Coping strategies: concept and types. Psychological defenses and coping

Similarities and differences between psychological defense mechanisms

And coping with stress

Under stress psychological adaptation a person is carried out mainly through two mechanisms: psychological defense and coping, coping mechanisms. In foreign psychology, the terms “coping” (coping with something) and “defense” are used to denote the specific ways of human behavior in difficult situations (Libina, 2008).

Psychological protection is a special system of personality stabilization aimed at protecting consciousness from unpleasant, traumatic experiences associated with internal and external conflicts, states of anxiety and discomfort. Purpose and functional purpose it is in weakening the intrapersonal conflict (tension, anxiety) between the instinctive impulses of the unconscious and the learned demands external environment resulting from social interaction(Grebennikov L.R., 1994; Dotsenko E.L.., 1993; Kirshbaum E.I., Eremeeva A.I., 2000; Bassin F.V.).

By weakening this conflict, protection regulates a person’s behavior, increasing his adaptability and balancing the psyche. In this case, a person can express the conflict between need and fear different ways:

– through mental changes,

– through bodily disorders (dysfunctions), manifested in the form of chronic psychosomatic symptoms,

– in the form of changing behavior patterns.

If a person’s mental defense mechanisms are weak, fear and discomfort will inevitably overwhelm his soul. At the same time, maintaining the protection mechanisms at an optimal level requires constant expenditure of energy. And these costs can be so significant, and even unbearable for the individual, that in some cases it can lead to the appearance of specific neurotic symptoms and impairment of adaptability, which constitutes the central contradiction of the problem of psychological defense (Nabiullina R.R., Tukhtarova I.V., 2003 ).

The issue of defense mechanisms is also reflected in stress research (Cox T., 1980; Lazarus, 1970; Selye G., 1979; Lazarus R.S., 1961; Lazarus R.S., 1966; Lazarus R.S., 1976; Ulich D., 1969; Ulich D. ., 1982, etc.).

In more recent studies of stress, defense mechanisms are usually compared with a generic category of mental regulation - coping mechanisms. R. Lazarus and R. Plutchik define coping as conscious variants of unconscious defenses or conscious behavioral and intrapsychic efforts to resolve external-internal conflicts (Lazarus R.S., 1980; Plutchik R., 1984, 1979). In other cases, coping mechanisms are considered a generic concept in relation to defense mechanisms and include both unconscious and conscious defense techniques (Ulich D., 1969, 1982).

Coping mechanisms are understood as “both behavioral efforts and intrapsychic efforts to resolve external and internal demands, as well as conflicts that arise between them (i.e., attempts to resolve, reduce or strengthen them to create a tolerant attitude towards these conflicts), which require tension forces or even exceed these forces.” Other authors emphasize that “not everything that, in the broadest sense, serves problem solving or adaptation can be called coping; You can talk about it only when:

– firstly, skills and abilities, including those in orientation, are seriously tested,

- secondly, when not ready-made solutions or they cannot be used,

– thirdly, when situations or problems are not clearly structured and (or) it is difficult to determine the appropriateness of decisions made, and, finally, when it is impossible to predict the consequences of actions.”

R. Lazarus, considering psychological defense as passive coping behavior, identifies the parameters of differentiation between defense mechanisms and coping mechanisms:

1. Temporal orientation. The defense typically tries to resolve the situation “now” without connecting this current situation to future situations. In this sense, psychological protection serves actual psychological comfort.

2. Instrumental orientation. The defense “thinks” only about itself; if it takes into account the interests of the environment, it is only so that they, in turn, serve its interests.

3. Functional and purposeful significance. Do regulatory mechanisms have the function of restoring disturbed relationships between the environment and the individual (coping mechanisms) or rather the function of only regulating emotional states (defense mechanisms).

4. Modality of regulation. Is there a search for information, direct action, reflection (typical of coping) or suppression, withdrawal, etc. (Lazarus R., 1970).

According to E.S. Romanova and L.R. Grebennikov (1996), the parameters proposed by the group of R. Lazarus for the classification of coping and defense mechanisms and differentiation between them deserve attention. These include: temporary orientation; instrumental orientation (to the environment or to oneself); functional-target significance (does the mechanism have the function of restoring the individual’s disturbed relationships with the environment or only the function of regulating emotional state); mode of coping (search for information, real actions or inaction). (Romanova E.S., Grebennikov L.R. 1996).

