In: Managing Stress: From Theory to Application ISBN 978-1-61470-691-5

Editors: Tracey J. Devonport, pp. © 2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

A BRIEF REVIEW OF COMMONLY USED THEORIES

AND THE IMPORTANCE OF
APPLYING THEORY IN PRACTICE

Tracey Devonport
University of Wolverhampton, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT
The chapter begins by outlining the importance of applying theory in practice. The
purpose is to set the context for the remaining chapters each of which endeavours to
exemplify the way in which theory can inform practice. The present chapter then offers a
summary of the most salient stress theories from distinct classifications, those being
stimulus-based; transactional-based and resource-based. It also presents a review of a
more recent theoretical framework, namely, proactive coping.

INTRODUCTION
There are many conceptualisations of stress and coping available. These
conceptualisations have been applied in numerous domains resulting in a great volume of
research. A review of all relevant literatures is beyond the scope of this chapter, as such, the
focus is on presenting exemplars of distinct classifications of stress theories reported within
the coping literature. Outlining the central tenants of coping theories offers an important
contribution to the coping literature as it enables researchers and practitioners to consider how
these may be applied in practice. Throughout this book readers will be encouraged to consider
how theory may be applied in their own applied research or practice.
2 Tracey Devonport

THE IMPORTANCE OF APPLYING THEORY IN PRACTICE

A criticism of coping research voiced by academics and practitioners alike is the lack of
applied research that strives to bridge the gap between theory and practice (Dewe
and Trenberth, 2004; Lazarus, 2001). Folkman (2009, p. 76) notes that in most coping
research “what may ultimately be the most important translation - the translation to practice –
is barely touched upon. Often those who do theory development or research consider the
translation from theory and research to practice to be another person’s job”. Theoretical
models provide the ‘building blocks’ for coping intervention design, implementation and
provide a means for testing their effectiveness (Rutter and Quine, 2002). They do so by
helping to focus research questions and place them in a logical order, and by providing a
framework within which findings can be interpreted (Folkman, 2009). An intervention
programme or applied practice informed by theory is more likely to be effective (Michie,
Johnston, Francis, et al., 2008). Therefore, the challenge faced by coping researchers and
applied practitioners alike is to develop systematic approaches toward embedding theory in
practice (Michie et al., 2008).
The application of theory in applied research is important for three reasons:

1. Theory can improve intervention design and efficacy by focusing attention on

determinants of stressors and coping behaviours (Crosby, Kegler, and DiClemente,
2009; Michie et al., 2008). It is less likely that the effectiveness of interventions
targeting key determinants of coping behaviour (and utilising appropriate methods to
facilitate coping) will be rejected on the grounds of poor design or delivery (Green,
2000).
2. Theory can enhance the evaluation of an intervention by identifying possible
evaluation indicators which can be ordered temporally thereby constructing a
proximal–distal chain of events (Green, 2000). Distinguishing between proximal and
distal indicators facilitates an evaluation of the relative magnitude of anticipated
change, which is generally greater in proximal indicators (e.g., change in beliefs)
than in more distal indicators (e.g., change in behaviour). This may minimise the risk
of failing to demonstrate change that has actually occurred as a result of the
intervention. This outcome typically results from research designs that are
insufficiently sensitive to detect change or those that focus on inappropriate variables
(Green, 2000).
3. Utilising theory to inform practice enables its practical utility to be evaluated by
practitioners across a range of contexts (Michie et al., 2008). By evaluating the
outcomes of theoretically derived interventions it is possible to corroborate or modify
theory accordingly.

STIMULUS-BASED MODELS
During a series of animal studies, endocrinologist Hans Selye (1956) observed a variety
of non-specific stimulus events which he referred to as stressors (e.g., heat, cold, toxic
agents), producing a response pattern he called the `General Adaptation Syndrome' (GAS).
 A Brief Review of Commonly Used Theories and the Importance ... 3

