance or passivity. One player who struggled with her opponent\u2019s size felt that she had little control over the fact that her opponent was taller and thus \u201cbeat her to the header balls.\u201d She explained how she would \u201cjust kinda fade away when we play that team\u2026get passive and just fade into the background.\u201d Her coping response signified a withdrawal subscale on the emotion-focused coping scale, and when asked about her degree of satisfaction with her chosen path of response, she replied that she was \u201cunhappy but could see no other alternative.\u201d However, generally the team and several of the key leaders expressed alternative coping strategies not accounted for in the transactional theory of stress and coping. While several members of the team had a negative secondary appraisal, believing themselves to be lacking in the resources required to deal with the changes that occurred to the team, during the interviews it became apparent that such powerlessness did not, as was expected, lead only to emotion-focused coping, such as defensiveness, blame, or withdrawal; an acknowledged lack of control often resulted in an ability to move on and solve the challenges of change effectively.\r\n\r\nMany of the team members believed \u201chitting rock bottom\u201d accounted for their successful transformation, acting as a sort of \u201ctrigger\u201d or \u201crestart\u201d and enabling them to gain greater clarity about their goals, as well as strategies for achieving these goals. Rather than focusing on increasing control or controlling the barrier or threat itself, the tolerant individual accepts the barrier as reality and accepts the lack of control as a reality. This person\u00a0can now attend to and identify the challenges that the barrier poses to attaining her\u00a0goals. For instance, the goalkeeper focused not on regretting or blaming herself for a missed save, or even trying harder next time, but instead focused on the challenges that a difficult shot posed for her and how she might resolve an unexpected spin on the ball. When faced with rainy conditions, the tolerant player focused not on denying or pushing through the rain, but on the problems the rain creates for her and how to resolve the resulting lack of ball control or slippery field conditions:\r\n