COPING IN CHH

Coping and resilience though related mean different things. Coping refers more to individual characteristics and how these enable an individual to manage in the face of adversity. The differences between coping and resilience are detailed in chapter three. A number of themes emerged from a study undertaken by Nkomo (2006) on coping strategies used by CHH. Her studies revealed that as a coping mechanism some of the children conveyed a sense of fatalism and acceptance of the situation. They reported that it was their fate, they could not do much to change this fact and that they had to find ways of dealing with the situation. A number of children drew on religiosity as a coping mechanism. They reported drawing strength from God, through prayer or reading the Bible.

Other children reported a strong sense of belief in themselves and their abilities. They had developed a form of hardiness and were determined to make it in life despite their problems. They had big dreams and visions of their future and wanted to make something out of their hardships (Nkomo, 2006). These children also expressed the responses that the experience of receiving help and support from organisations went a long way in restoring a sense of hope, meaning and purpose in life. It made them realise that there are people who care about their well- being. Most reported that a chance to mix with their peers and friends at school made them temporarily forget their day-to-day worries and demands, and that this became a significant source of respite.

Bower (2005) reiterated that although CHH are to a certain extent vulnerable, society should acknowledge certain strengths that they possess and should offer a range of support mechanisms to uphold the integrity and functioning of the CHH.

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined coping as an individual’s cognitive and behavioural ability to manage the demands of the person-environment transaction that is perceived as overwhelming the person's resources. Coping consists of two main components. There is problem focused coping that aims at dealing with the problem that is causing the distress and there is emotion focused coping that aims at regulating and nurturing emotional well being during the stressful experience. A number of studies have shown that both forms of coping are used by most people experiencing stressful situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Orphaned children in the CHH tend to use both forms of coping components. They engage in problem focused coping as they use a number problem solving strategies to come up with solutions to their problems (Lee, 2012; Vigh, 2008). The CHH engage in emotion focused coping as they seek out supportive networks that help to ease their emotional pain. They also learn to have a positive outlook on their situation. However, Campbel-Sill, Cohan and Stein (2006) established that task or problem focused coping was positively related with resilience and emotion focused coping was related to low levels of resilience.

Coping usually occurs as a response to a stressful event that is unfavourable to an individual. An individual engages in coping to maintain emotional well-being and good mental health. Coping consists of biological, cognitive and learning components (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The biological component mainly consists of a series of neuroendocrine reactions that enable the

individual to physically cope with perceived danger and stress. A number of studies have shown that orphaned children in CHH mainly use the cognitive coping strategies (Lee, 2012; Skovdal et al., 2012; Vigh 2008). These involve a series of mental processes that involve appraising stressor events and engaging in appropriate coping strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The individual engages in primary and secondary appraisal. The primary appraisal involves assessing the stressor event and determining whether it falls in the categories of harm, loss, threat or challenge. Then secondary appraisal involves an analysis of resources available to the individual that would enable them to cope. The resources can be physical, social, material or psychological in nature. Examples of such resources include money, friends, family, support network, self esteem and good health. The degree of control over events is another cognitive factor that influences the ability to cope. The more control one has over events the greater their ability to cope.

There are a number of coping strategies that fall under these two coping styles. These include the following; positive reframing which involves viewing a problem from a positive perspective; engaging in effective help seeking behaviours, seeking support from friends and family members, problem solving which involves engaging in a mumber of problem solving strategies to find solutions to problems. Relaxation, physical recreation, and having realistic expectations can also be effective coping strategies. Unhealthy coping strategies include denial, self blame and internalisations of failures (Newman, 2004).

In a study on CHH carried out in Bindura, Zimbabwe, by Kurebwa and Kurebwa (2014) children in the CHH reported that they coped by selling family assets to raise money for other basic necessities. Similar findings were reported by Gow and Desmond (2002) in Tanzania and Uganda where radio ownership was higher in families that had not experienced death and low in

those families that experienced series of deaths because the familes sold these to raise money for basic necessities. The CHH also received assistance from childcare organisations and from sympathetic community members who provided the children with menial jobs in exchange for food and cash. The children in CHH would also choose to drop out of school so as to work and provide for the family (Evans, 2012; Vigh, 2008). A number of CHH also cope by engaging in activities that support their livelihoods, for example, vending which involves selling fruits, roasted mealies and doing a variety of menial jobs (Narayana et al., 2000; Todaro & Smith, 2003). Some resort to prostitution for survival (Yamba, 2005).