Lazarus definition of stress2/5/2024 Ĭlassifying coping in terms of focus, mode and timeīoth theory and empirically driven methods have been used to classify coping strategies. Whether coping should be defined more broadly is, of course an empirical question, and will only be resolved as our understanding of how people cope develops, our ability to acknowledge the complexity of the issues we are dealing with, and addressing the challenges that need facing in terms of how coping is measured. Īt the heart of this argument is: whether behaviours that are adaptive are actually coping behaviours how intentional coping strategies need be and how much effort coping requires and how conscious a process like coping has to be. This definition has been critiqued as somewhat limiting and narrow because of its primary focus on strategies set within the context of a stressful encounter which may fail to take account of ordinary everyday behaviours that simply help people get along, habits and routines that individuals engage in, and those behaviours that are best described as management skills. However, it is important to note that Lazarus’s definition is not without its critics. Put simply, although as Lazarus suggests with ‘a loss of some information’, coping can be defined as ‘cognitive and behavioural efforts to manage psychological stress‘ (p. Its focus is on what a person is actually thinking or doing, on the meaning (appraisal) the person gives to the encounter, and, in turn, provides a framework for understanding how the process unfolds. The power of this definition lies in the fact that it is process oriented, capturing the transaction between the person and the environment. The transactional nature of coping and appraisals Who, in turns, defines coping as “the constantly changing cognitive and behaviour efforts a person makes to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (p. In this respect the most commonly acknowledged, but not necessarily agreed, definition of coping is that proposed by Lazarus. Yet researchers do agree that when defining something as coping, attention should be directed towards identifying what exactly is being done, rather than whether what is being done has had some effect or has been successful. 216) defines “to cope’ ‘as to control against to deal successfully with to manage” and in suggesting synonyms lists, for example, phrases such as ‘to hold one’s own,’ ‘make the grade,’ ‘manage,’ ‘rise to the occasion’ and ‘struggle through.’ This definition and these phrases reflect the ‘value laden’ nature of the word, the connotation of success and leave the reader to speculate as to what may be hidden behind words like manage, resolve, adapt and deal with. It should come as no surprise to find that defining coping is not without debate and at times controversy. Nevertheless the importance of coping as an explanatory variable is not in dispute, nor is its significance in contributing to our understanding of the stress process. Yet despite this interest, coping retains a complexity, that has lead researchers to question how much our understanding of how people cope has advanced and whether, as researchers, we set our goals too high. This interest in coping has an even greater significance for all of us as we witness and are part of those social, economic and political forces that usher in almost continuous change. How each of us copes with demanding situations not to mention everyday life, resonates with all of us because of its personal relevance. The last 40 years have seen a continual increase in research on coping with work stress.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |