Tag: Acopic

What is Dyscopia?

Published on by Andrew MarshallLeave a comment

Introduction

Dyscopia consists of the Latin root copia, which means abundance or plenty (see cornucopia), and the Greek prefix dys-, which means “bad”, “abnormal”, “difficult” or “impaired”.

This word has assumed two meanings, both of which are essentially a pun based on the similarity of the sound of the words “copy” and “cope” with copia.

In the field of neurology, dyscopia is used to describe a type of developmental coordination disorder related to dyslexia and dysgraphia (inability to read or write). Specifically, it is taken to mean difficulty with coping. Sometimes a similar word, “acopia”, is mistaken to mean the same, although this is not a medical term and has no basis in Latin.

The term “dyscopia” has also crept into general medical parlance as a tongue-in-cheek shorthand notation for patients who, after being examined and found to have no specific medical condition, are deemed to be not coping with certain aspects of their lives, and are presumed to be seeking treatment as a form of comfort from the medical profession. More recently, and controversially, the term has been used in this context as a diagnosis for admission to hospital.

The words have also been used in medical notes as a cryptic indication that certain members of a seriously ill patient’s family are not coping with the situation and should be afforded some extra consideration to their feelings when the case is being discussed.

As Dystranscribia

In neurology, the word “dyscopia” is used to describe a condition which is common as one of the sequelae of cerebral commisurotomy, a neurosurgical procedure in which the left and right hemispheres of the brain are separated by severing the corpus callosum. This procedure has been shown to reduce the frequency and severity of seizures in extreme cases of epilepsy.

An affected individual will exhibit difficulty with copying simple line drawings. This is often accompanied to lesser or greater degree by difficulty with writing and other fine motor skills.

As ‘Not Coping’ in Medical Usage

Terms such as “social admission”, “atypical presentation”, and even the derogatory terms “bed blocker” or “crumblie” have been used in medical notes synonymously with dyscopia or acopia as a reason for hospital admission.

The use of the term has become sufficiently commonplace in medical notes that a recent publication of a psychiatric dictionary even cites it as an actual diagnosis (Campbell’s Psychiatric Dictionary; first published in 1940 and on its eighth edition as of 2004).

Patients who are likely to be labelled with one of these terms are sometimes frail and elderly or people with long-term disabilities. Their failure to cope is often a result of inadequate social support coupled with a deterioration of functional capability which is not clearly linked to an obvious or specific medical or psychiatric pathology.

Sometimes, however, despite the fact that terms such as acopia and social admission can be considered tongue-in-cheek by those adhering to the strictest of medical and psychiatric terminology, they can frequently describe a range of “symptoms”, such as extreme lability and emotionality when demands are not met and the unwillingness of a minority of patients that might be encountered in psychiatry, to function and make ends meet, despite the fact that such patients might be lucid and able-bodied.

A possible controversy associated with using dyscopia and acopia as diagnoses could arise when wrongfully applied to those who have genuine problems with mobility, i.e. genuine medical conditions may be overlooked. Investigation of symptoms is a legitimate reason for admission, and if medical staff are too swift to dismiss concerns by use of such informal labels, genuine symptoms may not be taken seriously and investigated. This may lead to treatable conditions being overlooked, and in turn, result in compromised quality of life and unnecessary suffering.

Dyscopia (and likewise acopia), in this context, is not generally used by the medical community for fear of insulting the patient and bringing the caregiver’s professional standing into question.

Colloquial Usage

Acopia has been adopted as the name of a company based in Crawley, UK, presumably referring the correct Latin root of the word copia meaning abundance.

The words also appear to be gaining traction in common usage as colloquialisms meaning emotional lability over trivial events or circumstances. This may well assist in demystifying the term and discouraging its usage in medical circles.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscopia >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

What is Communal Coping?

Published on by Andrew Marshall1 Comment

Introduction

Communal coping is the collective effort of members of a connected network (familial or social) to manage a distressing event.

This definition and the scope of the concept positions communal coping as an offshoot of social support. The communal coping conceptual framework emerged for two reasons:

  • First, to expand the research that supports the claim that the coping process sometimes requires individual and collective effort.
  • Second, the need for a specific framework for investigating the cooperative characteristic of coping.

To support the need for a framework which explores the social aspect of coping as a combined effort, the authors argued that the communal coping conceptual framework emphasizes the connectedness and reliance on personal network for coping. Developments to the communal coping framework include the explanation of the complex nature of the communal coping process and specific personal outcomes following a communal coping process.

Background

Lyons et al. (1998) introduced the communal coping framework. The first model Lyons et al. (1998) proposed mainly distinguished between communal coping and existing perception of coping as an individualistic or prosocial process. Also, the model provided a lens for examining other aspects of coping such as the benefits, cost and influential factors. Afifi, Hutchinson, and Krouse (2006) noted some of the achievements of the model is that it accounts for the relational process within coping and shifts the focus of researchers from treating the phenomenon as mainly a psychological process but also a relational or communication.

However, despite the contributions of the model to the coping research, some questions still need an answer and a couple of research challenges remained unaddressed. For instance, Afifi et al. (2006) noted some researchers confused the process of communal coping for collective coping, types, provision and seeking of social support. The scholars attributed the lack of conceptualization of communal coping as one of the factors responsible for the confusion. To address this gap in research and advance the existing model by Lyon’s and colleagues, Afifi et al. proposed a theoretical framework. The scholars anticipated the model will serve as a template for measuring communal coping.

The goals for designing the new model were specifically to understand the communal coping process within naturally occurring groups (e.g. postdivorce families). Through the new model, Afifi et al. (2006) attempted to:

  1. Provide a description of the complexities that characterise relying on other people to cope with a stressful event;
  2. Expand the discourse on the dynamic and interactive nature of the coping process;
  3. Explore the various factors that contribute to stressors within groups;
  4. Identify how characteristics of the group such as its structure, the beliefs, norms, and perspectives of its members are likely to influence the coping process; and
  5. Examine how context, source, and nature of the stressor impact the coping process.

