Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Richard Dawkins Gena Egoista
Richard Dawkins Gena Egoista
Laboratory and field research indicates that the relationships between personal
control and stress, coping, and adaptational outcomes are more complex than was
once assumed. Believing that an event is controllable does not always lead, to a
reduction in stress or to a positive outcome, and believing that an event is uncon-
trollable does not always lead to an increase in stress or to a negative outcome.
These complex relationships involving control are examined in the context of
Lazarus's cognitive theory of stress and coping. The first part of the article elaborates
this theory and shows how two forms of control, generalized beliefs about control
and situational appraisals of control, fit into the overall model. Situational appraisals
of control are explored in this section, including the question, Control over what?
which must be addressed in order to explain some of the perplexing findings. The
second part of the article draws on the theoretical formulation of stress and .coping
to examine three important issues: (a) how believing one has control in a stressful
transaction can heighten threat, (b) the relationship between control and coping,
and (c) pathways through which control can affect the adaptational outcomes of
stressful encounters.
In recent years there has been growing con- outcomes, such as morale or recovery from
viction that beliefs about personal control are illness (for reviews, see Cohen & Lazarus,
heavily implicated in stress and coping. Yet, 1979; Strickland, 1978).
just how these beliefs influence stress and cop- The purpose of this article is to analyze the
ing is not clear. In early research it was assumed role of personal control in stress and coping
that believing one has control over aversive processes from the perspective of a cognitively
outcomes is stress-reducing and that believing oriented theory of stress and coping developed
one has little or no control over them is stress by Lazarus and his colleagues (e.g., Coyne &
inducing. However, as experiments were re- Lazarus, 1980; Folkman, Schaefer, & Lazarus,
peated and extended it became clear that the 1979; Lazarus, 1966, 1981; Lazarus & Folk-
relationships between control and stress were man, in press; Lazarus, Kanner, & Folkman,
not as simple as was expected. Believing that 1980; Lazarus & Launier, 1978). This theory
an event is controllable does not always lead posits two processes, cognitive appraisal and
to a reduction in stress, and believing that an coping, as mediators of stress and stress-related
event is uncontrollable does not always lead adaptational outcomes. Control will be con-
to an increase in stress (for reviews, see Averill, sidered in the context of this theory in two
1973; Thompson, 1981). Similar findings have ways: as a generalized belief of an individual
been reported in field studies of the relation- concerning the extent to which he or she can
ship between personal control and adaptational control outcomes of importance and as a sit-
uational appraisal of the possibilities for con-
trol in a specific stressful encounter. When
The writing of this article was supported by a research
these forms of personal control are viewed in
grant from the MacArthur Foundation. relation to cognitive appraisal and coping,
I wish to thank Christine Dunkel-Schetter, Richard S. many of the findings that have perplexed re-
Lazarus, and Carolyn Aldwin for their helpful comments searchers become more understandable, and
on an earlier version of this article. the pathways through which control influences
Correspondence should be sent to Susan Folkman, De-
partment of Psychology, Stress and Coping Project, Uni- stress and adaptational outcomes become more
versity of California, Berkeley, California 94720. No re- discernible. The basic tenets of this theory are
prints are available from the author. presented in the next section; in the following
839
840 SUSAN FOLKMAN
to use the term preferred by perception psy- differences in the ambiguous condition; per-
chologists (Wrubel, Benner, & Lazarus, 1981). sons with low trait anxiety reported a signif-
They determine how things are in a given per- icantly greater expectancy of avoiding shock
son-environment transaction. A wide range than did those with high trait anxiety. In other
of general beliefs (e.g., religious) and specific words, a personality trait variable (trait anx-
beliefs (e.g., in a particular person) are un- iety) was found to be influential in the am-
doubtedly relevant to primary appraisal. biguously structured condition but not in con-
Generalized beliefs about control, which ditions that contained clear and explicit sit-
concern the extent to which individuals assume uational cues.
they can control outcomes of importance, are If this principle were applied to generalized
among those beliefs that influence primary beliefs about control, it would be expected that
appraisal. The best known formulation is Rot- under conditions of ambiguity, a generalized
ter's (1966) concept of internal versus external belief about control would be translated into
locus of control. An internal locus of control an appraisal of controllability with respect to
refers to the conviction that events are con- the specific situation. Thus when a situation
tingent upon one's own behavior, and an ex- is highly ambiguous, a person with an internal
ternal locus of control refers to the conviction locus of control might be expected to appraise
that events are not contingent upon one's ac- the situation as controllable, whereas a person
tions but upon luck, chance, fate, or powerful with an external locus of control might ap-
others. praise it as uncontrollable. However, when a
Rotter (1966,1975) conceived of generalized situation is not highly ambiguous, it would be
control expectancies as having their greatest expected, as noted by Rotter (1966, 1975),
influence when a situation is ambiguous or that judgments about controllability would be
novel. Under conditions of ambiguity, which influenced more by situational characteristics
is used here to refer to lack of clarity in the than by generalized beliefs.
environment, situational cues regarding the Commitments also are important deter-
nature of the outcome and/or the extent to minants of primary appraisals of threat, chal-
which it can be controlled are minimal. In the lenge, and harm/loss. Commitments reveal
absence of clear information, the situation is what is important to the person, what has
like a projective test, and the person makes meaning to him or her. They can be defined
inferences based on general experience and at many levels of abstraction, ranging from
personality dispositions, which include beliefs, values and ideals (e.g., parenthood) to specific
to understand what is happening. The greater goals (e.g., having two children; Wrubel et al.,
the ambiguity, the more inference is required 1981). Any encounter that involves a strongly
and, consequently, the more influence person held commitment will be evaluated as signif-
factors have in determining the meaning of icant with respect to well-being to the extent
the environmental configuration (cf. Lazarus, that the expected outcome harms or threatens
Eriksen, & Fonda, 1951; Schank & Abelson, that commitment.
