Understanding the Coping Process from a Self-Determination
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
249 The British Psychological British Journal of Health Psychology(2009), 14, 249–260 Society q 2009 The British Psychological Society www.bpsjournals.co.uk Understanding the coping process from aself- determination theoryperspective Nikos Ntoumanis1 *, Jemma Edmunds2 and Joan L. Duda1 1 The School of Sportand Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK 2 Applied Research CentreinHealth and Lifestyle Interventions, Coventry University,Coventry, UK Purpose. To explore conceptual links between the cognitive-motivational-relational theory(CMRT) of coping (Lazarus, 1991) and self-determination theory(SDT) of motivation (Deci &Ryan, 1985). Method. We present averybrief overviewofthe twotheories. We also discuss how components from the two theories can be examined together to facilitate research in the health/exercise domain. To this effect, we offer apreliminaryintegrated model of stress, coping, and motivation, based on the two aforementioned theories, in an attempt to illustrate and instigate research on how motivational factors are implicated in the coping process. Conclusion. We believethat the proposed model can serve as aplatform for generating new research ideas which, besides their theoretical relevance,may have important applied implications. How the person copes depends not only on the coping possibilities and how they areappraised but also on what aperson wants to accomplish in the encounter ::: the study of coping should never be divorced from motivation (Lazarus, 1991, p. 115). Over the last 40 years aprodigious number of journal articles have been published which explore the psychological processes that underpin coping processes and resultant health outcomes. The impetus forthis researchcan be attributed to the publication of aseminal book,entitled ‘Psychological stressand the coping process’, by Richard Lazarus in 1966. Embeddedwithin the ‘cognitive revolution’ that swept psychology at the time, Lazarus’ workhighlighted the role of cognitive appraisals in determining one’sreaction to astressful encounter.Insubsequent years(e.g. Lazarus, 1991),Lazarus proposed the cognitive-motivational-relational theory(CMRT) of coping, which highlights the role of distinct positive and negative emotions in the stress *Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Nikos Ntoumanis,School of Sportand Exercise Sciences,University of Birmingham,Birmingham B15 2TT,UK(e-mail: [email protected]). DOI:10.1348/135910708X349352 250 Nikos Ntoumanis et al. appraisal process (seealso Lazarus, 1999). Essentially,the CMRTlinks emotion with motivation by arguing that emotions are reactions to the fate of active goal pursuit. Lazarus (1991) viewed that when one is committed to the pursuit of important goals, one will experiencepositive emotions from appraisals of smooth goal progress or goal attainment,and negative emotions from appraisals of goal thwarting or delays. As the opening quoteexemplifies, Lazarus repeatedly emphasized in his writingsthat the conceptofmotivation is essential foraproper understanding of cognitive appraisals and coping responses in troubled person–environment relationships. Although we agreewiththe centralroleofmotivationinthe CMRT,webelieve that discussing motivation only in terms of progress or obstaclesinthe goal strivingprocess is a quiterestrictive perspective.Amore comprehensiveunderstanding of themotivational processesinvolvedinthe coping processnecessitatesthe examinationofpersonalfactors concernedwithissuesofvolition, choice,and self-determination in goal striving, as well as theinvestigation of theroleofsocio-contextualfeatures in supportingorundermining such goal undertakings. To this end, self-determination theory (SDT;Deci&Ryan,1985, 2002) canbeusefulindemonstrating theroleofvolitionand self-determination in thecoping process. SDTisamacro-theory of humanmotivationthathas received considerable attentioninvarious life domains. It argues that thetypeofmotivationunderpinning behaviourcan have asignificantimpactonphysical, psychological, andemotional functioning. Thepurpose of this paperistopresent averybrief overview of theCMRT and SDTand discusshow components from thetwo theories canbeintegrated.Tothiseffect, we presentapreliminaryintegrative model. Although variousother theoriesand models of coping andmotivationexist,adiscussionofthose is beyond thescope of this article. We believethatthe CMRT andSDT canillustratewellhow motivational factorsare implicated in thecopingprocess. Cognitive-motivational-relational theoryofcoping Lazarus(1991)and Folkman(1984)viewedstressnot as astimulus or aresponse, butasa person–environmentrelationshipthatisperceived as taxing or exceedingaperson’s resources. When facedwithastressfulsituation,apersonwillevaluateits