Paying tribute to the problem of psychological defense, R. Lazarus created a classification of psychoprotective techniques, highlighting symptomatic techniques in one group - the use of alcohol, tranquilizers, sedatives, etc., and in another group the so-called intrapsychic techniques of cognitive defense - identification, movement, suppression , denial, reactive formation, projection, intellectualization.

B. D. Karvasarsky points out that if the processes of compensation and especially protection are aimed at mitigating mental discomfort, then the processes of coping (according to R. Lazarus) are aimed at actively changing the situation and satisfying significant needs (Karvasarsky B. D., 1990).

H. Schroeder believes that in the general continuum of mental regulation, defensive reactions occupy the last level of coping with demanding situations, a level that already has the character of progressive decompensation. The protective version of behavior regulation is aimed at masking current social incapacity (including masking in front of oneself), at relieving anxiety, and at repressing information that contradicts the self-concept.

As L.I. Antsyferova notes, people who resort to psychological defense mechanisms in problematic and stressful situations perceive the world as a source of danger, they have low self-esteem, and their worldview is colored by pessimism. People who prefer constructively transformative strategies in such situations turn out to be individuals with an optimistic worldview, stable positive self-esteem, a realistic approach to life and a strongly expressed motivation for achievement (Antsiferova L. I., 1997).

If coping behavior can be used by an individual consciously, selected and changed depending on the situation, then the mechanisms of psychological defense are unconscious and, if they are consolidated, become maladaptive (Varshalovskaya E. B., 1994).

N. Haan (1977), in particular, notes that coping and defense are based on the same, identical processes, but differ in the polarity of their focus - either on productive or weak adaptation. Coping processes begin with the perception of a challenge, which triggers cognitive, moral, social and motivational structures, the action of which is fundamental for an adequate response (Scheme 1). In a situation of new demands for the individual, in which the existing answer is not appropriate, a coping process arises. If new demands are beyond the individual’s strength, then the coping process can take the form of defense. Defense mechanisms make it possible to eliminate psychological trauma by excluding reality. The author characterizes classical defense mechanisms as rigid, emotionally inadequate and inconsistent with reality.

Diagram 1. Functioning of response styles

From the above we can conclude that defense mechanisms tend to more quickly reduce emotional stress and anxiety and work on the “here and now” principle. Coping mechanisms are more flexible, but require a person to expend more energy and engage in cognitive, emotional and behavioral efforts. The possible targeted inclusion of adequate psychotherapeutic interventions, the use of which optimizes the social recovery of patients, is carried out subject to the identification of the patient's adaptive capabilities.

Coping behavior and mechanisms of coping with stress

Development of coping theory

The theory of individual coping with difficult life situations (coping) arose in psychology in the second half of the 20th century. A form of behavior that reflects the individual’s readiness to decide life problems, was called coping behavior (from the English to sore - to cope, to cope). L. Murphy was the first to use the term “coping” in 1962 (see E. A. Tsennykh, E. I. Chekhlaty, O. N. Volkova, 2009). Later, it was actively used by the American psychologist Abraham Maslow, who believed that coping behavior is opposed to expressive behavior. (Maslow, 1987).

R. S. Lazarus (1966) gives the following definition of coping: “the desire to solve problems that an individual undertakes if the requirements are great value for his well-being (both in a situation associated with great danger and in a situation aimed at great success), since these requirements activate adaptive capabilities.”

Despite the variety of studies devoted to the problem of coping behavior, long years they mainly related to physical and psychosomatic diseases (Broda M., 1987; Heim E., 1988; Moss R., 1988; Mussgay L., Olbrich R., 1988) and were studied mainly by foreign authors.

Neal defines coping as a constantly changing cognitive and behavioral attempt to cope with specific external and/or internal demands that are assessed as stressful or exceed the person's ability to cope with them (Neal, 1998). R. S. Lazarus (1966) gives the following definition of coping: “the desire to solve problems that an individual undertakes when the demands are of great importance for his well-being (both in a situation associated with great danger and in a situation aimed at great success), because these demands activate adaptive capabilities.” Coyne J. considers coping as an individual’s activity to maintain or maintain a balance between the demands of the environment and the resources that satisfy these requirements (Coyne J., 1981). Such a shift in the concepts of adaptation to unfavorable factors has made it possible to consider coping as a central element of stress, as a stabilizing factor that can help an individual maintain psychosocial adaptation during periods of stress. Moreover, after the publication of R. Lazarus’s book “Psychological stress and the coping process” in 1966. There was a gradual change in the stress model developed by G. Selye.