Selye posits that the GAS proceeds in three stages; first, the alarm reaction comprises an
initial shock phase and a subsequent countershock phase. The shock phase involves the
activation of the sympathetic nervous system. During the countershock phase defensive
processes are initiated as characterised by increased adrenocortical activity. In a second stage,
if a stressor endures the organism enters the stage of resistance. In this stage, the symptoms of
the alarm reaction disappear, which seemingly indicates the organism's adaptation to the
stressor. However, while resistance to the stressor increases, resistance to other kinds of
stressors decreases due to the organisms depleted energies and resources. Finally, if the
stressor persists, resistance gives way to stage three, the stage of exhaustion. When the
organism's capability of adapting to the stressor is exhausted, the symptoms of the first stage
reappear, but resistance is no longer possible as energies and resources are depleted.
Irreversible tissue damage appears and if the stressor continues to persist the organism
eventually dies (Selye, 1993).
Selye (1974, 1983, 1993) modified the GAS recognising that while stress could result in
significant harm to the biological system, an absence of stress could also be harmful. From
this Selye made the distinction between ‘distress’ and ‘eustress’. He proposed that distress
results from persistent demands that cannot be resolved through adaptation leading to
diminished performance, negative feelings, and biological damage. Eustress occurs when the
biological system possesses the energies and resources to adapt to demands leading to
enhanced functioning, positive feelings, and human growth. Selye found that eustress
presented little or no risk to the biological system concluding that this represents a positive
aspect of stress. Within these modifications Selye acknowledged that the characteristics
and/or perceptions of an event can influence the stress response. He also proposed that
psychological arousal could be, and indeed was, one of the most frequent activators of the
GAS response (Selye, 1983). However, Seyle did not alter his basic theoretical premise that
stress was a physiological phenomenon. He perceived the psychological components to be
beyond his field of competence and called for his proposals to be further examined by those
appropriately qualified (Tache and Selye, 1985).
Criticism of Selye's work has been directed at the theory's core assumption of a
nonspecific causation of the GAS and the failure to distinguish triggers for the stress reaction
(Furnham, 1997). A second criticism was that unlike the physiological stress investigated by
Selye in animals, stress experienced by humans is almost always the result of a cognitive
mediation (Lazarus, 1966; Lyon, 2000). Stimulus based models offer an overly simplistic
view of stressors or demands as existing somewhere objectively outside the person, and an
equally simplistic view that the person reacts passively to these demands through a process of
coping. What evolved from criticisms of the stimulus-based models was the idea that stress
occurred when environmental demands and individual susceptibilities interacted as opposed
to a simplistic reaction.

TRANSACTIONAL-BASED MODELS
Transactional models contend that the way in which an individual interprets a stressor
determines how they respond to in terms of emotional reactions, behavioural responses, and
coping efforts. An individual’s interpretation is influenced by factors such as personal and
4 Tracey Devonport

social resources as well as characteristics of the stressful experience. Thus, transactional

models contend that the outcomes of a stressful encounter are determined by many factors.
Whilst many versions of this basic transactional model have been proposed it is the
Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (TMSC: Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) later revised
to the Cognitive Motivational Relational Theory (CMRT: Lazarus, 1991a, 1999, 2000) that
has been the guiding theory for a great deal of coping research (Aldwin, 1994; Frydenberg
and Lewis, 2004).
Lazarus and Folkman presented the TMSC in their book ‘Stress, appraisal and coping’
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), and since that time it has been further developed and refined.
The TMSC conceives a reciprocal, bi-directional relational process between the person and
the environment which transact to form new meanings through appraisal processes. Cognitive
appraisal is the evaluation of the significance of what is happening in the person-environment
relationship. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) proposed that the cognitive appraisal of a stressor
involves both primary and secondary appraisals which occur at virtually the same time and
interact to determine the significance and meaning of events with regards to well-being.
During primary appraisal, an individual considers the significance of a situation with regard
to his or her own values, personal beliefs, situational intentions, goal commitments and well-
being (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). These mechanisms of primary appraisal result in an
event being interpreted in one of three ways; 1) irrelevant, where there are no implications for
well-being, 2) benign/positive/beneficial, where the event is perceived to preserve or enhance
well-being, and 3) stressful, where there is a perceived harm/loss, threat and/or challenge to
well-being. Appraisals of harm/loss are characterised by perceptions that damage has already
been sustained. A threat appraisal occurs when harm or loss are possible. A challenge
appraisal reflects a perception that there may be an opportunity for mastery and gain (Lazarus
and Folkman, 1984). Coping is only required following events that are perceived as stressful
and as such benign or positive appraisals do not require coping responses (Anshel and
Delany, 2001). The primary appraisals of harm/loss, threat or challenge are not mutually
exclusive, thus it is possible for an individual to appraise an event in more than one way at the
same time. For example, an individual may appraise an impending exam as both a threat and
challenge. An exam may be appraised as a challenge because it offers an opportunity to
demonstrate knowledge, competency, and attain course credits. The same exam may also be
appraised as a threat because the individual must pass the exam in order to progress with their
studies, and attain a particular grade to meet their personal goals. The individual may fear that
they may not perform as well as they believe themselves to be capable of thus presenting the
potential for loss/harm.
Secondary appraisal refers to a cognitive-evaluative process that focuses on minimising
harm or maximising gains through coping responses. This involves an evaluation of coping
options and available resources that may include social, physical, psychological and material
assets (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Wells and Matthews (1994) describe this
level of processing as the principal determinant of coping and stress reactions, enabling the
identification of coping procedures that match the immediate situation. Perceived control over
events is considered during secondary appraisal as the individual decides what can or cannot
be done to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as surpassing
a person’s resources (Burns and Egan, 1994). An individual’s confidence in their ability to
execute courses of action or attain specific performance outcomes (Bandura, 1977, 1986,
1997) is also evident during secondary appraisal as they influence task selection and the effort
 A Brief Review of Commonly Used Theories and the Importance ... 5