potential personalrelevance andsignificance in terms of itsimpactonvaluedpersonalgoals.This processisknown as primary appraisal. Lazarus andFolkman (1984) distinguishedamong different typesofprimary appraisal: harm/loss;threat; challenge; andbenign. Harm/loss appraisals refertoaninjuryordamagethathas alreadybeendone, such as being diagnosed with aterminalillness.Threatappraisalsrefertoapotentialfor harm or loss,fairlytypical before health screeningtestsfor example. Challengeappraisalsrefer to an opportunityfor personalgrowthormastery,for examplebeing involvedinaweight loss programme exercise programme. When asourceofstress(stressor)isperceived as benign,nofurther appraisaloractionisundertaken. Harm andthreatappraisalsare associated with negative emotionalreactions,whereas challengeappraisalsare linked to more pleasant emotions. Many factorshavebeenidentified as determinantsofeachofthese appraisals,including generalizedbeliefs aboutcontrol,goalcommitment, andthe noveltyofthe stressor (Folkman,1984).Folkman emphasized that thethree appraisals arenot independentand canoccur simultaneously to adifferentextentduring astressful event. In addition to primary appraisals,Lazarusand Folkman(1984)alsoidentified asecondary appraisal process. When astressorisperceived as relevantand significant,anindividualwillevaluate thecontrollability of thestressorand his/herresources andoptions.Therefore,secondary appraisals involvesituational appraisals of control. Coping process and self-determination theory 251 Differentstressappraisals canleadtodifferent coping responses. Lazarus (1993) defined coping as thecognitive andbehavioural efforts employed by an individual to deal with thedemands that arecreated by thestressful person–environmenttransaction.Alarge number of copingstrategieshavebeenproposedand measuredinthe literature.Researchers have attemptedtoreducethese strategies into asmaller meaningful number of dimensions usingadiversearray of classificationsystems.FromLazarusand Folkman’s(1984)perspective,there aretwo main typesofcopingstrategies: thoseaimed at resolving thestressful encounter(problem-focused) andthose utilized to regulate theunpleasantemotionsthatarise duringthe encounter(emotion-focused).Examples of problem-focusedcopingstrategiesare planning,increasingeffortand management of priorities.Examplesofemotion-focused coping strategies aredistancing, isolation, andwishfulthinking. Problem- andemotion-focused strategies canbeemployedtoa different extent in thesametroubled person–environmentrelationship. Lazarusand Folkman(1984)emphasizedthatsomecopingstrategiesare notinherently better than others; in fact,effectivecopingrequiresafit betweensituational appraisals and choice of coping responses(this notion is also knownasthe goodness of fit model). Specifically, perceptionsofcontrollability of thesituation should lead to theutilization of problem-focusedstrategiestoagreaterdegreethanemotion-focused strategies,which are more suitable forsituationswhich arelesscontrollable. However, Lazarus (1991) emphasized that coping is adynamic processwithsubstantial intra-individual andinter- individual variability; individualsmight have to utilizedifferentcopingstrategiesat different stages of thesamestressful encounterorfromone stressfulencounter to another (e.g.see Folkman&Lazarus,1985).Also, coping strategiesthatare effective forone individual mightnot be effectivefor anotherpersoninthe same encounter. Nevertheless, Lazarus(1993)acknowledgedthatsomecopingstrategiesare more stable than others, although he didnot subscribe to thetrait approach on coping (e.g.Endler&Parker,1990; Krohne,1996).The latter approach viewsthatindividuals have apreferred coping repertoire(i.e. coping styles)which they employ across differentsituationsand whichare determinedtoalargeextentbypersonality variables (e.g.optimism, extraversion). Coping effortscan result in avariety of health-related, affectiveand behavioural outcomes. Areviewofthe extant literature in the health domain is beyond the scope of this paper.However,for illustrative purposes we offersome examples. Successful coping has been related to better quality of life, mentalhealth,and illness remission (Aldwin, 2000).Coping effortsmight also result in positive adjustment to stressorssuch as adaptation to illness (e.g.Holland &Holahan, 2003),caregiving responsibilities (e.g. Kneebone &Martin, 2003), and body imageconcerns (e.g. Sabiston, Sedgwick, Crocker,Kowalski, &Mack, 2007). Lazarus (1993) emphasized that there are no universally appropriate or inappropriate coping strategies, although some coping strategies are moreoften better or worsethan others. For instance, a‘wait and see approach’ (e.g.inthe form of distancing, rationalization)following afirstabnormal cervical smearmight be moreeffective forpsychological health (e.g. see Orbell, Hagger,