A massive movement to promote coping began to take shape in the 60s with the works of I. Jams (1958), M. Arnold (1960), D. Mechanic (1962), L. Murphy (1962), J. Rotter (1966), R. Lasarus, (1966).

In Russian psychological literature, the term is translated as adaptive “coping behavior” or “psychological overcoming.” Note that according to Vladimir Dahl’s dictionary (1995), the word “coping” comes from the Old Russian “lad” (to get along) and means to cope, to put in order, to subjugate. Figuratively speaking, “coping with the situation” means subjugating circumstances and coping with them.

Modern approach to the study of the mechanisms of formation of coping behavior is based on the opinion that a person has an inherent instinct to overcome (Fromm, 1992). According to Arshavsky and Rotenberg (1984), one of the forms of manifestation of instinct is search activity, which ensures the participation of evolutionary-program strategies in the interaction of the subject with various situations.

Coping behavior involves adapting to circumstances and the ability to use certain means to overcome emotional stress. When choosing active actions, the likelihood of eliminating the impact of stressors on the individual increases.

The course of the post-stress response depends on factors determining the quality of stressors, personal characteristics, competence in overcoming stress, social assistance. Researchers believe that the ability to cope depends on such individual psychological characteristics as temperament, level of anxiety, type of thinking, specific locus of control, and character orientation. The severity of certain ways of responding to difficult life situations is directly dependent on the degree of self-actualization of the individual - the higher the level of development of a person’s personality, the more successfully he copes with the difficulties that arise.

Psychophysiological properties of personality and social factors are the main mediating factors on the part of the individual in the process of assessing and reacting to what is happening. They also determine the duration, intensity, and nature of the stress reaction, contributing to both its strengthening and weakening.

Personal resources include an adequate “I-concept”, positive self-esteem, low neuroticism, internal locus of control, optimistic worldview, empathic potential, affiliative tendency (the ability to make interpersonal connections) and other psychological constructs. Based on this, S. Folkman and R. S. Lazarus proposed a diagram characterizing the connections described above (Fig. 3).

During the action of a stressor on a person, a primary assessment occurs, on the basis of which the type of situation created is determined - threatening or favorable.

R. Lazarus argues that primary and secondary assessments influence the form of stress, the intensity and quality of the subsequent reaction (Lazarus R., Folkman S., 1984). It is from this moment that personal defense mechanisms are formed, which R.S. Lazarus (1966, 1991), considered coping processes as the individual’s ability to exercise control over threatening, upsetting, or pleasurable situations.

Special meaning R. Lazarus gives a cognitive assessment of stress, arguing that stress is not just a meeting with an objective stimulus, its assessment by the individual is decisive. Stimuli may be assessed as inappropriate, positive, or stressful. The author also argues that stressful stimuli lead to various sizes stress in different people and in different situations (Alfert E., Lazarus R., 1964).

Thus, the key point in Lazarus's research was that stress came to be viewed as the result of a subjective assessment of a harmful stimulus. However, despite significant individual variation in stress behavior, according to Lazarus. there are two global type response style.

The problem-oriented style, aimed at a rational analysis of the problem, is manifested in such forms of behavior as independent analysis of what happened, asking others for help, searching additional information and is associated with the creation and implementation of a plan to resolve a difficult situation.

The subject-oriented style, as a consequence of an emotional response to a situation that is not accompanied by specific actions, is characterized by a naive, infantile assessment of what is happening. It manifests itself in the form of attempts not to think about the problem at all, involving others in one’s experiences, the desire to forget oneself in a dream, to dissolve one’s adversities in alcohol, or to compensate for negative emotions with food (Lazarus R.S., 1976, 1966).

Similar views are expressed by other authors (Rahe R., 1978; Wiedl K. H., 1991), which outline the view that individual cognitive assessment determines the amount of stress generated by an event or situation. The first step in the cognitive appraisal process is represented by a “polarizing filter,” which can enhance or weaken the significance of an event. The same life events can have different stress loads depending on their subjective assessment.

Nabiullina R.R., Tukhtarova I.V., based on an analysis of the works of various foreign authors, identify three main approaches to the concept of “coping”: the definition of coping as a personality trait, a relatively constant predisposition to respond to a stressful event (Billngs A., Moos R., 1984); considering coping as one of the methods of psychological defense used to relieve tension (Haan N., 1977).