The refinement of the model addressed the problems Lyon and colleagues’ model could not account for. Nonetheless, one question remained unanswered ‘how does communal coping influence coping outcome?’. Thereby still leaving a gap in research. Hegelson, Jakubiak, Vleet, and Zajdel (2018) attempted to fill this gap by proposing a model that acknowledges the adjustment process and outcome of communal coping.

Similar to prior models, Hegelson et al’s (2018) framework identified supportive communication as a significant aspect of communal coping that is linked to individual adjustment to a stressor (e.g. illness). A core tenet within the model is that communication enhances coping outcomes. In this vein, Hegelson et al’s model purports the outcomes of communal coping for stressed individuals include:

  1. A high sense of control over the stressor;
  2. Perception of the stressor as less stressful;
  3. Enhanced feeling of self- regulatory capacity; and
  4. Experiencing quality relationships.

Components of Communal Coping

The existing research on coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) served as a backdrop for the development of the communal coping framework. Zimmer-Gembeck and Skinner (2009, p. 333) defined coping as “how people of all ages mobilize, guide, manage, coordinate, energize, modulate, and direct their behaviour, emotion, and orientation (or how they fail to do so) during stressful encounters”. From this definition, one can infer coping researchers consider the management of a stressor as an individual effort. In addition, despite the significant contribution of coping studies to empirical knowledge in research areas such as coping resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1980) and maintaining these resources (Hobbfall, 1989) it is still important to understand how collective coping efforts could make a difference in coping outcome of collective stressors such as the death of a breadwinner, natural disasters, environmental hazards, and epidemics. During these kinds of events, the desire to cope may not necessarily be for self-interest but the preservation of existing relationships and promoting the wellbeing of others that are affected. In these cases, collectively coping as part of a community or family supersedes individual effort to manage the distress. In this vein, Lyons et al. (1998) suggested the components of communal coping are salient and activated in such situations where at least one person treats the distressing event as ‘our problem’. Therefore, the components of the communal coping process require a communal coping orientation, communication about the stressor and cooperative action to address the stressor.

The components of communal coping may be defined as active steps towards achieving a positive coping outcome as part of a social unit. Lyons et al. (1998) proposed these active steps begin with one person adopting a communal orientation about how to manage the distressing event. The outcome of this action is the individuals involve share a mutual understanding of how to manage and overcome the stressor as a social unit versus ‘your problem’ where a specific individual is responsible for managing and overcoming the stressor. The actualisation of this first step largely depends on and is completed through communication. In other words, the individuals involved need to communicate about the stressor.

Communication allows for a conversation about the situation, circumstances, and likely solutions. The conversations at this point may be controlled by the individual experiencing the stressor to inform members of their network who are willing to share responsibility for the stressor on how the issue should be addressed. Or, the conversation may be controlled by members of the personal network of the individual experiencing the stressor to negotiate their involvement in how to manage the stress. Irrespective of the direction the communication takes, the primary goal is to share a common sense of responsibility for the stressor as “our problem” among the people involved.

The outcome of the first two steps le toad the emergence of a sense of cooperative action. At this point, everyone works cooperatively to create strategies for alleviating the problem or stressor. Given that there is a likelihood for the processes of the three components of communal coping to unfold differently across situations and for affected individuals, it is not unusual to find differences in communal coping styles. Some of the factors responsible for these differences include the sense of obligation experienced by the connected individuals (Stack 1974) or compassion for others (Nussbam, 1990); the type and purpose of the relationship as well as the characteristics of the individual in the leadership role and personalities of members within the communal coping network (Lyon et al. 1998). However, despite these differences in coping styles, communal coping is beneficial for the management of and recovery from a distressing event.

Influences on Communal Coping

Lyon et al. (1998) suggested four factors that influence how people use communal coping – situation, cultural context, characteristics of the personal relationship and sex. For instance, in a study on the role of marriage on health behaviours, Lewis, McBride, Pollak et al. (2006) discovered the transformation of motivation influenced how one chooses to help the other cope through a stressor. The scholars argued that in the case of romantic relationships, one partner’s mere realization that a stressor (e.g. health treat) poses a danger to relationship quality could motivate the need for communal coping.

In addition, the perceived salience of communal coping within certain situations is defined by the severity of the stressor. Therefore, the ways individuals define the severity of a problem are likely dependent on:

  • The priority or relevance attached to the problem;
  • If they are directly or indirectly affected; and
  • The decision whether to employ an individual or collective coping strategy.

In this vein, following their studies on communal coping within post-divorce families, Afifi, Hutchinson, and Krouse (2006, p.399) argued the “specific demands or requirement of a stressor” influence the communal coping process.

The cultural context in which the distressing event occur also influence the salience of communal coping in alleviating the stressor. The concepts of collectivism and individualism are often used in cultural comparative studies about a phenomenon. Cultures that promote group interest (collectivist cultures) over personal goals (individualist culture) are more likely to invest in communal coping (see Bryer, 1986). Given that culture is a way of life, it reflects in the performance of our relationships such as how we define close relationships and depend on these relationships (Lyons et al., 1998). Therefore, one can conclude that relationships in which strong relational ties exist will perhaps guarantee better performance of communal coping than relationships without strong relational ties.

Moreover, the language of the affected individual also influences the coping process. Researchers (e.g. Rohrbaugh, Shoham, Skoyen, Jensen, and Mehl, 2012) labeled communal coping language as ‘we – talk’. In their studies of addiction and cessation (cigarette and alcohol) due to health threats, Rohrbaugh and colleagues discovered the pronoun used by couples in their study influenced the communal coping outcomes. In the cases where couples defined the addiction as “our problem” versus “your problem” or “my problem”, there were implicit adaptive problem-solving outcomes.

Lastly, gender roles influence the performance of communal coping. Wells, Hobfoll and Lavin (1997) suggested the multiple roles some women take on tend to result in stressors. However, Women tend to be the fervent giver of social support making members of this gender community an active performer in the communal coping process (Vaux 1985, Bem 1993). Lyon et al. (1998) noted women’s tendency to give social support to others supersedes receiving support as maintaining relationship quality is important for this group. The downside to this sense of responsibility is women manage and overcome their stressor alone which take an emotional and psychological toll.

