More recent publications are sympathetic to partners, suggesting that although they may sometimes cope in dysfunctional ways, they are not necessarily responsible for the advent and maintenance of gambling disorders. The Stress-Strain-Coping Support Model [SSCS] constitutes an alternative theoretical approach that has gained currency over time. Initially developed and promulgated in relation to substance abuse problems (Ibanga, Copello, Templeton, Orford & Velleman, 2008), the SSCS model is reasonably extrapolated to gambling problems. Departing from previous conceptualizations, it treats family members as the centre of interest and emphasizes the chronic stress they are liable to experience.
Four basic postulates can be outlined as follows:
* Stress: Living with a relative who is gambling to excess or misusing alcohol and drugs is stressful;
* Strain: Concerned family members will experience strain, as manifest in physical and psychological symptoms;
* Coping: Family members will try to deal with their life situation by using a range of coping strategies that may or may not be effective; * Support: The quality and level of social support that family
members obtain will affect their capacity to cope.
Implicit in the SSCS model is a transactional approach to stress and coping whereby stressful experiences are construed as person- environment transactions (for exposition of this approach, see Lazarus, 1966). These transactions are shaped by the impact of the external stressor, which is mediated by a two-stage process of appraisal. The first stage involves the individual’s judgments about the nature of the stressor and what is at stake; i.e., whether the stressor is deemed to be significant or unimportant, positive or harmful,
44
controllable or unmanageable. The second phase involves the individual’s judgments about management resources and options; i.e., what he or she believes can feasibly be done to eliminate, ameliorate or capitalize on the stressor (Lazarus & Cohen, 1977; Antonovsky & Kats, 1967; Cohen, 1984).
As various theorists point out, stressors last for different periods of time and thus put different pressures on people’s coping capacities. Although conceptual boundaries are blurred (for discussion, see Gottleib, 1997; Wheaton 1997), acute stressors are commonly defined as those which involve time-limited events occurring once or intermittently. By contrast, chronic stressors are considered to involve open-ended situations and situations that may gradually unfold over time. Each form of stressor has particular implications for coping. Dealing with acute stressors may involve a relatively strong role for resources that are easily mobilized but only available for short periods. The management of chronic stressors may require more stable resources that are automatically rather than conditionally activated (Wheaton, 1997).
The Concept of Coping
The concept of coping warrants some discussion since it is central to the SSCS model. It has no universally agreed-upon meaning and according to Eckenrode (1991), is best considered as a general rubric or metaconstruct under which a number of phenomena are subsumed. In general, coping refers to the strategies people use to capitalize on stressors or alternatively, to pre-empt or minimize their deleterious effects. A more detailed definition offered by Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen & DeLongis (1986) suggests that coping encompasses people’s cognitive and behavioural efforts to manage (i.e., to reduce, minimize, master, or tolerate) the internal and external demands of the person- environment transaction that is appraised as taxing or exceeding personal coping resources.
45
Although coping involves adaptive processes, it is important to note that not all adaptive processes are viewed as coping. Following the work of Lazarus & Folkman (1984) coping has traditionally denoted a subset of adaptational activities; namely, those which involve effort. Consonant with this distinction, coping responses are usually conceptualized as purposive strategies; i.e., as behaviours and thoughts that are “… consciously used by an individual to handle or control the effects of anticipating or experiencing a stressful situation” (Stone & Neale, 1984: 893). This conceptualization excludes simple and relatively automatic reactions as well as psychodynamic processes of which the individual is unaware. It facilitates research by allowing researchers to gather self-reports from individuals who are trying to deal with stressful experiences in naturally occurring contexts.
The distinction drawn between effortful and non-effortful activities obviously sets boundary lines which ensure that coping does not become a broad and nonspecific term encompassing all responses to the daily demands of life. Nonetheless, some theorists assert that the emphasis on effortful processes has not been cost free (Compas, Connor, Osowiecki & Welch, 1997). One problem is that coping researchers have failed to recognize how involuntary processes may influence coping and how coping may trigger non-volitional responses to stress. Another is that possible interactions between effortful and involuntary processes have been somewhat overlooked in studies concerning coping outcomes.