The third approach belongs to R. Lazarus and S. Folkman (1984), according to which coping is understood as a dynamic process, constantly changing cognitive and behavioral attempts to manage internal and (or) external demands, which are assessed as straining or anticipating the resources of the individual (see Nabiullina R. R., Tukhtarova I. V., 2003).

Coping processes are part of the emotional response. Maintaining emotional balance, reducing, eliminating or removing the current stressor depends on them. Coping behavior, increasing the adaptive capabilities of the subject, on the basis of conscious, active choice, relieves the individual from mismatched motives and ambivalence of feelings, protects him from awareness of unwanted or painful emotions, and most importantly, eliminates anxiety and tension. In case of unsuccessful coping, the stressor persists and the need for further coping attempts arises.

According to A. Bandura (1977), “the expectation of personal effectiveness and mastery is reflected in both initiative and persistence in coping behavior. The power of a person’s belief in his own effectiveness gives hope for success.” Low self-efficacy according to V.A. Bodrova can lead to such a secondary assessment, which will define the event as uncontrollable and therefore as stressful (Bodrov V. A., 1996). Perrez M., Reichert M., (1992) allow a situation when objective reasons the individual cannot influence the situation and change it. The authors believe that an adequate functional way of coping in such a case is avoidance. A functionally adequate coping reaction in this case is a cognitive reappraisal of the situation, giving it a different meaning.

Research conducted in Japan (Nacano K., 1991) showed that active coping strategies focused on solving a problem lead to a decrease in existing symptoms, while avoidance and other coping strategies aimed at reducing emotional stress lead to increased symptoms.

Own assessment in relation to human abilities coping with life events is based on previous experience in similar situations, self-confidence, social support from people, self-confidence and risk-taking (Holroyd K., Lazarus R., 1982).

Coping mechanisms (COPING MECHANISMS) (from the English coping - coping). The study of human behavior in stressful situations has led to the identification of coping mechanisms, or coping mechanisms, that determine successful or unsuccessful adaptation.

The term “coping” was first used by Murphy L. in 1962 in studies of ways for children to overcome the demands made by developmental crises. These included active efforts of the individual aimed at mastering difficult situation or a problem. Subsequently, the understanding of coping mechanisms (MCs) was closely related to studies of psychological stress. Lazarus (Lazarus R. S., 1966) defined coping mechanisms (C.s.) as strategies of action taken by a person in situations of psychological threat, in particular in conditions of adaptation to the disease as a threat (to varying degrees, depending on the type and severity of the disease) to the physical , personal and social well-being.

The theory of coping behavior, based on the work of cognitive psychologists Lazarus and Folkman (Lazarus R., Folcman S., 1984, 1987), identifies basic coping strategies: “problem resolution”, “search social support", "avoidance" and basic coping resources: Self-concept, locus of control, empathy, affiliation and cognitive resources. A problem-solving coping strategy reflects a person’s ability to identify a problem and find alternative solutions, effectively cope with stressful situations, thereby helping to maintain both mental and physical health. The coping strategy of seeking social support allows one to successfully cope with a stressful situation using relevant cognitive, emotional and behavioral responses. There are some gender and age differences in the characteristics of social support. In particular, men are more likely to seek instrumental support, while women are more likely to seek both instrumental and emotional support. Young patients consider the most important thing in social support to be the opportunity to discuss their experiences, while older patients consider trusting relationships. The avoidance coping strategy allows the individual to reduce emotional tension and the emotional component of distress until the situation itself changes. An individual’s active use of the avoidance coping strategy can be considered as a predominance in behavior of the motivation to avoid failure over the motivation to achieve success, as well as a signal of possible intrapersonal conflicts (Yaltonsky V.M., 1994).

One of the main basic coping resources is the self-concept, the positive nature of which contributes to the fact that the individual feels confident in his ability to control the situation. The internal orientation of the individual as a coping resource allows for an adequate assessment problematic situation, choose an adequate coping strategy depending on the requirements of the environment, social network, determine the type and amount of social support required. The feeling of control over the environment contributes to emotional stability and acceptance of responsibility for current events. The next important coping resource is empathy, which includes both empathy and the ability to accept someone else’s point of view, which allows you to more clearly assess the problem and create more alternative solutions to it. Affiliation is also an essential coping resource, which is expressed both in the form of a feeling of attachment and loyalty, and in sociability, in the desire to cooperate with other people, to constantly be with them. The affiliative need is a tool for orientation in interpersonal contacts and regulates emotional, informational, friendly and material social support by building effective relationships. The success of coping behavior is determined by cognitive resources. The development and implementation of a basic coping strategy for resolving problems is impossible without sufficient level thinking. Developed cognitive resources make it possible to adequately assess both a stressful event and the amount of available resources to overcome it.