Benefits of Communal Coping

Adapting the communal coping strategy after a distressing event is beneficial for the coping process itself, the self and relationships (Afifi, Hegelson & Krouse, 2006). As a beneficial strategy for the coping process communal coping holds the potential to allow connected individuals to increase their resources and ability to deal with the situation. For example, a single stressful event may require reliance on other people or the exploration of others’ financial resources to cope with the situation.

Another significant benefit of communal coping as a coping strategy is the facilitation of emotional social support which in turn facilitates psychological wellbeing. Individuals who can share their emotional distress with others are less likely to experience depression and burnout (Williamson & Shultz, 1990)or commit suicide (LaSalle, 1995).

Under certain circumstances, the constant encouragement of communal coping among connected individuals promotes a likelihood of consistent availability of social support. In these cases, communal coping may serve as a form of long-term investment. The last two statements are not intended to categorise communal coping and social support as the same phenomenon but rather to argue that the former creates a conducive social and relational climate for the later. According to Lyons et al. (1998), some of the long-term investments of communal coping may result in rewards such as food and money.

Moreover, in the event of a common disaster such as earthquakes and wars, communal coping allows the people involved to experience a sense of ‘solidarity’ or a feeling of ‘I am not the only victim’. This realisation promotes mutual disclosure among all the affected individuals, a behaviour found to buffer stress as well as ameliorate negative feelings and concerns (Pennebaker & Haber, 1993). In their study on how the process of communal coping unfolds after social support resources have diminished, Richardson and Maninger (2016) discovered that a sense of mutuality and shared problem increased.

Taken together, there is enough evidence that communal coping has a significant impact on relationships. These impacts are evident in the development and maintenance of relationships; the desire or obligation to cater to the wellbeing of others and the collective good (Lyon et al., 1998). Perhaps, in well-established relationships, communal coping is likely to strengthen relationship characteristics such as trust. For instance, the confidence that people within a connected network will exchange support during or after a distressing situation promotes a sense of dependence which may improve the quality of a relationship.

Lyons and colleagues argued the actualization of relationship development and maintenance regarding relational trust or improving relationship quality emerge from a sense of compassion (empathy-driven) or obligation (responsibility – driven) towards the wellbeing of others in the relationship. Although empathy-driven and obligation – driven motives are distinct based on the type of relational tie, in most cases the end goal is for the collective good.

The benefits of communal coping described to this point focus on the intention to meet the emotional need of others during a stressful life event. However, the self can also benefit from participating in the process. There is a likelihood for the person offering empathy-driven or obligation – driven support to experience a sense of fulfilment. Lyons et al. (1998) used social integration and excitement to explain self-benefits of communal coping. In their explanation of social integration as a benefit of communal coping, Lyons et al. noted people who consider themselves resourceful in the coping process of others consider themselves competent, valued, loved and indispensable. In the same vein, communal coping fosters a sense of togetherness and cooperation. Excitement usually results from a sense of togetherness and cooperation that yield positive results.

Given that people and resources such as money, time and goods are exchanged in the process of communal coping during certain stressful events, there is a likelihood for some of the individuals involved to experience discomfort. Lyons et al. (1998) alluded to this discomfort as costs of communal coping.

Costs of Communal Coping

A significant characteristic of communal coping is ‘dependency’. Cultural (collectivism versus individualism) and social factors play into how we expect others to depend on us and how much we are willing to depend on others. Communal coping will perhaps be perceived as a cost in situations where there is a lack of mutual understanding and expectation within a social unit consisting of members experiencing a common or personal stressful event. In such instances, Lyon et al. noted individuals in the social unit will need to deal with issues such as equity and individual-adaptation.

The equity problem arises from a lack of agreement or existing social norms on the expectation of individual efforts channelled towards communal coping. In a comparison of gender roles after a distressing event, women specifically wives and mothers were expected to hold higher responsibility for helping others manage and recover from a stressor. More so, given that communal coping requires significant reliance on other people, individuals who are used to this style of coping during or after a stressful event may experience trouble adapting to a situation or circumstance in the absence of someone to rely on. There is evidence for this in studies about how people embedded in a strong community experience difficulty after a change of location for the pursuit of life goals.

One drastic consequence of communal coping is the possibility of stress contagion to occur. In this case, rather than working towards alleviating the stressor, connected individuals wallow in negative emotions and feelings. This behaviour escalates old and fosters new stressors for all the people involved. These factor provide evidence that the communal coping process follows a complicated pattern likely to yield contradictory results. Even more, some complex factors influence how people use communal coping. The complex nature of these factors is evident in how they are not universal or consistent.

Concept Application

The communal coping framework is relatively new and there has not been much variation in the context to which the concept has been applied. Mickelson, Lyons, Sullivan and Coyne (2001) argue for the need to apply the communal coping conceptual framework to less collective stressors such as recovery from natural disaster (e.g. Richardson & Maninger, 2018) to more individualistic stressors such as job loss and illness (e.g. Vleet, Hegelson, Seltman, Korytwoski, Hausmann, 2018). Scholars who have attempted to apply the communal coping framework to context outside of illness and natural disaster have looked at the concept in relation to relational transgression (Pederson & Faw, 2019); the experience of athletes and members of their family (Nelly, McHugh, Dun & Holt, 2017) and ; the experience of refugees ( Afifi, Afifi, Merill & Nimah, 2016).

Concept Critique

The communal coping framework is very dynamic in the sense that it can be applied to distinct research contexts yet facilitate empirical and general knowledge that aligns with the tenets of its models. This strength also lies in the weakness of the framework. Some scholars within the distinct field to which the concept has been applied propose models for communal coping with little to significant variations. For instance, Lyons and colleagues (1998) from the field of psychology proposed the first model. Their model served as a backdrop for the emergence of other models from experts in communication (Afifi, Hegelson & Krouse, 2006); sociology and anthropology (Hegelson, Jakubiak, Vleet, & Zajdel, 2018). Keefe, LeFevbre, Egert, et al. (2000) also advocated for a communal coping model of pain catastrophising. With the growth in the application of the conceptual framework, it might be beneficial to consider developing a model for studying the phenomenon that can be used across all fields or areas of research. A probable benefit of this suggestion is the promotion of jointly agreed conceptualisation of the communal coping phenomenon.