1977). Another way of understanding the role of
A study by Archer (1979) illustrates this commitments in primary appraisal is to think
principle. Archer studied the interaction of of commitments as determining the stakes that
trait anxiety and expectancy of control in a are involved in a specific encounter. What is
shock-avoidance experiment. He used three at stake for the individual is a reflection of his
conditions; two were clearly denned (unam- or her commitments. For instance, an exam
biguous) as to the method and degree of control may be stressful for a student because it
subjects could exercise over shock, and the threatens a short-term commitment to getting
other was an ambiguous condition that pro- into graduate school and a long-term com-
vided few cues to subjects regarding the nature mitment to a professional goal. The student
of their shock-avoidance task. The dependent may perceive that his or her whole career is
variable was the subject's expectancy of con- at stake. A conflict between friends may pose
trol. Under clearly denned conditions, subjects a threat to a commitment to a valued friend-
with high trait anxiety and subjects with low ship. Here the friendship is at stake, which is
trait anxiety did not differ with respect to their what makes the conflict stressful for the par-
expectancies of control. However, there were ticipants.
842 SUSAN FOLKMAN
one hand, and his or her coping resources and control one aspect of a situation but not an-
options and ability to implement the needed other. With respect to patients with spinal cord
coping strategies, on the other. In the latter injuries, for example, Silver and Wortman
respects, situational appraisals of control par- (1980b) pointed out that a "person may believe
allel Bandura's (1977) concepts of "outcome that learning to get in and out of a bed to a
expectancy," which is one's estimate that a wheelchair is in his control. However, he may
given strategy will lead to a particular outcome, feel that being able to walk again is only in
and "efficacy expectancy," which is the con- the hands of God" (p. 4). That the targets of
viction that one can successfully execute the control or outcomes in a stressful encounter
strategy required to produce the outcome. can vary in appraised controllability adds to
Situational appraisals of control are difficult the complexity of the secondary appraisal of
to evaluate. Part of the problem has to do with coping options and to the overall appraisal of
the question, Control over what? In experi- an event as threatening, challenging, or both.
mental studies the object of control is usually Moreover, appraisals of control can shift as
posited as a simple and clear aversive stimulus, an encounter unfolds. Indeed, this is what the
such as shock, noise, or phobic object. What word process implies. Changes in appraisals
is not acknowledged is that even in experi- of control can come about as a result of new
mental settings there is often more than one information from the environment and/or as
possibility for control. For example, Roth- a result of coping efforts. Bandura (1982), for
baum, Weisz, and Snyder (1982) point out example, noted the following in his studies of
that in studies that manipulate controllability efficacy expectancies in phobics:
(e.g., Frankel & Snyder, 1978; Glass & Singer, People register notable increases in self-efficacy when their
1972; Mettee, 1971), subjects who appear to experiences disconfirra misbeliefs about what they fear
be giving up may in fact be controlling dis- and when they gain new skills to manage threatening ac-
appointment. The possibilities for control in tivities. . . . If in the course of completing a task, they
real life situations are generally more complex discover something that appears intimidating about the
undertaking, or suggests limitations to their mode of coping,
and therefore even more difficult to evaluate. they register a decline in self-efficaciousness despite their
The complexity of control appraisals in real successful performance, (pp. 125-126)
life situations is especially evident in health-
related contexts. Cohen and Lazarus (1979)
Coping
cite the following common coping tasks in re-
covery from illness, each of which refers to an Coping refers to cognitive and behavioral
outcome or target of control: "(1) to reduce efforts to master, reduce, or tolerate the in-
harmful environmental conditions and en- ternal and/or external demands that are cre-
hance prospects of recovery, (2) to tolerate or ated by the stressful transaction (Folkman &
adjust to negative events and realities, (3) to Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus & Launier, 1978). An
maintain a positive self-image, (4) to maintain important feature of this definition is that cop-
emotional equilibrium, and (5) to continue ing is denned independently of its outcome.
satisfying relationships with others" (p. 232). That is, coping refers to efforts to manage de-
A good overall outcome in a health-related mands, regardless of the success of those ef-
source of stress thus involves numerous sub- forts. The effectiveness of any given coping
outcomes, which vary in clarity and impor- strategy is not inherent in the strategy. This
tance. Some pertain to changing environmen- approach differs from psychodynamic con-
tal conditions, for example, installing wheel- ceptualizations (e.g., Menninger, 1963), in
chair ramps, and others pertain to inner issues, which certain intrapsychic defense processes,
such as tolerating discomfort or maintaining such as denial, are considered inherently
a sense of adequacy or lovableness. The same poorer than others, such as suppression, or in
type of complexity can be found in a wide which a strategy is labeled coping only if it
range of real life harms, threats, and challenges. satisfies certain criteria, such as adhering to
In real life situations, then, the answer to the reality (e.g., Haan, 1977). This definition also
question, Control over what? is likely to be differs from popular conceptualizations of
multifaceted. coping in which coping implies managing or
Outcomes also vary in appraised control- succeeding, whereas not coping implies failure.