expended in task completion. This has implications for the coping outcome; it is not enough
to possess the skills of competent coping alone. Not only must an individual believe they have
coping skills, they must also be confident to use them when the situation demands their use
(Roskies and Lazarus, 1980). Following a coping response, the outcome is reviewed or re-
appraised (tertiary appraisal or reappraisal) and another coping response may follow.
Lazarus presented conceptual developments from the early TMSC to the Cognitive-
Motivational-Relational theory of emotions (CMRT) in his books ‘Emotion and adaptation’
(Lazarus, 1991b) and ‘Passion and reason: Making sense of our emotions’ (Lazarus and
Lazarus, 1994). While TMSC is centred on psychological states experienced during
transactions between the person and the environment in situations appraised as taxing or
exceeding resources and/or endangering well-being (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), the CMRT
is focused on emotion. CMRT suggests that emotions arise from the relational meaning of an
encounter between a person and the environment. An emotion is elicited by appraisals of
environmental demands, constraints, and resources, and also by their juxtaposition with a
person’s motives and beliefs. Each emotion involves a different core relational theme
(Lazarus 1991a, 1991b, 1991c) as each emotion is brought about by appraisal of the personal
significance of an encounter.
Lazarus suggested that approximately 15 different emotions (Lazarus 1991a, 1991b) can
be identified. Nine he described as goal incongruent emotions, namely; anger, fright, anxiety,
guilt, shame, sadness, envy, jealousy and disgust. Four he termed goal congruent emotions,
namely; happiness, pride, relief and love, and three emotions whose valence he described as
equivocal or mixed: hope, compassion and gratitude. Table 1.1 presents core relational
themes for each of these emotions as suggested by Lazarus (1991b, p. 13).

Table 1.1. Core relational themes for emotions (Lazarus, 1991b, p. 13)

Emotion Core relational themes
Anger A demeaning offense against me and mine
Anxiety Facing uncertain, existential threat
Fright An immediate, concrete, and overwhelming physical danger
Guilt Having transgressed a moral imperative 
Shame  Failing to live up to an ego­ideal
Sadness Having experienced an irrevocable loss
Envy Wanting what someone else has 
Jealousy Resenting a third party for the loss of, or a threat to, another’s affection or favour
Disgust Taking in or being too close to an indigestible object or (metaphorically
speaking) idea
Happiness Making reasonable progress toward the realisation of a goal
Pride Enhancement of one’s ego­identity by taking credit for a valued object or 
achievement, either one’s own or that of someone or group with whom one 
identifies
Relief A distressing goal­incongruent condition that has changed for the better or gone 
away
Hope Fearing the worst but wanting better
6 Tracey Devonport

Love Desiring or participating in affection, usually but not necessarily reciprocated
Compassio Being moved by another’s suffering and wanting to help
n

With reference to the core relational themes, the CMRT suggests that, “for each emotion,
there are at most six appraisal-related decisions to make, sometimes less, creating a rich and
diverse cognitive pattern with which to describe the relational meanings which distinguish
any emotion from each of the others.” (Lazarus, 1991b, p. 216). Three are primary appraisal
components including: goal relevance (the extent to which an encounter relates to personal
goals); goal congruence or incongruence (the extent to which a transaction is consistent or
inconsistent with what the person wants); and type of ego involvement (consideration of
diverse aspects of ego-identity or personal commitments). The remaining three are secondary
appraisal components including: an evaluation of blame or credit (establishing where possible
who or what is accountable or responsible); coping potential (if and how the demands can be
managed by the individual); and future expectations (whether for any reason, things are likely
to change becoming more or less goal congruent). The specific combination of primary and
secondary appraisals is proposed to influence the intensity and type of emotion elicited. In
addition to appraisals, how the individual copes with situations or events will also mediate the
type and intensity of emotions they experience (Lazarus, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c).
Essentially, the TMSC and CMRT are both structured around transactions between: 1)
antecedent variables (environmental variables such as demands, resources and constraints,
and personality variables such as motives and beliefs about the self and the world); 2)
mediating processes (appraisal, core relational themes, and coping processes); and 3)
outcomes (acute outcomes such as immediate emotions, and long-term outcomes such as
chronic emotional patterns, well-being, and physical health).

CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES THEORY

Hobfoll (2001) contends that the majority of work utilising Lazarus’ transactional theory
focuses on the appraisal aspects, which is only one component of the stress process. Within
his Conservation of Resource theory (COR: Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) Hobfoll suggests that
resource loss is central to the stress process. Stress is a reaction to an environment in which
there is the threat of a loss of resources, an actual loss in resources, or failure to gain
sufficient or expected resources following significant resource investment (Grandey and
Cropanzano, 1999). Freund and Riediger (2001, p. 373) defined resources as the “actual or
potential means for achieving personal goals”. They assert that, that which constitutes a
resource can only be defined with regards to a specific goal. Resources may include objects,
conditions, personal characteristics, and energies (Hobfoll, 2001; Grandey and Cropanzano,
1999). Hobfoll (2001) suggested that whilst cognitive appraisals are one means to assess
resource loss, most resources are objectively determined and observable.
Two main principles accompany COR, the primacy of resource loss and resource
investment. The primacy of resource loss principle contends that given equal amounts of loss
and gain, loss will have significantly greater impact in health outcomes, emotional
experience, and stress reactions. When individuals experience a chronic lack of resources,
 A Brief Review of Commonly Used Theories and the Importance ... 7

they are more vulnerable to further loss of resources (Freedy and Hobfoll, 1994). In essence,
those with fewer resources fall behind to a greater extent than those who begin with more
resources. Hobfoll (1989, 2001) describes this phenomenon as resource loss and resource gain
spirals. Resource loss can lead to further loss in resources, conditions that should cause higher
vulnerability. On the other hand, resources gains could result in further gains, so that people
might tend to be less vulnerable.
The resource investment principle considers what people invest to protect against
resource loss, to recover from losses, and to gain resources. According to Hobfoll, “people
must invest resources in order to protect against resource loss, recover from losses and gain
resources” (2001, p. 349). This implies that individuals can take proactive steps in advance of
the occurrence of anticipated stress and thereby gain resources that reduce their vulnerability
to the effects of threatened or actual future resource loss (Freedy and Hobfoll, 1994). COR
postulates that having one resource is linked to having others; similarly, lacking one resource
is linked to lacking others (Hobfoll, 1998). Resource investment should moderate successful
adaptation by increasing the possibility of secondary gains, and consequently reducing the
prevalence of chronic and acute resource losses. Under resourced individuals are highly
defensive and motivated to conserve resources and protect against a loss of resources.
Freund and Riediger (2001) argue that the COR’s notion of resources loss may not be
applied to those resources that can be used simultaneously for a variety of purposes or
activities and that are not depleted after usage. Such resources include self-efficacy beliefs,
self-esteem, and personality factors, which are not depleted through usage in a way that
commodities such as money are. Freund and Riediger (2001, p. 374) remark that the
“distinction between naturally finite resources and characteristics that influence the efficiency
of use those finite resources to be very useful, as it helps to more clearly address the question
whether it is the availability of resources, the way of using these resources, or the interaction
of both that impacts how successfully individuals manage their lives.”
Schwarzer (2001) conceptualised differences between the COR and TMSC as minimal
suggesting that differences are a matter of degree and emphasis rather than a matter of
principle. Hobfoll reduces Lazarus’ approach to a highly subjective appraisal theory and
argues that objective resources are more important. Although cognitive appraisal is the key
feature in the TMSC, it also presents a model of a stress episode starting with objective
antecedents, including resources, and ending with more or less adaptive outcomes such as
health and well-being (Schwarzer, 2001). Hobfoll (2001) argued that in terms of resource
investment, the proactive coping theory (Aspinwall and Taylor, 1997; Greenglass et al., 1999)
aligns more closely with the COR since it proposes that the stress process it is not restricted to
the reactive response to resource losses or threats, but to efforts oriented towards acquiring
and maintaining resources. Individuals respond to early warning signals of impeding
problems and position themselves into circumstances that fit their resources or place them at
an advantage. However, Hobfoll (1989, 2001) does not recognise the role attributed to
appraisal (i.e., challenge appraisal) as recognised by the proactive coping theories that are
cited as aligning with COR.