References

  • Lyons, Renee F.; Mickelson, Kristin D.; Sullivan, Michael J.L.; Coyne, James C. (October 1998). “Coping as a Communal Process”. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 15(5), pp.579-605. doi:10.1177/0265407598155001. hdl:2027.42/68813. ISSN 0265-4075. S2CID 145788518.
  • Fiske, Veronica; Coyne, James C.; Smith, David A. (1991). “Couples coping with myocardial infarction: An empirical reconsideration of the role of overprotectiveness”. Journal of Family Psychology. 5(1), pp.4-20. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.5.1.4. ISSN 0893-3200.
  • Wellman, Robert J. (1988). “Editor’s esoterica”. doi:10.1037/e410022005-004.
  • “The relationship of self-concept and social support to emotional distress among women during the wall”. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_coping >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

What is Coping (Psychology)?

Published on by Andrew Marshall7 Comments

Introduction

Coping means to invest one’s own conscious effort, to solve personal and interpersonal problems, in order to try to master, minimise or tolerate stress and conflict.

The psychological coping mechanisms are commonly termed coping strategies or coping skills. The term coping generally refers to adaptive (constructive) coping strategies, that is, strategies which reduce stress. In contrast, other coping strategies may be coined as maladaptive, if they increase stress. Maladaptive coping is therefore also described, based on its outcome, as non-coping. Furthermore, the term coping generally refers to reactive coping, i.e. the coping response which follows the stressor. This differs from proactive coping, in which a coping response aims to neutralise a future stressor. Subconscious or unconscious strategies (e.g. defence mechanisms) are generally excluded from the area of coping.

The effectiveness of the coping effort depends on the type of stress, the individual, and the circumstances. Coping responses are partly controlled by personality (habitual traits), but also partly by the social environment, particularly the nature of the stressful environment.

Types of Coping Strategies

Hundreds of coping strategies have been identified. Classification of these strategies into a broader architecture has not been agreed upon. Researchers try to group coping responses rationally, empirically by factor analysis, or through a blend of both techniques. In the early days, Folkman and Lazarus split the coping strategies into four groups, namely problem-focused, emotion-focused, support-seeking, and meaning-making coping. Weiten has identified four types of coping strategies:

  1. Appraisal-focused (adaptive cognitive);
  2. Problem-focused (adaptive behavioural);
  3. Emotion-focused; and
  4. Occupation-focused coping.

Billings and Moos added avoidance coping as one of the emotion-focused coping. Some scholars have questioned the psychometric validity of forced categorisation as those strategies are not independent to each other. Besides, in reality, people can adopt multiple coping strategies simultaneously.

Typically, people use a mixture of several coping strategies, which may change over time. All these strategies can prove useful, but some claim that those using problem-focused coping strategies will adjust better to life. Problem-focused coping mechanisms may allow an individual greater perceived control over their problem, whereas emotion-focused coping may sometimes lead to a reduction in perceived control (maladaptive coping).

Lazarus “notes the connection between his idea of ‘defensive reappraisals’ or cognitive coping and Freud’s concept of ‘ego-defenses'”, coping strategies thus overlapping with a person’s defence mechanisms.

Appraisal-Focused Coping Strategies

Appraisal-focused (adaptive cognitive) strategies occur when the person modifies the way they think, for example: employing denial, or distancing oneself from the problem. People may alter the way they think about a problem by altering their goals and values, such as by seeing the humour in a situation: “some have suggested that humor may play a greater role as a stress moderator among women than men”.

Adaptive Behavioural Coping Strategies

People using problem-focused strategies try to deal with the cause of their problem. They do this by finding out information on the problem and learning new skills to manage the problem. Problem-focused coping is aimed at changing or eliminating the source of the stress. The three problem-focused coping strategies identified by Folkman and Lazarus are: taking control, information seeking, and evaluating the pros and cons. However, problem-focused coping may not be necessarily adaptive, especially in the uncontrollable case that one cannot make the problem go away.

Emotion-Focused Coping Strategies

Emotion-focused strategies involve:

  • Releasing pent-up emotions.
  • Distracting oneself.
  • Managing hostile feelings.
  • Meditating.
  • Mindfulness practices.
  • Using systematic relaxation procedures.

Emotion-focused coping “is oriented toward managing the emotions that accompany the perception of stress”. The five emotion-focused coping strategies identified by Folkman and Lazarus are:

  • Disclaiming.
  • Escape-avoidance.
  • Accepting responsibility or blame.
  • Exercising self-control.
  • Positive reappraisal.

Emotion-focused coping is a mechanism to alleviate distress by minimizing, reducing, or preventing, the emotional components of a stressor. This mechanism can be applied through a variety of ways, such as:

  • Seeking social support.
  • Reappraising the stressor in a positive light.
  • Accepting responsibility.
  • Using avoidance.
  • Exercising self-control.
  • Distancing.

The focus of this coping mechanism is to change the meaning of the stressor or transfer attention away from it. For example, reappraising tries to find a more positive meaning of the cause of the stress in order to reduce the emotional component of the stressor. Avoidance of the emotional distress will distract from the negative feelings associated with the stressor. Emotion-focused coping is well suited for stressors that seem uncontrollable (e.g. a terminal illness diagnosis, or the loss of a loved one). Some mechanisms of emotion focused coping, such as distancing or avoidance, can have alleviating outcomes for a short period of time, however they can be detrimental when used over an extended period. Positive emotion-focused mechanisms, such as seeking social support, and positive re-appraisal, are associated with beneficial outcomes. Emotional approach coping is one form of emotion-focused coping in which emotional expression and processing is used to adaptively manage a response to a stressor. Other examples include relaxation training through deep breathing, meditation, yoga, music and art therapy, and aromatherapy, as well as grounding, which uses physical sensations or mental distractions to refocus from the stressor to present.