An attempt was made to combine defense mechanisms and coping mechanisms into a single whole. When setting psychotherapeutic goals, such a combination of adaptive reactions of the individual seems appropriate, since the mechanisms of adaptation of the individual to the disease on different stages diseases and their treatments are extremely diverse - from active, flexible and constructive to passive, rigid and maladaptive mechanisms of psychological defense.

The goals of coping mechanisms may be different for the patient, the psychotherapist and those from the patient’s immediate environment. The patient is interested in gaining mental balance, weakening and eliminating painful disorders, effective adaptation to life during the manifestations of the disease and its consequences in the case of a chronic course of the disease, optimal adaptation to the requirements of treatment. The main goals of the psychotherapist’s use of the patient’s coping mechanisms are the development of a positive attitude towards the patient’s motivation for treatment, his active cooperation in therapy, emotional stability and patience during the therapy process. Persons from the patient’s immediate environment expect him to maintain his previous status in the family and at work, and maintain social contacts. It is important for a psychotherapist to take into account all this diversity of goals for the development of multidirectional coping mechanisms.

Types (modalities) of coping mechanisms can be manifested by cognitive, emotional and behavioral strategies for the functioning of the patient’s personality. Cognitive strategies include the following coping mechanisms: distraction or switching thoughts to other, “more important” topics than the disease; the acceptance of illness as something inevitable, the manifestation of a kind of certain philosophy of stoicism; dissimulation of the disease, ignoring it, reducing its severity, even making fun of the disease; maintaining aplomb, the desire not to show your painful condition to others; problematic analysis of the disease and its consequences, search for relevant information, questioning of doctors, deliberation, balanced approach to decisions; relativity in assessing the disease, comparison with others who are in a worse situation; religiosity, steadfastness in faith (“God is with me”); giving the disease meaning and significance, for example, treating the disease as a challenge of fate or a test of fortitude, etc.; self-esteem - a deeper awareness of one's own worth as a person.

Emotional strategies of coping mechanisms manifest themselves in the form of: experiences of protest, indignation, opposition to the disease and its consequences; emotional release - response to feelings caused by illness, for example, crying; isolation - suppression, prevention of feelings adequate to the situation; passive cooperation - trust with the transfer of responsibility to the psychotherapist; resignation, fatalism, capitulation; self-accusation, placing blame on oneself; experiences of anger and irritation associated with life being limited by illness; maintaining self-control - balance, self-control.

Behavioral strategies of coping mechanisms are the following: distraction - turning to some activity, going to work; altruism - caring for others, when one's own needs are relegated to the background; active avoidance - the desire to avoid “immersion” in the treatment process; compensation - distracting performance of some own desires, for example, buying something for yourself; constructive activity - satisfaction of some long-standing need, for example, to travel; solitude - being at peace, thinking about yourself; active cooperation - responsible participation in diagnostic and healing process; seeking emotional support - the desire to be listened to, to receive assistance and understanding.

Along with the Berne questionnaire “Ways of overcoming critical situations” by Heim (Heim E.), described above, when studying coping mechanisms, the psychodiagnostic technique “Indicator of Stress Coping Strategies”, created by Amirhan J. N. in 1990 and adapted V. M. Yaltonsky in 1994. The technique is a self-assessment questionnaire that determines basic coping strategies (problem resolution, seeking social support and avoidance) and their severity - the structure of behavior coping with stress.

From the description of the coping mechanism, one can see, on the one hand, their closeness to defense mechanisms, and on the other, their difference in the parameter of activity (constructiveness) - passivity (unconstructiveness). The most productive of them when conducting psychotherapy are: active cooperation of the patient in the diagnostic and treatment process, active search for support in therapeutic and social environment, problematic analysis of the disease and its consequences, a reasonable degree of ignoring the disease and a humorous approach to it (a certain distance in relation to the manifestations of the disease), stoicism and patience, maintaining composure, confronting the disease, emotional release and altruism. It is often difficult for a psychotherapist to constructively modify or eliminate psychological defense mechanisms, even if he creates stable empathic communication with the patient, which weakens and reduces the need for him to use defense. In this case, the most appropriate emphasis in psychotherapeutic work is on maintaining and developing the patient’s coping mechanism.

