Positive coping: Mastering demands and searching for meaning.

Abstract

Introduction Coping can be defined as an effort to manage and overcome demands and critical events that pose a challenge, threat, harm, loss, or benefit to a person (Lazarus, 1991). The term coping often has been used in a more narrow sense as a response required of an organism to adapt to adverse circumstances. In the context of a recent positive psychology movement, however, the conceptualization of coping is broadening and now includes self-regulated goal attainment strategies and personal growth as well (for detailed discussions, cf. Snyder, 1999; Snyder & Lopez, in press). Coping can occur as a response to an event or in anticipation of upcoming demands, but it also can involve a proactive approach to self-imposed goals and challenges. Many attempts have been made to reduce the universe of possible coping behaviors to a more parsimonious set of coping dimensions. Researchers have come up with two basic distinctions, such as (a) instrumental, attentive, vigilant, or confrontative coping on the one hand, as opposed to (b) avoidant, palliative, and emotional coping on the other (for an overview, see Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996). A well-known approach has been put forward by Lazarus (1991), who separates problem-focused from emotion-focused coping. Another conceptual distinction is between assimilative and accommodative coping, whereby the former aims at modifying the environment and the latter at modifying oneself (Brandtstadter, 1992). Assimilative coping implies tenacious goal pursuit, and accommodative coping flexible goal adjustment. Similarly, the terms primary control versus secondary control (Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982) or mastery versus meaning (Taylor, 1983) have been defined (for a detailed discussion on coping, cf. Snyder, 1999).