Reactive and Proactive Coping

Most coping is reactive in that the coping is in response to stressors. Anticipating and reacting to a future stressor is known as proactive coping or future-oriented coping. Anticipation is when one reduces the stress of some difficult challenge by anticipating what it will be like and preparing for how one is going to cope with it.

Social Coping

Social coping recognises that individuals are bedded within a social environment, which can be stressful, but also is the source of coping resources, such as seeking social support from others.

Humour

Humour used as a positive coping strategy may have useful benefits in relation to mental health and well-being. By having a humorous outlook on life, stressful experiences can be and are often minimised.

This coping method corresponds with positive emotional states and is known to be an indicator of mental health. Physiological processes are also influenced within the exercise of humour. For example, laughing may reduce muscle tension, increase the flow of oxygen to the blood, exercise the cardiovascular region, and produce endorphins in the body.

Using humour in coping while processing through feelings can vary depending on life circumstance and individual humour styles. In regards to grief and loss in life occurrences, it has been found that genuine laughs/smiles when speaking about the loss predicted later adjustment and evoked more positive responses from other people. A person of the deceased family member may resort to making jokes of when the deceased person used to give unwanted “wet willies” (term used for when a person sticks their finger inside their mouth then inserts the finger into another person’s ear) to any unwilling participant. A person might also find comedic relief with others around irrational possible outcomes for the deceased funeral service.

It is also possible that humour would be used by people to feel a sense of control over a more powerless situation and used as way to temporarily escape a feeling of helplessness. Exercised humour can be a sign of positive adjustment as well as drawing support and interaction from others around the loss.

Negative Techniques (Maladaptive Coping or Non-Coping)

Whereas adaptive coping strategies improve functioning, a maladaptive coping technique (also termed non-coping) will just reduce symptoms while maintaining or strengthening the stressor. Maladaptive techniques are only effective as a short-term rather than long-term coping process.

Examples of maladaptive behaviour strategies include dissociation, sensitization, safety behaviours, anxious avoidance, rationalisation and escape (including self-medication).

These coping strategies interfere with the person’s ability to unlearn, or break apart, the paired association between the situation and the associated anxiety symptoms. These are maladaptive strategies as they serve to maintain the disorder.

Dissociation is the ability of the mind to separate and compartmentalise thoughts, memories, and emotions. This is often associated with post traumatic stress syndrome.

Sensitization is when a person seeks to learn about, rehearse, and/or anticipate fearful events in a protective effort to prevent these events from occurring in the first place.

Safety behaviours are demonstrated when individuals with anxiety disorders come to rely on something, or someone, as a means of coping with their excessive anxiety.

Rationalisation is the practice of attempting to use reasoning to minimise the severity of an incident, or avoid approaching it in ways that could cause psychological trauma or stress. It most commonly manifests in the form of making excuses for the behaviour of the person engaging in the rationalisation, or others involved in the situation the person is attempting to rationalise.

Anxious avoidance is when a person avoids anxiety provoking situations by all means. This is the most common method.

Escape is closely related to avoidance. This technique is often demonstrated by people who experience panic attacks or have phobias. These people want to flee the situation at the first sign of anxiety.

Further Examples

Further examples of coping strategies include emotional or instrumental support, self-distraction, denial, substance use, self-blame, behavioural disengagement and the use of drugs or alcohol.

Many people think that meditation “not only calms our emotions, but…makes us feel more ‘together'”, as too can “the kind of prayer in which you’re trying to achieve an inner quietness and peace”.

Low-effort syndrome or low-effort coping refers to the coping responses of a person refusing to work hard. For example, a student at school may learn to put in only minimal effort as they believe if they put in effort it could unveil their flaws.

Historical Psychoanalytic Theories

Otto Fenichel

Otto Fenichel summarised early psychoanalytic studies of coping mechanisms in children as “a gradual substitution of actions for mere discharge reactions…[&] the development of the function of judgement” – noting however that “behind all active types of mastery of external and internal tasks, a readiness remains to fall back on passive-receptive types of mastery.”

In adult cases of “acute and more or less ‘traumatic’ upsetting events in the life of normal persons”, Fenichel stressed that in coping, “in carrying out a ‘work of learning’ or ‘work of adjustment’, [s]he must acknowledge the new and less comfortable reality and fight tendencies towards regression, towards the misinterpretation of reality”, though such rational strategies “may be mixed with relative allowances for rest and for small regressions and compensatory wish fulfillment, which are recuperative in effect”.

Karen Horney

In the 1940s, the German Freudian psychoanalyst Karen Horney “developed her mature theory in which individuals cope with the anxiety produced by feeling unsafe, unloved, and undervalued by disowning their spontaneous feelings and developing elaborate strategies of defence.” Horney defined four so-called coping strategies to define interpersonal relations, one describing psychologically healthy individuals, the others describing neurotic states.

The healthy strategy she termed “Moving with” is that with which psychologically healthy people develop relationships. It involves compromise. In order to move with, there must be communication, agreement, disagreement, compromise, and decisions. The three other strategies she described – “Moving toward”, “Moving against” and “Moving away” – represented neurotic, unhealthy strategies people utilise in order to protect themselves.

Horney investigated these patterns of neurotic needs (compulsive attachments). The neurotics might feel these attachments more strongly because of difficulties within their lives. If the neurotic does not experience these needs, they will experience anxiety. The ten needs are:

  • Affection and approval, the need to please others and be liked.
  • A partner who will take over one’s life, based on the idea that love will solve all of one’s problems.
  • Restriction of one’s life to narrow borders, to be undemanding, satisfied with little, inconspicuous; to simplify one’s life.
  • Power, for control over others, for a façade of omnipotence, caused by a desperate desire for strength and dominance.
  • Exploitation of others; to get the better of them.
  • Social recognition or prestige, caused by an abnormal concern for appearances and popularity.
  • Personal admiration.
  • Personal achievement.
  • Self-sufficiency and independence.
  • Perfection and unassailability, a desire to be perfect and a fear of being flawed.