Numerous coping strategies are identified in the coping and help- seeking literatures. These strategies include problem solving (e.g., making a plan of action and following it), cognitive restructuring (e.g., concentrating on the positive elements in a situation), distraction (e.g., trying to engage with pleasant thoughts or activities), seeking social support (e.g., approaching others for advice, comfort or information), social withdrawal (e.g., trying to avoid contact with others), wishful thinking (e.g., wishing that a problem had never emerged), denial
46
(unconsciously trying to avoid the problem) and emotion management (e.g., escaping from negative thoughts and feelings by consuming drugs or alcohol).
Theorists attempting to classify coping strategies often distinguish between strategies geared to confront a problem (sometimes called direct action or problem-focused coping) and strategies geared to avoid a problem and/or to change the thoughts and feelings it provokes (sometimes called palliative coping, emotion-focused coping or avoidance coping). These two forms of coping are not mutually exclusive and may often be complementary (Folkman et al., 1991; Snyder & Dinoff, 1999: 10). On some occasions, a direct assault on a problem may not be feasible or may have negative side effects; indeed, palliative coping may be the only option available to people who find themselves in an intractable situation. By implication, one measure of coping efficacy is whether the individuals experiencing a stressor have accurately assessed its nature and the means available to deal with it. An over-estimate of a stressor’s magnitude may trigger withdrawal from direct action and consequent loss of opportunities for personal mastery and growth. An under-estimate of personal capacities and resources may have the same result.
Given that there are many possible ways of coping, it is reasonable to consider why people deploy some strategies rather than others. The nature of the stressor is likely to shape people’s responses by virtue of structuring appraisal processes and perceptions of coping goals and tasks. (Flemming, Baum & Singer, 1984). People’s coping resources are also relevant. According to Folkman, Chesney, McKusick, Ironson, Johnson & Coates (1991), these resources include: personal skills and abilities (e.g., analytic and communication skills), tangible resources (e.g., money to purchase goods and services), social resources (e.g., friends and relatives who can provide advice or comfort), psychological and physical resources (e.g., beliefs regarding self-efficacy and good health) as well as institutional, cultural and political resources (e.g.,
47
agencies and lobby groups willing to assist in developing public policies or laws).
Coping is likely to be further shaped by the social context in which it occurs. As noted by Wethington & Kessler (1991), coping has traditionally been treated as a dimension of individual behavior, since it pertains to the manner in which individuals act on their own behalf. In reality, coping often occurs in social situations where a variety of people are involved with a stressor, either because they helped to create it or because they are trying to deal with it. Pursuing this point, Gottleib & Wagner (1991) argue that people in close relationships will normally compare their responses to a stressor and respond to one another’s coping efforts. Each person faces the challenge of moderating his or her own coping efforts so that the coping of others is not disrupted and their support and cooperation are maintained.
As indicated above, one coping strategy is to seek social support. A global and multi-faceted construct, social support subsumes other constructs such as social embeddedness (i.e., connections with significant others); perceived social support (i.e., views about the availability and adequacy of social ties) and enacted social support (i.e., forms of social support actually provided) (Barrera, 1986). Theorists such as Thoits (1986) argue that social support is reasonably conceptualized as coping assistance, suggesting that people under stress may be assisted emotionally (e.g., by receiving comfort, encouragement and a sympathetic hearing), practically (e.g., by receiving financial assistance, material goods or services) and in an informational sense (e.g., by receiving advice, information and suggestions as to how life events might best be interpreted). By virtue of receiving social support, people under stress may be better placed to fulfill their normal role obligations and to avoid destructive forms of coping such excessive eating or drug abuse (for discussion, see Caplan, 1976; Eckenrode (1991); Krause, 1986; Langford, Bowsher, Maloney & Lillis, 1997; Silver & Wortman, 1980).
48
Despite the postulated benefits of social support, empirical findings are mixed. A number of studies indicate that actual support transactions do not always increase adjustment to stressful life experiences (Cutrona, 1986; Eckenrode & Wethington, 1990; Wethington & Kessler, 1986). It is possible that the benefits of social support come at a cost to self-esteem; i.e., people who receive support may become more aware of their difficulties in coping (Bolger, Zuckerman & Kessler, 2000). Outcomes may also hinge on the quality of support provided. As Gottleib & Wagner (1991) observe, significant stressors often affect a number of family members. Because they are struggling to preserve their own psychological equilibrium, these family members may not be well placed to meet others’ needs.