Stress and coping theory

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) were among the first researchers to examine the relationship between stress and coping. The definition of stress by Lazarus & Folkman (1984) emphasis the relationship between the individual and the environment, which takes into account the characteristics of the individual, and the nature of the environmental event. The theory of stress and coping identifies two processes, cognitive appraisal and coping (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, Delongis & Gruen, 1986). In the cognitive appraisal, the individual appraises the stimulus event/situation as either irrelevant or threatening (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Primary and secondary appraisal of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)

Primary appraisal Secondary appraisal

Coping resources appear to be adequate No Stress Situation perceived as relevant and threatening Coping resources appear inadequate or likely to be taxed Stress Stressful situation No Stress Situation perceived as irrelevant or harmless

In other words, when faced with a stressful situation, the individual will evaluate its potential personal relevance and significance in terms of its impact on the individual well- being (Ntoumanis, Edmunds & Duda, 2009). This process is known as primary appraisal. As reviewed by Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis & Gruen (1986) and Krohne (2002) the primary appraisal involves considering the degree of threat and anxiety posed by a stressful situation. The stressors are stressful only if an individual perceives them as such (Bandura, 1977). For example, does the individual have anything at stake in this situation? If the situation carries no implication than it is irrelevant, conversely if the situation is constructed as a threat than the individual perceives it as a danger and anticipates future harm/ loss. However, if the situation is perceived as a challenge, the individual sees an opportunity to prove himself or herself (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Challenge results from demands that a person feels confident about (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Primary appraisals are mirrored by secondary appraisals which refer to one's available coping options when dealing with stress, i.e., one's perceived resources to cope with the demands at hand or the lack of it (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). When a stressor is perceived as relevant and significant, an individual will evaluate the controllability of the stressor and his/her resources and options i.e. can anything be done to overcome or prevent the stressful situation. Various coping options are evaluated, such as altering the situation, accepting it, or facing the situation. The more resources people believe they can enlist to counter a potentially troublesome event, the less stress they experience (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). People who believe they are efficacious and capable of surmounting

Both primary and secondary appraisal can be influenced by both personal factors such as one's values and beliefs about the world as well as their personal resources for coping such as their health and problem-solving skills (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; 1988). Lazarus & Folkman (1984) have noted that coping strategies may be more effective when they match the characteristics of the person using them. Personality characteristics are extremely helpful to the stressed person in areas where there is little opportunity for control, for example, sexual harassment (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen & DeLongis, 1986).

Environmental factors have also been shown to influence the process of appraisal. For instance, the nature of the stressor, the duration of the stressor and the availability of possible resources such as social support have all been shown to affect (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988) the cognitive process of appraisal and ultimately affect how an individual chooses to respond when confronted with a taxing or threatening event e.g. when facing a sexually harassing situation. Individuals with positive attitudes towards themselves, belief in their capacity to control the course of environmental events, and an optimistic orientation toward the future tend to believe they possess more resources for coping with a stressful situation than do individuals who do not have these attributes. These are the individual who would speak up with confidence to the management to put an end to the distressing situation.

Another aspect of secondary appraisal is a person’s coping potential. The coping process is defined as a person’s constantly changing cognitive and behavioural efforts to manage specific external and or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding his or her resources (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis & Gruen,

1986). As opposed to models of whistle blowing, the coping literature gives a more extensive evaluation of responses to stressful events (Knapp, Faley, Ekeberg & Du Bois, 1997). Stress researchers have differentiated several strategies of coping, with most results converging around three dimensions (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge & Scott, 2009) i.e. those aimed at resolving the stressful encounter (problem-focused), efforts to reduce one’s strain level without affecting the actual presence of stressors (emotion-focused) (Ntoumanis, Edmunds & Duda, 2009) and not thinking about the problem (avoidance- focused) ( Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 Outline of the response/coping process (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)

Researchers in the stress literature usually describe problem focussed coping in positive terms, and there is evidence that frequent usage of problem focussed coping can

Stressor Primary appraisal Secondary Appraisal Response /Coping Emotion focused, Problem focused, Avoidance focused Control, Predictability, Ambiguity, Centrality A A

by altering the troubled person-environment relation causing the distress; which includes thoughts and instrumental behaviours that manage or solve the underlying cause of distress (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000).Of importance here is the individual has personal control over the outcome which are parallel to the initiator-focused strategies illustrated in the typology of coping response to sexual harassment (i.e. confrontation/negotiation/ and/or advocacy seeking).

Emotion-focused coping involves regulating one's emotions associated with the stressful event, without actually altering the circumstances surrounding the event. A person typically engages in emotion focused coping when the outcome appears to be unchangeable or beyond their control (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Emotion-focused coping strategies are clearly parallel to the self-focused strategies in the typology (i.e. avoidance/denial/and/or social coping).

Avoidance coping consists of not thinking about the problem, distracting oneself, or removing oneself from situations that instigate the stress process (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge & Scott, 2009) which are parallel to the self-focused strategies of avoidance, evading or denial in the typology of coping responses.

Applying this theoretical framework to sexual harassment, a sexually harassed woman will first judge the degree of personal threat as well as gauge the perceived offensiveness of this event (primary appraisal). Environmental factors such as the severity and duration of the harassment may also affect how threatening she perceives the incident to be. She

will then closely consider her response/coping options, such as telling her supervisor or ignoring the harasser altogether (secondary appraisal). In addition, the perceived likelihood that reporting the offender may lead to work-related retaliation may also influence her choice of response. Personal factors such as her confidence in her own ability to deal with this stressor may also affect both primary and secondary appraisal.