In Compliance, also known as “Moving toward” or the “Self-effacing solution”, the individual moves towards those perceived as a threat to avoid retribution and getting hurt, “making any sacrifice, no matter how detrimental.” The argument is, “If I give in, I won’t get hurt.” This means that: if I give everyone I see as a potential threat whatever they want, I won’t be injured (physically or emotionally). This strategy includes neurotic needs one, two, and three.

In Withdrawal, also known as “Moving away” or the “Resigning solution”, individuals distance themselves from anyone perceived as a threat to avoid getting hurt – “the ‘mouse-hole’ attitude … the security of unobtrusiveness.” The argument is, “If I do not let anyone close to me, I won’t get hurt.” A neurotic, according to Horney desires to be distant because of being abused. If they can be the extreme introvert, no one will ever develop a relationship with them. If there is no one around, nobody can hurt them. These “moving away” people fight personality, so they often come across as cold or shallow. This is their strategy. They emotionally remove themselves from society. Included in this strategy are neurotic needs three, nine, and ten.

In Aggression, also known as the “Moving against” or the “Expansive solution”, the individual threatens those perceived as a threat to avoid getting hurt. Children might react to parental in-differences by displaying anger or hostility. This strategy includes neurotic needs four, five, six, seven, and eight.

Related to the work of Karen Horney, public administration scholars[40] developed a classification of coping by frontline workers when working with clients (see also the work of Michael Lipsky on street-level bureaucracy). This coping classification is focused on the behavior workers can display towards clients when confronted with stress. They show that during public service delivery there are three main families of coping:

  • Moving towards clients:
    • Coping by helping clients in stressful situations.
    • An example is a teacher working overtime to help students.
  • Moving away from clients:
    • Coping by avoiding meaningful interactions with clients in stressful situations.
    • An example is a public servant stating “the office is very busy today, please return tomorrow.”
  • Moving against clients:
    • Coping by confronting clients.
    • For instance, teachers can cope with stress when working with students by imposing very rigid rules, such as no phone use in class and sending everyone to the office when they use a phone.
    • Furthermore, aggression towards clients is also included here.

In their systematic review of 35 years of the literature, the scholars found that the most often used family is moving towards clients (43% of all coping fragments). Moving away from clients was found in 38% of all coping fragments and Moving against clients in 19%.

Heinz Hartmann

In 1937, the psychoanalyst (as well as a physician, psychologist, and psychiatrist) Heinz Hartmann marked it as the evolution of ego psychology by publishing his paper, “Me” (which was later translated into English in 1958, titled, “The Ego and the Problem of Adaptation”). Hartmann focused on the adaptive progression of the ego “through the mastery of new demands and tasks”. In fact, according to his adaptive point of view, once infants were born they have the ability to be able to cope with the demands of their surroundings. In his wake, ego psychology further stressed “the development of the personality and of ‘ego-strengths’…adaptation to social realities”.

Object Relations

Emotional intelligence has stressed the importance of “the capacity to soothe oneself, to shake off rampant anxiety, gloom, or irritability….People who are poor in this ability are constantly battling feelings of distress, while those who excel in it can bounce back far more quickly from life’s setbacks and upsets”. From this perspective, “the art of soothing ourselves is a fundamental life skill; some psychoanalytic thinkers, such as John Bowlby and D. W. Winnicott see this as the most essential of all psychic tools.”

Object relations theory has examined the childhood development both of “[i]ndependent coping…capacity for self-soothing”, and of “[a]ided coping. Emotion-focused coping in infancy is often accomplished through the assistance of an adult.”

Gender Differences

Gender differences in coping strategies are the ways in which men and women differ in managing psychological stress. There is evidence that males often develop stress due to their careers, whereas females often encounter stress due to issues in interpersonal relationships. Early studies indicated that “there were gender differences in the sources of stressors, but gender differences in coping were relatively small after controlling for the source of stressors”; and more recent work has similarly revealed “small differences between women’s and men’s coping strategies when studying individuals in similar situations.”

In general, such differences as exist indicate that women tend to employ emotion-focused coping and the “tend-and-befriend” response to stress, whereas men tend to use problem-focused coping and the “fight-or-flight” response, perhaps because societal standards encourage men to be more individualistic, while women are often expected to be interpersonal. An alternative explanation for the aforementioned differences involves genetic factors. The degree to which genetic factors and social conditioning influence behaviour, is the subject of ongoing debate.

Physiological Basis

Hormones also play a part in stress management. Cortisol, a stress hormone, was found to be elevated in males during stressful situations. In females, however, cortisol levels were decreased in stressful situations, and instead, an increase in limbic activity was discovered. Many researchers believe that these results underlie the reasons why men administer a fight-or-flight reaction to stress; whereas, females have a tend-and-befriend reaction. The “fight-or-flight” response activates the sympathetic nervous system in the form of increased focus levels, adrenaline, and epinephrine. Conversely, the “tend-and-befriend” reaction refers to the tendency of women to protect their offspring and relatives. Although these two reactions support a genetic basis to differences in behaviour, one should not assume that in general females cannot implement “fight-or-flight” behaviour or that males cannot implement “tend-and-befriend” behaviour. Additionally, this study implied differing health impacts for each gender as a result of the contrasting stress-processes.

What is Defence Mechanism?

Published on by Andrew Marshall42 Comments

Introduction

In psychoanalytic theory, a defence mechanism is an unconscious psychological mechanism that reduces anxiety arising from unacceptable or potentially harmful stimuli.

Defence mechanisms may result in healthy or unhealthy consequences depending on the circumstances and frequency with which the mechanism is used. Defence mechanisms (German: Abwehrmechanismen) are psychological strategies brought into play by the unconscious mind to manipulate, deny, or distort reality in order to defend against feelings of anxiety and unacceptable impulses and to maintain one’s self-schema or other schemas. These processes that manipulate, deny, or distort reality may include the following: repression, or the burying of a painful feeling or thought from one’s awareness even though it may resurface in a symbolic form; identification, incorporating an object or thought into oneself; and rationalisation, the justification of one’s behaviour and motivations by substituting “good” acceptable reasons for the actual motivations. In psychoanalytic theory, repression is considered the basis for other defence mechanisms.

Healthy people normally use different defence mechanisms throughout life. A defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behaviour such that the physical or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. Among the purposes of ego defence mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety or social sanctions or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.

One resource used to evaluate these mechanisms is the Defence Style Questionnaire (DSQ-40) (see here for online version).

Refer to Coping (Psychology).

Theories and Classifications

Different theorists have different categorisations and conceptualisations of defence mechanisms. Large reviews of theories of defence mechanisms are available from Paulhus, Fridhandler and Hayes (1997) and Cramer (1991). The Journal of Personality published a special issue on defence mechanisms (1998).

In the first definitive book on defence mechanisms, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence (1936), Anna Freud enumerated the ten defence mechanisms that appear in the works of her father, Sigmund Freud: repression, regression, reaction formation, isolation, undoing, projection, introjection, turning against one’s own person, reversal into the opposite, and sublimation or displacement.

Sigmund Freud posited that defence mechanisms work by distorting id impulses into acceptable forms, or by unconscious or conscious blockage of these impulses. Anna Freud considered defence mechanisms as intellectual and motor automatisms of various degrees of complexity, that arose in the process of involuntary and voluntary learning.

Anna Freud introduced the concept of signal anxiety; she stated that it was “not directly a conflicted instinctual tension but a signal occurring in the ego of an anticipated instinctual tension”. The signalling function of anxiety was thus seen as crucial, and biologically adapted to warn the organism of danger or a threat to its equilibrium. The anxiety is felt as an increase in bodily or mental tension, and the signal that the organism receives in this way allows for the possibility of taking defensive action regarding the perceived danger.

Both Freuds studied defence mechanisms, but Anna spent more of her time and research on five main mechanisms: repression, regression, projection, reaction formation, and sublimation. All defence mechanisms are responses to anxiety and how the consciousness and unconscious manage the stress of a social situation.

  • Repression: when a feeling is hidden and forced from the consciousness to the unconscious because it is seen as socially unacceptable.
  • Regression: falling back into an early state of mental/physical development seen as “less demanding and safer”.
  • Projection: possessing a feeling that is deemed as socially unacceptable and instead of facing it, that feeling or “unconscious urge” is seen in the actions of other people.
  • Reaction formation: acting the opposite way that the unconscious instructs a person to behave, “often exaggerated and obsessive”.
    • For example, if a wife is infatuated with a man who is not her husband, reaction formation may cause her to – rather than cheat – become obsessed with showing her husband signs of love and affection.
  • Sublimation: seen as the most acceptable of the mechanisms, an expression of anxiety in socially acceptable ways.

Otto F. Kernberg (1967) developed a theory of borderline personality organisation of which one consequence may be borderline personality disorder. His theory is based on ego psychological object relations theory. Borderline personality organisation develops when the child cannot integrate helpful and harmful mental objects together. Kernberg views the use of primitive defence mechanisms as central to this personality organisation. Primitive psychological defences are projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defence mechanisms. Also, devaluation and projective identification are seen as borderline defences.

In George Eman Vaillant’s (1977) categorisation, defences form a continuum related to their psychoanalytical developmental level. They are classified into pathological, immature, neurotic and “mature” defences.

Robert Plutchik’s (1979) theory views defences as derivatives of basic emotions, which in turn relate to particular diagnostic structures. According to his theory, reaction formation relates to joy (and manic features), denial relates to acceptance (and histrionic features), repression to fear (and passivity), regression to surprise (and borderline traits), compensation to sadness (and depression), projection to disgust (and paranoia), displacement to anger (and hostility) and intellectualisation to anticipation (and obsessionality).

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) published by the American Psychiatric Association (1994) included a tentative diagnostic axis for defence mechanisms. This classification is largely based on Vaillant’s hierarchical view of defences, but has some modifications. Examples include: denial, fantasy, rationalisation, regression, isolation, projection, and displacement.

Vaillant’s Categorisation

Psychiatrist George Eman Vaillant introduced a four-level classification of defence mechanisms: Much of this is derived from his observations while overseeing the Grant study that began in 1937 and is on-going. In monitoring a group of men from their freshman year at Harvard until their deaths, the purpose of the study was to see longitudinally what psychological mechanisms proved to have impact over the course of a lifetime. The hierarchy was seen to correlate well with the capacity to adapt to life. His most comprehensive summary of the on-going study was published in 1977.The focus of the study is to define mental health rather than disorder.

  • Level 1: Pathological defences (psychotic denial, delusional projection).
  • Level 2: Immature defences (fantasy, projection, passive aggression, acting out).
  • Level 3: Neurotic defences (intellectualisation, reaction formation, dissociation, displacement, repression).
  • Level 4: Mature defences (humour, sublimation, suppression, altruism, anticipation).

Level 1: Pathological

When predominant, the mechanisms on this level are almost always severely pathological. These defences, in conjunction, permit one effectively to rearrange external experiences to eliminate the need to cope with reality. Pathological users of these mechanisms frequently appear irrational or insane to others. These are the “pathological” defences, common in overt psychosis. However, they are normally found in dreams and throughout childhood as well. They include:

  • Delusional projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.
  • Denial: Refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening; arguing against an anxiety-provoking stimulus by stating it does not exist; resolution of emotional conflict and reduction of anxiety by refusing to perceive or consciously acknowledge the more unpleasant aspects of external reality.
  • Distortion: A gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs

Level 2: Immature

These mechanisms are often present in adults. These mechanisms lessen distress and anxiety produced by threatening people or by an uncomfortable reality. Excessive use of such defences is seen as socially undesirable, in that they are immature, difficult to deal with and seriously out of touch with reality. These are the so-called “immature” defences and overuse almost always leads to serious problems in a person’s ability to cope effectively. These defences are often seen in major depression and personality disorders. They include:

  • Acting out: Direct expression of an unconscious wish or impulse in action, without conscious awareness of the emotion that drives the expressive behaviour.
  • Hypochondriasis: An excessive preoccupation or worry about having a serious illness.
  • Passive-aggressive behaviour: Indirect expression of hostility.
  • Projection: A primitive form of paranoia.
    • Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the undesirable impulses or desires without becoming consciously aware of them; attributing one’s own unacknowledged, unacceptable, or unwanted thoughts and emotions to another; includes severe prejudice and jealousy, hypervigilance to external danger, and “injustice collecting”, all with the aim of shifting one’s unacceptable thoughts, feelings and impulses onto someone else, such that those same thoughts, feelings, beliefs and motivations are perceived as being possessed by the other.
  • Schizoid fantasy: Tendency to retreat into fantasy in order to resolve inner and outer conflicts.

Level 3: Neurotic

These mechanisms are considered neurotic, but fairly common in adults. Such defences have short-term advantages in coping, but can often cause long-term problems in relationships, work and in enjoying life when used as one’s primary style of coping with the world. They include:

  • Displacement: Defence mechanism that shifts sexual or aggressive impulses to a more acceptable or less threatening target; redirecting emotion to a safer outlet; separation of emotion from its real object and redirection of the intense emotion toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening or threatening.
  • Dissociation: Temporary drastic modification of one’s personal identity or character to avoid emotional distress; separation or postponement of a feeling that normally would accompany a situation or thought.
  • Intellectualisation: A form of isolation; concentrating on the intellectual components of a situation so as to distance oneself from the associated anxiety-provoking emotions; separation of emotion from ideas; thinking about wishes in formal, affectively bland terms and not acting on them; avoiding unacceptable emotions by focusing on the intellectual aspects (solitude, rationalisation, ritual, undoing, compensation, and magical thinking)
  • Reaction formation: Converting unconscious wishes or impulses that are perceived to be dangerous or unacceptable into their opposites; behaviour that is completely the opposite of what one really wants or feels; taking the opposite belief because the true belief causes anxiety
  • Repression: The process of attempting to repel desires towards pleasurable instincts, caused by a threat of suffering if the desire is satisfied; the desire is moved to the unconscious in the attempt to prevent it from entering consciousness; seemingly unexplainable naivety, memory lapse or lack of awareness of one’s own situation and condition; the emotion is conscious, but the idea behind it is absent.

Level 4: Mature

These are commonly found among emotionally healthy adults and are considered mature, even though many have their origins in an immature stage of development. They are conscious processes, adapted through the years in order to optimise success in human society and relationships. The use of these defences enhances pleasure and feelings of control. These defences help to integrate conflicting emotions and thoughts, whilst still remaining effective. Those who use these mechanisms are usually considered virtuous. Mature defences include:

  • Altruism: Constructive service to others that brings pleasure and personal satisfaction.
  • Anticipation: Realistic planning for future discomfort.
  • Humour: Overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about directly) that gives pleasure to others. The thoughts retain a portion of their innate distress, but they are “skirted around” by witticism, for example, self-deprecation.
  • Sublimation: Transformation of unhelpful emotions or instincts into healthy actions, behaviours, or emotions, for example, playing a heavy contact sport such as football or rugby can transform aggression into a game.
  • Suppression: The conscious decision to delay paying attention to a thought, emotion, or need in order to cope with the present reality; making it possible later to access uncomfortable or distressing emotions whilst accepting them.

Other Defence Mechanisms

Pathological

  • Conversion:
    • The expression of an intrapsychic conflict as a physical symptom; examples include blindness, deafness, paralysis, or numbness.
    • This phenomenon is sometimes called hysteria.
  • Splitting:
    • A primitive defence.
    • Both harmful and helpful impulses are split off and segregated, frequently projected onto someone else.
    • The defended individual segregates experiences into all-good and all-bad categories, with no room for ambiguity and ambivalence.
    • When “splitting” is combined with “projecting”, the undesirable qualities that one unconsciously perceives oneself as possessing, one consciously attributes to another.

Immature

  • Idealisation:
    • Tending to perceive another individual as having more desirable qualities than he or she may actually have.
  • Introjection:
    • Identifying with some idea or object so deeply that it becomes a part of that person.
    • For example, introjection occurs when we take on attributes of other people who seem better able to cope with the situation than we do.
  • Projective identification:
    • The object of projection invokes in that person a version of the thoughts, feelings or behaviours projected.
  • Somatisation:
    • The transformation of uncomfortable feelings towards others into uncomfortable feelings toward oneself: pain, illness, and anxiety.
  • Wishful thinking:
    • Making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality.

Neurotic

  • Isolation:
    • Separation of feelings from ideas and events, for example, describing a murder with graphic details with no emotional response.
  • Rationalisation (making excuses):
    • Convincing oneself that no wrong has been done and that all is or was all right through faulty and false reasoning.
    • An indicator of this defence mechanism can be seen socially as the formulation of convenient excuses.
  • Regression:
    • Temporary reversion of the ego to an earlier stage of development rather than handling unacceptable impulses in a more adult way, for example, using whining as a method of communicating despite already having acquired the ability to speak with an appropriate level of maturity.
  • Undoing:
    • A person tries to ‘undo’ an unhealthy, destructive or otherwise threatening thought by acting out the reverse of the unacceptable. Involves symbolically nullifying an unacceptable or guilt provoking thought, idea, or feeling by confession or atonement.
  • Upward and downward social comparisons:
    • A defensive tendency that is used as a means of self-evaluation. Individuals will look to another individual or comparison group who are considered to be worse off in order to dissociate themselves from perceived similarities and to make themselves feel better about themselves or their personal situation.
  • Withdrawal:
    • Avoidance is a form of defence.
    • It entails removing oneself from events, stimuli, and interactions under the threat of being reminded of painful thoughts and feelings.

Relation with Coping

There are many different perspectives on how the construct of defence relates to the construct of coping; some writers differentiate the constructs in various ways, but “an important literature exists that does not make any difference between the two concepts”. In at least one of his books, George Eman Vaillant stated that he “will use the terms adaptation, resilience, coping, and defense interchangeably”.

Refer to Coping (Psychology).