Coalición de Gobierno como negociación para la construcción de acuerdos

For centuries humans have “coped” with life and adversity but until recent times the exact nature of how we do this had not been understood or explored. The exploration of coping began with Selye’s (1952, 1955, 1993) work in studying animals and their physical adaptations to “stressful” events which lead to the formulation / identification of the General Adaptation Syndrome. Following Selye’s work with physiological reactions to stress, researchers moved towards investigating psychological reactions to stress. The first major school of thought from this exploration produced a range of psychoanalytic ego psychology models. These models defined coping as “realistic and flexible thoughts and acts that solve problems and thereby reduce stress.” (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984a, 118) These models generally take the form of a hierarchy with the higher levels containing coping responses thought to be more mature and effective becoming progressively less so as you move down the levels. Another major model to emerge from this area of research was the Transactional Theory of Coping proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984a).

This model removes the association between coping responses and their effectiveness, thereby widening the scope of possible inclusion (of coping responses) within the bounds of psychological stress. This model is based on cognitive appraisal and reappraisal of stressful events and the application of a range of coping strategies in response to potentially threatening or harmful situations. This theory forms the foundations for the research being reported in this thesis.

3.2.1 General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS)

The research into the field of stress began with the study of animals and their reactions to noxious agents. In his early years as a medical student Selye (1993) noticed that the patients he studied had a range of different diseases but all displayed a similar set of core “sick” symptoms e.g. loss of weight and appetite, loss of ambition and diminished muscular strength. His later research led to the discovery that all toxic substances introduced to an animal body produce the same pattern of response. They

53

all responded with adrenal enlargement, gastrointestinal ulcers, and thymicolymphatic shrinkage. These three factors become the objective indicators of stress and formed the basis of the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) or biologic stress syndrome proposed by Selye (1952).

Selye defines stress as “the non-specific (that is, common) results of any demand upon the body, be the effect mental or somatic.”(1993 ,7) There are a great variety of stress inducing situations identified by Selye including emotional arousal, effort, fatigue, pain, fear, concentration, humiliation, loss of blood and large and unexpected success. The model proposed by Selye for stress reactions in animals is a three stage process, the first being alarm reaction in which the three objective symptoms described above are observed. If the noxious (stress causing) agent is strong enough it will kill the animal in this stage. However, if the animal is able to survive the alarm stage they move on to the second stage, the stage of resistance. During this stage many of the physical symptoms are the opposite of those observed in the alarm stage as the animal “copes” or “adapts” to the noxious agent symptoms such as body weight returning to normal. Animals however cannot resist a noxious agent indefinitely.

There is a limited amount of resource available to fight these fights and if the noxious agent persists the animal will enter the third stage, exhaustion where adaptation is lost and the body can no longer continue.

The physical and chemical reactions observed during the alarm stage centre around the endocrine system and are twofold. The first pathway is through the autonomic nervous system. The hypothalamus stimulates the central part of the adrenal glands sending catecholamines into the bloodstream, increasing the blood flow, heart rate

Stage 1

Figure 7 - Selye’s Three Stages of Stress and Coping

54

and breathing, while inhibiting digestion and increasing visual ability thus

“mobilizing the body for action” (Weiten et al. ,76). The second pathway is stimulated by the pituitary glands secreting ACTH (adrenocorticotrophic hormone) which in turn stimulates the outer adrenal glands which then release corticosteroids. These increase the release of fats and proteins into the blood stream to increase energy levels.

The body has developed two approaches to dealing or coping with noxious agents both internal and external. They are syntoxic and catatoxic reactions and form the basis for homeostasis. Syntoxic stimuli allow a body to co-exist or tolerate an aggressor while catatoxic stimuli attempt to destroy the aggressor.

3.2.2 Transactional Theory of Coping

In 1966 Lazarus put forward his transactional theory of coping which redefined the platform which future studies would use as their starting point. Until this time stress had either been defined as a stimulus, whereby an event was stressful, or a response, in which case a person reacted to an event in a stressful manner. In Lazarus’ view stress was more complex than an either/or definition. Lazarus proposed that coping is an interaction between a person and the environment, primarily, that when an individual approaches a situation, a cognitive appraisal process is begun to assess the level of threat and the available coping resources. Folkman and Lazarus further define this theory by outlining a three-stage cognitive appraisal process, Primary Appraisal, Secondary Appraisal and Reappraisal (Folkman, 1984).

Primary Appraisal is the cognitive process of deciding whether you are being threatened or benefited. It answers the question Am I in trouble or being benefited, now or in the future, and in what way? Once a situation or event is appraised as threatening or harmful Secondary Appraisal is engaged, addressing the question What if anything can be done about it? During Secondary Appraisal a person will look to all possible resources available for reducing the threat or harm and assess their suitability and chances of success. Finally re-appraisals occur continuously as the event unfolds. As an individual interacts with their environment, new information and experiences are added to their spectrum of available resources and reappraisal of the situation occurs. See Figure 8 below.

55

Lazarus & Folkman have distinguished three (3) kinds of primary appraisal:

irrelevant, benign-positive and stressful (1984a ,32). Lazarus & Folkman define psychological stress as being

“a relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being”

(1984a ,21)

Stress Appraisals are then divided into three (3) types:

1. Harm/loss – damage has already been sustained

2. Threat – damage is imminent; or anticipated, requires coping responses to be activated and is characterised by negative emotions

3. Challenge – similar to threat in that they require coping responses to be activated but are centred on a potential gain and are characterised by positive emotions. (1984a ,32-33)

Figure 8 - Lazarus and Folkman’s Transactional Theory of Coping

56

The transactional theory of coping is built on the premise that coping is a process, constantly changing to meet the demands of a specific situation. Lazarus & Folkman define coping as

“constantly changing cognitive and behavioural efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (1984a ,141)

Primary, secondary reactions and reappraisals interact with one another continuously.

The process is neither static nor linear. The outcome of how this appraised event is coped with is determined by the coping resources available to the individual and how they are applied.

One of the key features of coping as a process is that it is situational rather than trait based (dispositional). That is to say that it is concerned with the assessment of coping for an individual based on what they actually do or think in coping with a specific stressful event. This concept is expanded in Section 3.3 below. Coping as a process also has an implied longitudinal aspect in that what an individual does or thinks will change over the course of a stressful event and will be influenced by the outcomes of each attempt to utilise a coping resource. That is, it is constrained to those responses to stress that require actual mobilization, excluding automated behaviours. And finally that it does not discriminate based on effectiveness of the resources used or mastery of the situation.

The transaction theory of coping revolutionised thinking on the subject of coping and has influenced the research in this field over the past two decades more than any other concept. It has been widely used as the basis for research into specific areas of coping and stress including: Folkman’s research into the role of personal control within the cognitive coping process (1984); Dewe’s (1991) use of this theory as the basis for developing a framework for researching work-based stress; numerous studies by Folkman and Lazarus (1985) to observe the evolution of emotion throughout the stages of coping; study of coping strategies employed by a middle aged community residing sample over the course of a year (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980); and the relationship between cognitive appraisal, coping processes and short term outcomes (Folkman et al., 1986). The transactional theory of coping and the results from

57

subsequent research have also spawned a number of subsequent theories including the Goodness of Fit Theory, which is expanded on in Section 4.2.1.

3.2.3 Summary

The research study reported here uses Lazarus and Folkman’s Transactional Theory of Coping as the foundation for the assessment and analysis of coping strategies employed by project managers across multiple life domains including, work, home, and personal health. This research seeks to find patterns in the types and a combination of strategies employed but is not focused on the outcomes of these strategies. Specifically, this research does not look at the effectiveness of coping strategies in reducing or eliminating stress for project managers. This is recommended for exploration in future research projects.