lability. An individual might be expected to The theoretical separation of coping efforts
844 SUSAN FOLKMAN
from their outcomes is necessary if the coping as a coping process. An important distinction
construct is to be used to predict outcome, must be made between beliefs about control
because when coping is confounded with out- and control appraisals, on the one hand, and
come, any use of coping as a predictor is tau- control as a coping process, on the other. Gen-
tological and meaningless (Folkman & La- eralized beliefs about control and control ap-
zarus, 1980). praisals are cognitive factors that influence the
Functions of coping. Coping is viewed in appraisal of threat or challenge in a particular
this formulation as having two major func- stressful encounter; control as a coping process
tions: the regulation of emotions or distress refers to cognitive and/or behavioral efforts to
(emotion-focused coping) and the manage- exercise or seek control in that same encounter
ment of the problem mat is causing the distress (see also Wong & Sproule, 1983).
(problem-focused coping). These two functions Emotion-focused coping, for example, can
of coping have been recognized by numerous be used to alter the meaning of a situation and
investigators (e.g., Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, & thereby enhance the individual's sense of con-
Snoek, 1964; Mechanic, 1962), and have long trol over his or her distress (cf. Averill, 1973;
been implicitly recognized by clinicians. Folk- Silver & Wortman, 1980a). Strategies used for
man and Lazarus (1980) have shown that both this purpose include devaluing the stakes that
forms of coping are used in most stressful en- are at risk in an encounter (e.g., "Passing that
counters and that the relative proportions of exam really doesn't matter much"), focusing
each form vary according to how the encounter on the positive aspects of negative outcomes
is appraised (e.g., as holding the potential for (e.g., "I'm a stronger person for having gone
control or as not amenable to control; see also through this"), and engaging in positive com-
Aldwin, Folkman, Schaefer, Coyne, & Lazarus, parisons (e.g., "It could have been much
1980). worse" or "I'm a lot better off than the other
In the study by Folkman and Lazarus guy" (cf. Moos, 1977; Pearlin & Schooler,
(1980), 100 men and women who were 45- 1978; Silver & Wortman, 1980a; Taylor, Wood,
64 years of age indicated on a 68-item checklist & Lichtman, 1983).
how they coped with a wide variety of real life From this perspective, what Rothbaum et
events over the course of 7 months. The check- al. (1982) call "secondary control"—attempts
list contained problem-focused and emotion- to "flow with the current" or efforts to ac-
focused strategies. Examples of problem-fo- commodate oneself to uncontrollable events—
cused strategies included "got the person re- is a form of emotion-focused coping that en-
sponsible to change his or her mind," "made hances perceptions of control in ostensibly
a plan of action and followed it," and "stood uncontrollable circumstances. Examples of
your ground and fought for what you wanted." secondary control processes include illusory
The emotion-focused category included such control, through which people "align them-
items as "looked for the silver lining, tried to selves with the force of chance so that they
look on the bright side of things," "accepted may share in the control exerted by that pow-
sympathy and understanding from someone," erful force" (p. 17); vicarious control, with
and "tried to forget the whole thing." The which people achieve control by association
events people reported ranged from minor with powerful others; and interpretive control,
problems, such as car trouble or a balky cus- which refers to the search for meaning and
tomer at work, to major problems, such as job understanding.
loss or life-threatening illness. Over 1,300 This type of emotion-focused coping can
stressful episodes were analyzed, and the find- be difficult to distinguish from appraisal, and
ings showed that both problem- and emotion- in fact it is referred to elsewhere as a specific
focused coping were used in over 98% of the type of appraisal, namely, "defensive reap-
episodes. Moreover, problem-focused forms of praisal" (Lazarus, 1966) or simply "reap-
coping increased in situations that were ap- praisal" (Lazarus & Launier, 1978). There is
praised as changeable, thereby holding the po- no completely satisfactory way, for example,
tential for control, and emotion-focused forms to differentiate an initial benign appraisal from
of coping increased in situations appraised as an emotion-focused coping technique. There
not amenable to change. is also no easy way to distinguish between cop-
Control beliefs and appraisals versus control ing and reappraisal when a positive evaluation
PERSONAL CONTROL 845
of an outcome is made. In short, many coping and coping processes. Three issues are high-
strategies can have an appraisal function in lighted: The first deals with the relationship
that they shape the meaning or significance of between situational appraisals of control (sec-
an event, and, conversely, many forms of ap- ondary appraisal) and the primary appraisal
praisal can have a coping function in that they of threat and addresses the question of how
help regulate distress (Lazarus & Folkman, in believing one has control over an outcome in
press). Although this area of overlap between a specific encounter can sometimes heighten
appraisal and coping must be recognized, it is rather than reduce threat; the second deals
useful for purposes of analysis to consider the with the relationship between beliefs about and
control-related cognitive processes involved in appraisals of control and coping processes; and
appraisal and.coping as having separate though the third concerns appraisals of control and
related functions. adaptational outcomes.
Problem-focused coping and emotion-fo-
cusing coping differ in the facets of a stressful When Control Appraisals Heighten Threat
encounter they are used to gain control over.