People often face situations of internal tension and stress. A person reacts to any discomfort in two ways: by building coping strategies and using psychological defenses. Coping strategies are methods of activity that help to adapt to a difficult situation and maintain psychological balance.

Where did the term come from?

Coping strategies are everything that helps a person overcome stress. A stressful situation is characterized by anxiety, complexity, and uncertainty. Coping strategies provide an opportunity to cope with a difficult problem. The strategy can be emotional or behavioral. The Russian psychological school uses the concept of “experience” or coping behavior. The essence of coping is to enable a person to overcome life’s difficulties or reduce their impact on the body.

The term appeared in psychology in the early sixties of the last century. It was used by L. Murphy; he used it to describe how to overcome childhood developmental crises. A few years later, cognitive psychologist Richard Lazarus described strategies for coping with stressors in his book.

Classification of strategies

There are several classifications of coping strategies. The most famous classification of coping strategies is Lazarus. In collaboration with S. Folkman, two types of coping strategies were proposed:

• problem-oriented;
• emotionally oriented.

In the first case, a person, while experiencing stress, tries to change the situation by understanding the problem; he is looking for information on how to act and what to do. Such comprehension helps to avoid rash actions and impulsive actions.

The emotional type of coping behavior in stressful situations includes thoughts that help reduce the psychological pressure from a tense state. Thoughts help you feel better, but are not aimed at solving the problem. Examples: humor, use of alcohol, tranquilizers, denial of the situation.

Problem-oriented coping strategies

In the work of Lazarus and Folkman, there are eight coping strategies. A person may have a different strategy for helping himself. These include:

1. Planning actions to solve the problem, analyzing the situation, various efforts made to get out of the problem.
2. Confrontational coping. Attempts to resolve a difficult situation through confrontation. The problem is resolved through hostility and conflict; there are difficulties in planning actions. A person may not realize the consequences of unjustified persistence. Confrontation is often seen as maladaptive, but the individual shows persistence in defending his own interests, and the person actively confronts difficulties.
3. Taking responsibility for the problem. After assessing one’s role, attempts are made to correct the tense situation.
4. Self-control. A person controls his emotions and actions.
5. Positive assessment of a stressful problem. In this case, there is a search for the advantages of the current situation.
6. Appeal to the help of others and loved ones.
7. Distancing. A strategy of moving away from a situation, reducing its significance.
8. Avoiding problems, running away from difficulties.

Lazarus showed that it is the person who evaluates the situation as stressful or not. Only he can independently assess the magnitude of the potential stressor. In every difficult situation, a person himself determines coping resources to cope with stress.

Basic strategy and resources

Richard Lazarus defined coping mechanisms as the actions that an individual takes in a situation of threat, illness, physical violence, etc. There is a theory of coping behavior that identifies the main types of coping strategies and resources. The basic strategy is:

• problem solving;
• avoidance;
• search for support.

Basic coping resources are:

• Self-concept;
• empathy;
• affiliation;
• locus of control;
• cognitive resources.

The positive nature of the self-concept allows a person to be confident that he is able to keep a tense situation under control. Empathy allows you to accept another person’s point of view and use it to develop more solutions. Affiliation is a tool for interpersonal contacts that helps regulate emotional and friendly support.

Coping mechanisms play a compensatory function; they contribute without much harm to the individual.

Coping behavior

Coping refers primarily to adaptation during a stressful experience. In psychology, this is the desire to solve a problem for good health.

The theory of coping behavior is the ability of an individual to maintain a balance between the environment and resources. The main purpose of coping behavior is to maintain psychological well-being person. For mental health, the necessary coping mechanism strategy is selected.

In the theory of coping behavior, there are unproductive coping strategies. These include coping behavior in a stressful situation by avoiding the problem and inability to get out of it with dignity.

There are also productive coping behaviors under stress. It is important to work on the problem, keep in touch with other people, and remain optimistic.

Diagnostic technique for determining strategies

The diagnostic technique was developed by Amirkhan; he identified three groups of coping mechanisms. This is problem solving, seeking social help, avoidance.

Using all three strategies will be effective. In some situations, a person is able to cope with the problem on his own; in other cases, he will need help. Sometimes he can avoid difficulties only by thinking about adverse consequences his actions.

The indicator of coping strategies takes into account all coping mechanisms. Thus, coping behavior can be defined as developing a plan and taking actions in the event of a psychological threat. Coping styles and strategies belong to the sphere of conscious behavior, with the help of which a person copes with life’s problems.

The questionnaire is one of the most successful research tools. important processes V stressful behavior person. You can complete the questionnaire yourself or with the help of a psychologist. With the help of the technique, the coping strategies of the individual are realized. You can find out your style of behavior under stress with the help of diagnostic technique"Indicator of coping strategies."

Video: lecture by Alexey Shchavelev “Stress Management”

The modern rhythm of life is characterized by high speed and big amount changes in the surrounding world. Every day a person is exposed to many events, most of which cause emotional stress and discomfort. The human personality reacts to any psychological stress factors with special defense mechanisms: psychological defense or coping strategy. And if psychological defense is an unconscious process aimed at reducing negative experiences, then coping strategies are conscious, specific ways of acting that allow one to adapt to difficult situations. life situation, restore and maintain emotional balance.

What it is?

Coping strategies are behavioral, emotional and cognitive strategies used by the human personality to cope with and cope with stress. The term was introduced by L. Murphy in the 60s of the 20th century while studying child psychology and was developed first thanks to the psychologist Richard Lazarus, and then to other scientists studying ways to overcome negative impact stress on the body. Russian psychological school to define the phenomenon uses a similar concept: “experience”, “coping behavior”.

Each individual defines a situation as stressful for himself. Environmental conditions, which for one person are a normal, imperceptible burden, for another can become an almost insurmountable barrier to self-realization and life activity. A stressful situation for a particular person always causes anxiety, emotional instability, psychological and often physiological discomfort. In such conditions, psychological adaptation of the individual occurs with the help of coping strategies and psychological defense mechanisms.

Psychological defenses represent a special system for stabilizing the individual by protecting consciousness from unpleasant, traumatic factors. Intrapersonal tension is reduced due to distortion of existing reality or the emergence of various psychosomatic dysfunctions (neurotic disorders) in a person, leading to maladjustment. In contrast to psychological defenses, when coping strategies work, the individual’s responsive thoughts, feelings and actions form constructive efforts aimed at normalizing the “person-environment” relationship.

Initially, coping strategies were defined as a reaction human personality to excessive demands that exceed its internal resources. Then the concept of coping strategies expanded significantly and now includes reactions to everyday stressful situations.

Classification of strategies

On this moment Several classifications of coping strategies have been developed. The most famous is the classification developed by R. Lazarus together with S. Folkman and dividing strategies into two main types:

1. 1. Problem-oriented coping (transformation of the external situation) - overcoming a stressful situation occurs by rethinking the problem, searching for information about it and solutions. In many cases, it allows you to avoid rash actions and impulsive actions.
2. 2. Emotionally oriented coping (transformation internal situation) - aimed at changing attitudes towards a problem in various ways that reduce emotional stress, but do not contribute to its direct solution.

One of the simplest and most successful methods for identifying basic coping strategies was developed by J. Amirkhan (“Indicator of coping strategies”) and includes three main groups of coping strategies:

1. 1. Problem solving - strategy implies the maximum use by a person of his capabilities to solve a problem.
2. 2. Avoiding the problem - the strategy includes various shapes avoiding contact with environment in order to get away from the problem both in a passive form (use of psychoactive substances: alcohol, drugs, tranquilizers) and in an active form (committing suicide).
3. 3.

   Seeking social support - the strategy involves taking active steps to obtain help from the social environment.

Efficiency and adaptability of coping

There are a lot of coping strategies, of which each individual, under the influence of a certain stress factor, forms his own complex. Among them there can be both productive forms (effective and adaptive), helping to get out of a stressful state, and relatively productive and unproductive ones.

