The transactional theory of stress and coping, put forth by Folkman and Lazarus (1980; 1984) became a key theory in the area of coping responses. Their theoretical framework proposes a transactional relationship between the person and the environment. As described below, the recursive processes between appraisal and coping mediate this relationship.
2.4.2.1 Appraisal
Appraisal is a “cognitive process through which an event is evaluated with respect to what is at stake (primary appraisal) and what coping resources and options are available (secondary appraisal)” (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, p. 223). They distinguish three types of primary appraisal: irrelevant, benign-positive, and stressful (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Irrelevant appraisal occurs when an encounter with the environment has no implications for a person’s well-being. If an encounter with the environment preserves or improves a person’s well-being, a benign-positive appraisal will occur along with positive emotions such as happiness or peacefulness.
43
Of most relevance to the concept of coping are stressful appraisals, which comprise three sub-types: harm/loss, threat, and challenge (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). If a person has been injured or incapacitated in some way, such as a loss of loved one, physical or mental harm or illness, the harm/loss stress appraisal will occur. The threat appraisal, in contrast, occurs when such a loss or harm is not actual but anticipated. This appraisal is characterized by negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, and anger, and invokes anticipatory coping. Such coping involves preparing for expected harm. These emotions differ from those associated with the challenge stress appraisal, which is accompanied by pleasurable emotions such as eagerness, excitement, and exhilaration. Such emotions result from pitting oneself against the odds. Challenge appraisals arise when a person feels a sense of control over the stressful environment, which reveals the potential for growth should the person succeed. Threat appraisal, rather, arises out of a feeling of lack of control and the potential of further loss. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) advise that challenge and threat appraisals should be considered separate, yet often related concepts; it is common for persons facing stress to report both challenge and threat appraisals. Folkman, Schaefer, and Lazarus (1979) consider appraisal the most important determinant of the coping process, above situational/environmental factors or demographic factors such as gender or age.
2.4.2.2 Coping
Folkman and Lazarus define coping as an attempt to master, tolerate, or reduce internal or external stressors that an individual perceives as exceeding existing resources (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, 1991). They argue that coping strategies fall into one of two domains: problem-focused and emotion-focused. These categories reflect the dual function of coping overall: “the regulation of distressing emotions [emotion-focused] and doing something to change for the better the problem causing the distress [problem- focused]” Folkman and Lazarus (1985, p. 152). If a situation is appraised as intractable or impossible to change, a person will employ emotion-focused modes of coping. Problem-focused modes are used when a person appraises a troubling situation as surmountable through action. Problem-focused coping entails an “attempt to solve, reconceptualise, or minimize the effects of a stressful situation,” while emotion-focused coping includes “self-preoccupation, fantasy, or other conscious activities related to affect regulation” (Parker & Endler, 1996, p. 9). This dichotomous coping typology became firmly established in the coping literature after the development of a coping assessment
44
scale in the 1970s called the Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC) (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980), followed by the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ) (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985).
Coping efforts are made in response to stress appraisals. However, this relationship is recursive; coping efforts stimulate re-appraisal. This happens because the coping efforts accomplish one of two things: they either change the person-environment relationship (through problem-focused coping), or they regulate emotional distress (emotion-focused coping). This changed relationship spurs a new appraisal, which then leads to new coping efforts if the situation is still viewed as stressful. While subject to critique, this fundamental coping dichotomy (and the associated theory) played a critical role in defining the parameters of the field of coping research (Parker & Endler, 1992; Skinner et al., 2003).
Critics of the Lazarus and Folkman (1984) model point out that it does not define demands or capacity to respond separately from the other: a demand exists only if an event is perceived to it overwhelm capacity to respond, and capacity to respond exists only relationally to a particular demand. It is alleged that this model is inherently tautological, stemming from the fact that it relies entirely on individual perceptions (Hobfoll, 1989). Moreover, the lack of any firm construct on what ‘demands’ entail makes it impossible to directly test the model.
Though the ‘capacity to respond’ part of the model gave rise to an influential coping typology, the ‘demand’ aspect of Lazarus and Folkman (1984)’s conceptual model is comparatively less developed. Applying such a concept to interview data would produce a compendium of demands, without a theoretical justification for the categorization of demands into a framework. Any reported demands would be viewed as stemming from individual perceptions of events and response capacities, with a comparative lack of consideration on the role of the objective environment in exacerbating demands. This reflects a common criticism of Lazarus and Folkman (1984)’s theory of stress; it relies too much on subjective cognitive processes, rather the social environment and networks within which individuals are embedded (Guribye, 2011). Shared social standards about
45
what constitutes a loss are not recognized, as stress is entirely based on individual appraisal (Hobfoll, 2011).
It should be noted that Folkman and Lazarus (1980) do take the position that coping is determined by the relationship between the person and the environment, a position which would appear to consider environmental circumstances into account when tracing the coping process. However, this relationship is based on perception; it is only if the individual perceives that a situation is stressful will coping efforts be made. This position leads to a lack of capacity to conceptualize what groups commonly view as stressful or upsetting. There can be no typology of stressors using Folkman and Lazarus’s (1980) model, as all stressors are individual-specific. Moreover, their conceptual framework does not account for the far-reaching consequences of a traumatic event over a long period of time (Kleber & Brom, 1992), albeit it does recognize the recursive nature of stress (with individuals engaged in a process of appraisal and re-appraisal as time passes and new demands emerge, often related to previous demands) (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).
Other approaches to assessing stress and loss include a framework developed by Miller and Rasco (2004), who considered war-affected groups specifically in the development of their model. Their model introduces a constellation of ‘displacement-related stressors’ and takes into account the effects of political violence and displacement on individuals, families, and communities. Displacement-related stressors pertain to the losses and adaptational demands which refugees (or IDPs) face post-displacement, and include (1) loss of social networks, leading to social isolation, (2) loss of social roles and role-related activities, (3) unemployment and poverty related stressors, (4) lack of environmental mastery, (5) discrimination, (6) separation from loved ones, and (7) intergenerational differences in the rates of acculturation (Miller & Rasco, 2004, p. 26).
The model proposed by Miller and Rasco (2004) has the strength of firmly defined losses and stressors, which makes it possible to directly apply and test the model. Also, it moves beyond the individual-level focus inherent in the Lazarus and Folkman (1984) theory of stress outlined above, by attempting to consider the impacts of stressors and losses on communities and families, as well as individuals. However, the typology of stressors does
46
not allow a basis upon which to examine the interplay between these stressors and losses, though each of these stressors indeed resonate with aspects of the narratives of loss imparted by the participants in this thesis. For instance, though discrimination and unemployment are both listed as types of stressors, this model does not consider the relationship between the two items; for instance, that discrimination can lead to unemployment, and/or vice versa. Like the Lazarus and Folkman (1984) model, this model does not provide a basis upon which to map out relationships between losses over a period of time. A similar critique could be made regarding the Multidimensional Loss Scale, which is composed of five aspects of loss yielded through factor analysis (loss of symbolic self, loss of interdependence, loss of home, interpersonal loss, and loss of intra- personal integrity) (Vromans, Schweitzer, & Brough, 2012).