Emotion-focused coping, as noted earlier, is Most theory and research on the relation-
used to control distressing emotion, sometimes ship between control and stress is based on
by altering the meaning of an outcome. Prob- the assumption that having control is stress
lem-focusing coping is used to control the reducing and not having control is stress in-
troubled person-environment relationship ducing. Yet, as pointed out earlier, some studies
through problem solving, decision making, indicate that the obverse is sometimes true
and/or direct action. These problem-focused (for examples, see reviews by Averill, 1973;
strategies, which are qualitatively different Thompson, 1981). Why might this be so?
from emotion-focused strategies, can be di- The relationship between control and stress
is often examined in a context in which the
rected at the environment as well as at oneself.
For example, if a person has a disagreement focal event is treated apart from other personal
with his or her supervisor over a particular and environmental concerns. This character-
goal, the person can attempt to get the su- istic is clearly evident in laboratory studies, in
pervisor to change the goal and/or can change which the aversive event is treated as an iso-
his or her own behavior in an effort to achievelated and discrete instance. In real life, events
a favorable outcome. are usually connected to other events, be they
Theoretically, the effectiveness of problem-internal or external, psychological, physical,
focused efforts depends largely on the success or social. The interrelated nature of events
of emotion-focused efforts. Otherwise, height- helps explain why the potential for control,
ened emotions will interfere with the cognitivewhich is so often viewed as threat reducing,
activity necessary for problem-focused coping can be threat inducing.
(e.g., Easterbrook, 1959; Kahn, 1964; Kahne- For example, control can be a mixed bless-
man, 1973; Klinger, 1975;Korchin, 1964; La- ing when exercising it exacts costs in other'
zarus, 1966; Sarason, 1972;Spence&Spence, areas. Consider the patient who is told that
1966; Vroom, 1964). The importance of hav- there is the potential for controlling his or her
ing at least some control over one's emotions malignancy through chemotherapy, The ex-
when trying to manage or alter a troubling ercise of this control option, that is, having
situation is one reason why we expect, and chemotherapy, may result in the malignancy
have found (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, in being contained but at additional cost to the
press), that problem-focused coping will be patient's physical and psychological well-being
accompanied by emotion-focused coping in (e.g., nausea, hair loss, and depression). A per-
most stressful encounters. son with a coronary-prone Type A behavior
pattern may be counseled to control his or her
Control and Appraisal, Coping, and behavior by becoming less driven and com-
Adaptational Outcome petitive in order to reduce the risk of illness.
But to do so may cause the person to act against
The theoretical formulation described in the strongly held values, with a consequent loss
previous section provides a framework for dis- of self-esteem and productivity. In each of these
cussing the role of personal control in stress examples the potential for control presents a
846 SUSAN FOLKMAN
difficult choice. A person may value controlling urged to think about the procedure. From
a malignancy or the risk of a heart attack, yet these and earlier studies (e.g., Andrew, 1970;
the potential for control can generate distress Delong, 1970), a clear pattern emerges that
because of its costs. indicates that control can .be stress inducing
The same principle applies when having when it opposes a preferred style.
control is antagonistic to a preferred style, such Control can also have negative social con-
as avoidance (as opposed to confrontation) or sequences. Perhaps a person has the skills with
dependence (as opposed to independence). A which to exercise control over an aversive con-
study by Averill, O'Brien, and DeWitt (1977) dition, but to exercise those skills might result
illustrates this point. In this shock-avoidance in damage to an important interpersonal re-
experiment, each subject could choose whether lationship or in an embarrassing social inter-
or not to listen for a warning that signaled an action. In a study of the coping efforts of low-
upcoming shock. The warning gave the sub- income mothers, for example, Dill, Feld, Mar-
jects potential control over the aversive stim- tin, Beukema, and Belle (1980) described how
ulus in that it allowed them to try to avoid a woman was inhibited from doing something
the shock with a switch. In each of 12 trials, about her child's behavior problems because
the subject was informed as to how effective to do so would likely involve "humiliating in-
the switch was likely to be in preventing the trusions" from the school system, health and
shock; response effectiveness ranged from 0% mental health services, or social workers.
to 100%. Those subjects who preferred to listen The possibility of heightened threat also ex-
for the warning (i.e., who preferred having ists when the exercise of control requires ma-
control) showed less evidence of distress as terial resources that are needed elsewhere.
response effectiveness increased, whereas sub- Thus, cutting down the aversive noise in the
jects who preferred not to listen for the warning work environment may require money that is
showed increased distress as effectiveness in- needed to buy new equipment. The potential
creased. practical, mundane consequences of control
A study by Mills and Krantz (1979) also are too often overlooked in both laboratory
illustrates this point. These investigators found and field settings (see Antonovsky, 1979; Dill
that blood donors who were given information et al., 1980).
that would allow them to prepare for blood
drawing (thereby giving them the option for Control and Coping
self-control) and behavioral control (in the
form of a choice as to which arm would be Two approaches are used to explore the re-
used) were more distressed than subjects who lationships between personal control and cop-
were allowed just one form of control. Mills ing. The first considers several ways in which
and Krantz speculated that the combination control might directly affect coping. The sec-
of informational and behavioral control gave ond, in line with the theoretical framework of
donors more of a role in the blood-drawing this analysis, introduces threat and challenge
procedures than they would have preferred. as mediators of this relationship.
Citing Houston (1972), Mills and Krantz also Several writers have suggested that both
suggested that when the individual prefers not generalized beliefs about control and situa-
to have control, increased choice or partici- tional control appraisals are related to coping
pation may heighten stress. In studies by Ship- effort and persistence. For example, general-
ley, Butt, and Horwitz (1979) and Shipley, ized expectancies of internal control are as-
Butt, Horwitz, and Farbry (1978) that ex- sociated with exertion and persistence in
amined the relationship between repression- achievement situations (for a review, see Lef-
sensitization and stress, subjects were given court, 1976). Likewise, according to Bandura
information that allowed them to exercise self- (1977), efficacy expectancies—part of what are
control in response to an intrusive procedure referred to here as situational appraisals of
(endoscopy). Repressers were more anxious control—"determine how much effort people
than sensitizers when given this information. will expend, and how long they will persist in
Presumably, those with a repressive style would the face of obstacles and aversive experiences.
have been less anxious if they had not been The stronger the efficacy or mastery expec-
PERSONAL CONTROL 847
tations, the more active the efforts" (p. 80). external subjects; nor did the externals use
(See also Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Brown & more emotion-focused coping behaviors than
Inouye, 1978; Schunk, 1981; Weinberg, did the internals. In contrast, as noted earlier,
Gould, & Jackson, 1979.) situational appraisals of control were strongly
The relationship between controllability and related to coping behavior.
coping effort has also been linked to biochem- Situational control appraisals, moreover,
ical response. Frankenhaeuser (1983) found also affect primary appraisals of threat and
that the controllability of a task is a major challenge, which in turn influence coping. A
determinant of the balance between sympa- full understanding of the relationship between
thetic adrenal arousal and pituitary adrenal control and coping, therefore, should take these
arousal, as measured by catecholamine and primary appraisals of threat and challenge into
cortisol excretion. Catecholamines and cortisol account. Although the relationships among
were both elevated in subjects in a low-control control, threat, challenge, and coping have not
situation, but only cortisol, which is usually yet been explored in a systematic program of
associated with distress, decreased relative to research, certain relationships seem reasonable
baselines in subjects in a high-control situation. to predict. Threat appraisals seem likely when
The meaning of the biochemical response pat- the desire for control is not matched by ex-
tern in terms of the relationship between con- pectations for control or when the exercise of
trollability and coping effort was suggested by control can generate additional distress. Chal-
subjective reports that subjects experienced ef- lenge appraisals, on the other hand, seem likely
fort under conditions of high control and dis- when encounters that are appraised as relevant
tress under conditions of low control. to well-being hold a potential for control, either
Several studies also suggest that control is of one's emotions or the environment, and the
related to the type of coping activity. In her exercise of control creates little if any addi-
review of research on internal-external locus tional distress.
of control expectancies and health attitudes With respect to coping, the negative emo-
and behaviors, Strickland (1978) noted studies tions that accompany threat appraisals, such
that indicated that people with an internal lo- as anxiety or fear, require regulation to keep
cus of control are more likely than people with them from interfering with problem-focused
an external locus of control to engage in an forms of coping and to preserve a tolerable
information search about disease and health internal state, as noted earlier/Under condi-
maintenance when it is relevant to their well- tions of challenge, positive emotions, such as
being and in preventive behaviors, such as excitement, eagerness, and hopefulness, pre-
wearing seat belts and going to the dentist for dominate; these are affective states that need
checkups. These behaviors would be classified little if any regulation. Indeed, positive emo-
as problem focused within the theoretical tions may actually facilitate effective problem-
framework of stress and coping adopted here. focused forms of coping (Lazarus et al., 1980).
Furthermore, Anderson (1977) found that, in Threat-related emotions that accompany
comparison with externals, internals were challenge, although they should be less prom-
likely to employ more task-centered (problem- inent than positive emotions, may also require
focused) coping behaviors and fewer emotion- emotion-focused coping. However, if these
centered coping behaviors. Data about the re- emotions are at an optimal level for creating
lationship between locus of control and coping adaptive vigilance (i.e., not too strong and dis-
from the field study of men an^Twomen age ruptive), they too may facilitate rather than
45-64 mentioned earlier in relation" to coping impede problem-focused efforts (Miller, 1980).
provide mixed though relevant findings (Folk- A study by Anderson (1977) lends support
man, Aldwin, & Lazarus, 1981). Generalized to these ideas. In an investigation of busi-
control expectancies (measured on the Rotter nessmen who were restoring their businesses,
Internal-External Locus of Control Scale) in which had been damaged by a flood, Anderson
this sample were not related to coping. Con- found that at the outset of the ordeal, externals
trary to what might be expected, the 15 most were more stressed than internals. Externals
internal subjects did not use more problem- also used more of what Anderson calls "emo-
focused coping behaviors than did the 15 most tion-directed" coping than did internals, and
848 SUSAN FOLKMAN
depression, for example, indicate that depres- The risk of maladaptive outcomes should
sion is less likely when the person attributes be greater when the appraisal of control does
responsibility for the event to unstable person not match reality. If an event is appraised as
factors, such as behavior or effort, as opposed uncontrollable when in fact it is controllable,
to stable factors, such as character or ability the person is likely not to engage in necessary
(cf. Janoff-Bulman, 1979; Peterson, Schwartz, problem-focused coping. As a consequence,
& Seligman, 1981), These attributions lead to harm or loss is even more likely. For instance,
different evaluations of the significance of the a patient who appraises his or her condition
event, for example, with respect to self-esteem. as uncontrollable and therefore decides not to
Similarly, Lipowski (1970-1971) identifies participate in important treatment programs
certain meanings that people attribute to ill- is likely to do additional harm. Similarly, a
ness that encourage active coping efforts as student who appraises the outcome of an exam
opposed to helplessness and passivity. Ex- as beyond control may not study. The reso-
amples include viewing illness as a challenge lution of these problems is apt to be poor, and
or as an opportunity to expand personality in the absence of successful emotion-focused
through growth. In their excellent review of coping activity, morale may also be poor.