R. Lazarus and S. Folkman in his test method rely on eight predominant coping strategies:

1. 1. Planning future actions aimed at solving the problem, critical analysis situations, the various efforts made.
2. 2. Confrontational strategy. Attempts to resolve a difficult situation through conflicts, persistent defense of one's own interests and hostility. When using this strategy in a conflict situation, the individual has difficulty planning and often has little understanding of the consequences of his actions.
3. 3. Taking responsibility for the problem. A reassessment of one’s own role in the situation that has arisen is followed by attempts to correct a difficult situation.
4. 4. Self-control. The individual maintains composure by controlling his emotions and actions.
5. 5. Search for positive aspects as a result of a stressful situation.
6. 6. Seeking help from others: either family and friends, or those in power and the general public - depending on the stress factor.
7. 7. Distancing from the problem, that is, moving away from the situation, reducing its significance using various methods.
8. 8. Avoiding problems, running away from difficulties.

The diagnostics of coping strategies, which was created by E. Heim, allows you to analyze in detail the style and productivity of a particular person’s strategies. The test examines 26 situationally specific types of response, dividing them into three main areas of mental activity of the individual and clearly indicating their productivity in solving the problem:

1. 1. Cognitive (rethinking, analysis) coping mechanism:
   1. Productive strategies: problem analysis.
   2. 2. Relatively productive: ignoring, dissimulation (conscious desire to hide a problem or downplaying it), maintaining self-control, relativity (comparing one’s problem with the problems of others and concluding that it is insignificant), religiosity, giving a problem a special meaning (a problem as a way of self-improvement), attitude self-worth (confidence of the individual in the ability to overcome even great difficulties in the future).
   3. 3. Unproductive: humility, confusion.
2. Emotional coping mechanism:
   1. 1. Productive strategies: optimism.
   2. 2. Relatively productive: protest, passive cooperation (the individual trusts the solution of his problems to others).
   3. 3. Unproductive: emotional release (release of emotions), suppression of emotions, resignation (state of hopelessness), self-blame, aggressiveness.
3. Behavioral coping mechanism:
   1. 1. Productive: collaboration.
   2. 2. Relatively productive: distraction (immersion in work, hobbies), altruism (solving other people’s problems to distract from one’s own), compensation (distraction and calming with the help of medicines, food, alcohol), constructive activity (fulfilling an old dream), appeal (receiving advice from others).
   3. 3. Unproductive: active avoidance of the problem (conscious reluctance to think and analyze), retreat (self-isolation from other people).

Research has shown a sufficient influence of certain coping strategies on increasing and decreasing the success and effectiveness of an individual. Thus, problem-focused coping reactions are associated with lower levels of negative emotions. Children who rarely use problem-oriented coping have more difficulties in adaptation, and the use of emotion-oriented coping is often associated with serious behavioral problems and increased levels of anxiety and depression. Active problem solving and the search for social support are recognized as effective and positively influencing adaptation.

It is worth noting that depending on characteristic features personality and the severity of the stress factor, some coping mechanisms can significantly improve or worsen the development of the situation. For example, in some cases, a normally unproductive emotional release is necessary and is followed by a much calmer analysis of the situation. Conversely, relatively productive protest and ignorance, taking inadequate and hypertrophied forms, can lead to the expansion and deepening of the crisis, as well as the involvement of new factors in it.

One of the aspects of the common fund considers a fairly wide range of environmental resources surrounding the individual:

• availability of instrumental environmental assistance for him;
• availability of moral and emotional support from the social environment.

The second aspect is the personal characteristics of the individual:

• innate abilities;
• acquired skills and abilities.

Different researchers call key various resources. According to S. Seligman, the main key resource that helps to cope with stress is optimism. A. Bandura believes that the construct “self-efficacy” is an important key resource in working with stress. Many other scientists consider the construct of “resilience” to be a guiding construct in the formation of coping styles. Despite all the differences in opinions, coping styles are formed gradually throughout a person’s life under the influence of constantly changing reality and currently available resources.

Since childhood, an environment depleted of resources, both material and social, does not allow one to develop abilities and acquire skills, and is highly likely to narrow the range of preferred coping strategies. The coping strategies used by an individual also influence the possession and management of resources. An example is a person’s conscious reluctance to interact effectively with the social environment, as a result of which his social circle is significantly narrowed and, accordingly, environmental resources are depleted.

The main function of coping mechanisms is compensatory, allowing one to cope with stress with minimal losses to the individual.

Coping strategies aimed at directly solving problems are generally recognized as more effective than strategies designed only to cope with the individual's attitude to the problem. In addition, research confirms higher effectiveness integrated use several types of productive or relatively productive coping, compared to choosing only one of the coping methods.

coping mechanisms (coping mechanisms)