and their environment. Likewise, coping is also seen as a similar interaction between the
person and the stressor. Further, in the same way that Lazarus and colleagues described
responses to stress as involving primary appraisal of the external stressor and secondary
appraisal of the person’s internal resources coping is seen to involve regulation of the
external stressor and regulation of the internal emotional response. Cohen and Lazarus
(1979) defined the goals of coping as the following:
1.To reduce stressful environmental conditions and maximize the chance of recovery;
2.To adjust or tolerate negative events;
3.To maintain a positive self-image;
4.To maintain emotional equilibrium; and
5.To continue satisfying relationship with others.
Styles, processes and strategies
When discussing coping, some research focuses on ‘styles’, some on ‘processes’ and some
on ‘strategies’. At times this may just reflect a different use of terminology. However, it
also reflects an ongoing debate within the coping literature concerning whether coping
should be considered a ‘trait’ similar to personality, or whether it should be considered a
‘state’ which is responsive to time and situation. The notion of a ‘style’ tends to reflect the
‘trait’ perspective and suggests that people are quite consistent in the way that they cope.
The notions of ‘process’ or ‘strategy’ tends to reflect a ‘state’ perspective suggesting that
people cope in different ways depending upon the time of their life and the demands of
the situation.
Ways of coping
Researchers have described different types of coping. Some differentiate between
approach and avoidance coping, whilst others describe emotion focused and problem
focused coping.
Approach versus avoidance
Roth and Cohen (1986) defined two basic modes of coping, approach and avoidance.
Approach coping involves confronting the problem, gathering information and taking
direct action. In contrast avoidant coping involves minimizing the importance of the
event. People tend to show one form of coping or the other although it is possible for
someone to manage one type of problem by denying it and other by making specific
plans. Some researchers have argued that approach coping is consistently more adaptive
than avoidant coping. However, research indicates that the effectiveness of the coping
style depends upon the nature of the stressor. For example, avoidant coping might be
more effective for short-term stressors (Wong and Kaloupek 1986), but less effective for
longer-term stressors (Holahan and Moos 1986). Therefore, it might be best to avoid
thinking about a one-off stressor such as going to the dentist but make plans and attend
STRESS AND ILLNESS 269