studies on coping with uncontrollable events, Yet another form of mismatch between ap-
Silver and Wortman (1980a) found that people praisal and reality occurs when an uncon-
who discover something positive in a negative trollable event is appraised as controllable.
situation show less distress than those who do Here the person is likely to engage in problem-
not (e.g., Natterson & Knudson, 1960; Weis- focused coping activity that gets nowhere and,
man & Worden, 1976-1977); Goodhart (1980) as a consequence, becomes frustrated and dis-
obtained a similar finding. In the language of appointed. A recent study by Collins, Baum,
stress and coping theory, all of these attribu- and Singer (1983) of residents of Three Mile
tions or interpretations constitute reappraisals Island suggests that people who engaged in
or emotion-focused forms of cognitive coping problem-focused coping in dealing with
that affect the significance of the encounter chronic, uncontrollable conditions associated
with respect to well-being. with the nuclear accident reported more psy-
Another way to transform the meaning of chological symptoms than did people who used
an uncontrollable encounter with respect to less problem-focused coping. Those who used
its significance for well-being (e.g., self-esteem, more emotion-focused coping, on the other
recovery) is to abandon old goals and create hand, reported fewer symptoms. An interesting
new ones. A patient with a spinal cord injury finding was that residents who used greater
might realize that there is little that can be amounts of problem-focused coping also en-
done to regain the use of his or her legs but gaged in more denial-like or avoidant strate-
may generate a new goal of learning how to giesl which suggests that they were actually
get around in a wheelchair. Such changes in distorting reality and maladaptively exagger-
goals or commitments may not alter the loss ating their sense of personal control. A time-
itself, but they establish new definitions of the honored principle of effective coping is to know
conditions and outcomes the individual can when to appraise a situation as uncontrollable
control. The creation of new long-range and and hence abandon efforts directed at altering
intermediate goals promotes positive morale that situation (cf. Janoff-Bulman & Brickman,
and preserves the person's general sense of 1982; Silver & Wortman, 1980a) and turn to
control and self-esteem, which, in turn, should emotion-focused processes in order to tolerate
facilitate realistic efforts to function (cf. Rodin or accept the situation.
& Langer, 1977; Schulz, 1976). Thus, reap- The four ways of appraising a stressful sit-
praisal and cognitive coping processes can uation presented represent an overly simplified
prevent or reduce feelings of helplessness or scheme for predicting adaptational outcomes.
depression and possibly encourage feelings of Because few situations are clearly controllable
challenge and hope, even in the face of new or uncontrollable, many permutations and
demands and difficulties and a considerable combinations of these appraisals are possible,
degree of uncontrollability. depending on the context of stress. The im-
850 SUSAN FOLKMAN
portant point is that the concepts of appraisal aware of these multiple functions and know
and problem- and emotion-focused coping which one is being considered.
make it possible to consider a rich pattern of
dynamics in any given event that holds the References
potential for being simultaneously controllable
Aldwin, C., Folkman, S., Schaefer, C., Coyne, J. C, &
and uncontrollable. Lazarus, R. S. (1980, August). Ways of coping: A process
measure. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Conclusion Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
Anderson, C. R. (1977). Locus of control, coping behaviors,
and performance in a stress setting: A longitudinal study.
Many facets of the relationships between Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 446-451.
personal control, appraisal, coping, and out- Andrew, J. M. (1970). Recovery from surgery with and
come have been considered here. Two general without preparatory instruction for three coping styles.
points should be emphasized that are espe- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 151, 223-
cially important for those people involved in 226.
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress and coping. San
conducting or evaluating research on the gen- Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
eral concept of control and its relationship to Archer, R. P. (1979). Relationships between locus of control,
stress and stress-related adaptational out- trait anxiety, and state anxiety: An interactionist per-
comes. spective. Journal of Personality, 47, 305-316.
Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli
First, perceptions of control, whether they and its relationship to stress. Psychological Bulletin, 80,
are shaped by generalized beliefs or by situ- 286-303.
ational contingencies, need to be examined in Averill, J. R., O'Brien, L., & DeWitt, G. W. (1977). The
the context of specific stressful encounters. influence of response effectiveness on the preference for
Only such encounters can allow one to (a) warning and on psychophysiological stress reactions.
Journal of Personality, 45, 395-418.
determine the personal meaning or significance Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood
of control in relation to what is at stake for Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
the individual in that encounter and what the Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human
costs as well as benefits of exercising control agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating com-
might be; (b) explore the question, Control petence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through
over what? in order to understand which facets proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and
of the encounter are viewed as targets of con- Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
trol; and (c) evaluate the fit between appraisals Brown, I., Jr., & Inouye, D. K. (1978). Learned helplessness
of controllability and actual characteristics of through modeling: The role of perceived similarity in
competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
the situation and between appraisals of con- chology, 36, 900-908.
trollability and coping. These steps are nec- Bulman, R. J., & Wortman, C. B. (1977). Attributions of
essary if investigators are to understand how blame and coping in the "Real World": Severe accident
personal control ultimately influences stress- victims react to their lot. Journal of Personality and
related adaptational outcomes. Social Psychology, 35, 351-363.
Cohen, F., & Lazarus, R. S. (1979). Coping with the stresses
Second, it is important to recognize that of illness. In G. C. Stone, F. Cohen, & N. E. Adler (Eds.),
personal control can have multiple functions Health psychology: A handbook (pp. 217-254). San
in any given stressful encounter. Generalized Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
beliefs about control and situational appraisals Collins, D. L., Baum, A., & Singer, J. E. (1983). Coping
with chronic stress at Three Mile Island: Psychological
of control can alter the extent to which an and biochemical evidence. Health Psychology, 2, 149-
encounter is appraised as threatening and/or 166.
challenging and can influence coping. In these Coyne, J. C., Aldwin, C, & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Depres-
situations, control functions as an antecedent sion and coping in stressful episodes. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, 90, 439-447.
variable. Control beliefs and appraisals can Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). Cognitive style,
also be influenced by a single stressful trans- stress perception, and coping. In I. L. Kutash & L. B.
action or a succession of transactions; in this Schlesinger (Eds.), Handbook on stress and anxiety:
situation, control functions as an outcome Contemporary knowledge, theory, and treatment (pp.
variable. Finally, when a larger perspective is 144-158). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Delong, D. R. (1970). Individual differences in patterns
adopted, control can be viewed as a cognitive of anxiety arousal, stress-relevant information and re-
mediator of a stressful transaction and its ad- covery from surgery. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
aptational outcome. Investigators need to be University of California, Los Angeles.
PERSONAL CONTROL 851
Dill, D., Feld, E., Martin, J., Beukema, S,, & Belle, D. Kahn, R. (1964). Conflict and ambiguity: Studies in or-
(1980). The impact of the environment on the coping ganization roles and personal stress. New York: Wiley.
efforts of low-income mothers. Family Relations, 29, Kahn, R., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., & Snoek, J. D.
503-509. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
utilization and the organization of behavior. Psycholog- Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood
ical Review, 66, 183-201. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Epstein, S., & Roupenian, A. (1970). Heart rate and skin Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and
conductance during experimentally induced anxiety: disengagement from incentives. Psychological Review,
The effect of uncertainty about receiving a noxious 82, 1-25.
stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Korchin, S. J. (1964). Anxiety and cognition. In C. Scheere
16, 20-28. (Ed.), Cognition: Theory, research, promise(pp. 58-78).
Folkman, S., Aldwin, C, & Lazarus, R. S. (1981, August). New York: Harper & Row.
The relationship between locus of control, cognitive ap- Langer, E. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Per-
praisal, and coping. Paper presented at the meeting of sonality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.
the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles. Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping process. New \brk: McGraw-Hill.
in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The stress and coping paradigm.
and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239. In C. Eisdorfer, D. Cohen, A. Kleinman, & P. Maxim
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (in press). If it changes it (Eds.), Models for clinical psychopathology (pp. 177-
must be a process: A study of emotion and coping during 214). New York: Spectrum.
three stages of a college examination. Journal of Per- Lazarus, R. S., Eriksen, C. W., & Fonda, C. P. (1951).
sonality and Social Psychology. Personality dynamics and auditory perceptual recog-
Folkman, S., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1979). Cog- nition. Journal of Personality, 19, 471-482.
nitive processes as mediators of stress and coping. In Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (in press), Coping and ad-
V. Hamilton & D. M. Warburton (Eds.), Human stress aptation. In W. D. Gentry (Ed.), The handbook of be-
and cognition: An information-processing approach (pp. havioral medicine. New \brk: Guilford.
265-298). London: Wiley. Lazarus, R. S., Kanner, A., & Folkman, S. (1980). Emo-
Frankel, A., & Snyder, M. (1978). Poor performance fol- tions: A cognitive-phenomenological analysis. In R.
lowing unsolvable problems: Learned helplessness or Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Theories of emotion
egotism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (pp. 189-217). New York: Academic Press.
36, 1415-1423. Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related trans-
Frankenhaeuser, M. (1983). The sympathetic-adrenal and actions between person and environment In L. A. Pervin
pituitary-adrenal response to challenge: Comparison & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectives in interactional psy-
between the sexes. In T. M. Dembroski, T. H. Schmidt, chology (pp. 287-327). New York: Plenum.
& G. Bliimchen (Eds,), Biobehavioral bases of coronary Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control: Current trends
heart disease (pp. 91-105). New York: Carger. in theory and research. New York: Halstead.
French, J. R. P., Jr., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. (1974). Lewinsohn, P. M., Mischel, W, Chaplin, W, & Barton,
Adjustment and person-environment fit. In G. V. Coelho, R. (1980). Social competence and depression: The role
D. A. Hamburg, & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and of illusory self-perceptions. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
adaptation (pp. 316-333). New York: Basic Books. chology, 89, 203-212.
Glass, D. C,, & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban stress. New Lipowski, Z. J. (1970-1971). Physical illness, the individual
York: Academic Press. and the coping process. International Journal of Psy-
Golin, S., Terrell, F., Weitz, J., & Drost, P. (1979). The chiatry in Medicine, 1, 91-102.
illusion of control among depressed patients. Journal McGrath, J. E. (1970). A conceptual formulation for re-
of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 454-457. search on stress. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), Social and
Goodhart, D. (1980). Cognitive resolutions of ordinary life psychological factors in stress (pp. 10-21). New York:
crises and psychological well-being. Unpublished doc- Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
toral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. Mechanic, D. (1962). Students under stress. New York:
Haan, N. (1977). Coping and defending. New York: Ac- Free Press.
ademic Press. Menninger, K. (1963). The vital balance: The life process
Houston, B. K. (1972). Control over stress, locus of control, in mental health and illness. New York: Viking.
and response to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Mettee, D, R. (1971). Rejection of unexpected success as
Psychology, 21, 249-255. a function of the negative consequences of accepting
Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977), Decision making. New York: success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Free Press. 17, 332-341.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus be- Miller, S. M. (1979). Controllability and human stress:
havioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Method, evidence and theory. Behavioral Research and
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798- Therapy, 17, 287-304.
1809. Miller, S. M. (1980). When is a little information a dan-
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Brickman, P. (1982). Expectations gerous thing: Coping with stressful events by monitoring
and what people learn from failure. In N. T. Feather vs. blunting. In S. Levin & H, Ursin (Eds.), Coping and
(Ed.), Expectancy, incentive and action (pp. 1202-1237). health (pp. 145-169). New York: Plenum.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mills, R. T., & Krantz, D. S. (1979). Information, choice,
852 SUSAN FOLkMAN
and reactions to stress: A field experiment in a blood Shipley, R. H., Butt, J. H., Horwitz, B., & Farbry, J. E.
bank with a laboratory analogue. Journal of Personality (1978). Preparation for a stressful medical procedure:
and Social Psychology, 37, 608-620. Effect of amount of stimulus preexposure and coping
Misehel, W. (1979). On the interface of cognition and style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46,
personality. American Psychologist, 34, 740-754. 499-507.
Moos, R. (Ed.). (1977). Coping with physical illness. New Silver, R. L., & Wortman, C. B. (1980a). Coping with
York: Plenum. undesirable life events. In J. Garber & M. E. P. Seligman
Natterson, J. M., & Knudson, A. G. (1960). Observations (Eds.), Human helplessness: Theory and applications
concerning fear of death in fatally ill children and their (pp. 279-340). New York: Academic Press.
mothers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 22, 456-465. Silver, R. L., & Wortman, C. B. (1980b, September). Ex-
Pearlin, L. I., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., & pectations of control and coping with permanent paral-
Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. Journal of Health ysis. In K.. Wallston (Chair), Issues of control in health,
and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356. symposium conducted at the meeting of the American
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of Psychological Association, Montreal.
coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2- Spence, J. A., & Spence, K. W. (1966). The motivational
21. components of manifest anxiety: Drive and drive stimuli.
Peterson, C., Schwartz, S. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1981). In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp.
Self-blame and depressive symptoms. Journal of Per- 291-326). New York: Academic Press.
sonality and Social Psychology, 41, 253-259. Strickland, B. R. (1978). Internal-external expectancies
Rodin, J., & Langer, E. J. (1977). Long-term effects of a and health-related behaviors. Journal of Consulting and
control-relevant intervention with the institutionalized Clinical Psychology, 46, 1192-1211.
aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, Taylor, S. E., Wood, J. V., & Lichtman, R. R. (1983). It
897-902. could be worse: Selective evaluation as a response to
Rothbaum, E, Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Chang- victimization. Journal of Social Issues, 39(1), 19-40.
ing the world and changing the self: A two-process model Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control
of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social it? A complex answer to a simple question. Psychological
Psychology, 42, 5-37. Bulletin, 90, 89-101.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal Vrooni, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York:
versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Wiley.
Monographs: General and Applied, 80(\, Whole No. Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Ex-
609). pectations and performance: An empirical test of Ban-
Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions dura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology,
related to the construct of internal versus external control 1, 320-331.
of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Weisman, A. D., & Worden, J. W. (1976-1977). The ex-
Psychology, 43, 56-67. istential plight in cancer: Significance of the* first 100
Sarason, I. G. (1972). Experimental approaches to test days. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine,
anxiety: Attention and the uses of information. In 7, 1-15.
C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory Wong, P. T. P., & Sproule, C. F. (1983). An attributional
and research (Vol. 2, pp. 383-403). New York: Academic analysis of the locus of control construct and the Trent
Press. Attribution Profile (TAP). In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Re-
Schaefer, C, Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1982). The search with the locus of control construct: Vol. 2. Methods
health-related functions of social support. Journal of and application (pp. '309-360). New York: Academic
Behavioral Medicine, 4, 381-406. Press.
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals Wortman, C. B. (1976). Causal attributions and personal
and understanding. New \brk: Wiley. control. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd
Schulz, R. (1976). Effects of control and predictability on (Eds.), New directions in attribution research: I (pp. 23-
the physical and psychological well-being of the insti- 52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
tutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Wortman, C. B., & Brehm, J. W. (1975). Responses to
Psychology. 33, 563-573. uncontrollable outcomes; An integration of reactance
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects theory and the learned helplessness model. In L. Ber-
on children's achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. kowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105. (Vol. 8, pp. 277-336). New York: Academic Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: Wrubel, J., Benner, P., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Social
W. H. Freeman. competence from the perspective of stress and coping.
Shipley, R. H., Butt, J. H., & Horwitz, E. A. (1979). Prep- In J. Wine & M. Smye (Eds.), Social competence (pp.
aration to reexperience a stressful medical examination: 61-99). New York: Guilford.
Effect of repetitious videotape exposure and coping style.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47,485-
492. Received March 1982