PROACTIVE COPING THEORIES

8 Tracey Devonport

In the stress and coping literature, coping has traditionally been conceived as activities
undertaken to master, tolerate, reduce, or minimise environmental or intrapsychic demands
perceived as a potential threat, harm or loss. Two theoretical frameworks have been
developed that focus on future oriented coping as opposed to reactive coping, namely, the
Proactive Coping Theory of Schwarzer (2000) and the Proactive Coping Theory of Aspinwall
and Taylor (1997). Whilst Aspinwall and Taylor (1997) posit that proactive coping is a
process through which one prepares for potential future stressors, possibly averting them
altogether, Schwarzer (2000) assert that proactive coping is a method of assessing future
goals and developing strategies to achieve them successfully. The fundamental similarity in
these definitions is the notion that proactive coping is a general readiness for an indeterminate
future that incorporates both coping and self-regulatory skills (Aspinwall, 2005). The
distinction between the two is that Aspinwall and Taylor (1997) frame the ambiguous future
negatively in that one must anticipate and prevent what may go wrong, whereas Schwarzer
(2000) frames it more positively, as a challenge for which one must prepare to ensure that
personal goals are attained. Further details regarding each theory are outlined below.

Aspinwall and Taylor’s Proactive Coping Theory

Aspinwall and Taylor (1997) define proactive coping as efforts undertaken in advance of
a potentially stressful event to prevent it or to modify its form before it occurs. They
distinguish between reactive coping, anticipatory coping, and proactive coping as follows:
Reactive coping is the result of threat, harm, or loss experiences, and it aims at mastering,
tolerating, reducing, or minimising environmental or intrapsychic demands resulting from
them; Anticipatory coping involves preparation for the stressful consequences of an
upcoming event whose occurrence is likely or certain (Aspinwall and Taylor, 1997). Proactive
coping, occurs temporally prior to reactive coping and anticipatory coping, and involves the
accumulation of resources and the acquisition of skills that are not designated to face any
particular stressor.
Proactive coping as defined by Aspinwall and Taylor (1997) is proposed to have many
benefits, including reducing the impact of a stressful event should it occur, enhancing
versatility in managing an event by affording the time to develop a range of strategies, and
possibly averting a stressful event altogether. In this conceptualisation, proactive coping is a
construct thought to describe how self-regulation is applied to preparing for future stressors.
This involves developing skills intended to manage potential stressors and to reduce their
negative effects.
Aspinwall and Taylor (1997) propose a five-stage conceptual framework of proactive
coping that consists of: 1) resource accumulation in which the person builds resources and
skills in advance of any specific anticipated stress; 2) recognition of potential stressors in
which environmental dangers and arising threats are screened; 3) initial appraisal or
preliminary assessments procedures, through which a person identifies potential stressful
interactions. The appraisal of the situation may increase attention and may motivate initial
coping efforts; 4) preliminary coping efforts that involve cognitive/behavioural activities such
as planning, seeking information, and taking preliminary actions; and 5) elicitation and use of
feedback concerning initial coping efforts and their impact upon the development of the
 A Brief Review of Commonly Used Theories and the Importance ... 9

stressful event. The person evaluates whether previous efforts were successful and the extent
to which additional coping efforts are required.
Aspinwall and Taylor (1997) argued that an important first step in effective proactive
coping is the preservation and accumulation of resources such as time, acquisition of
proactive coping skills, the establishment of a social network and social support. At the
recognition stage, several trait related characteristics, such as vigilance, sensitisation,
monitoring, repression, dispositional optimism, and hypervigilance are relevant in the
detection of potential stressors. Social networks are also influential in terms of the detection
of warning signs, either to reduce or to increase perceived risks. With reference to the initial
appraisal stage of proactive coping, both personality factors (e.g., optimism, self-efficacy,
hardiness, trait anxiety, self-esteem, constructive thinking) and situational conditions (e.g.,
perceived controllability) are conceived to be key ingredients. From initial appraisal to
preliminary coping efforts, situational determinants such as perceived manageability of the
situation, perceived changeability, perceived controllability, as well as perceived coping
potential may influence coping actions. At the final stage of proactive coping (elicitation and
use of feedback), both personality traits and situational factors are assumed to facilitate or
impede the use of feedback. For example, people with favourable beliefs in their abilities may
not recognise their personal limits and confront situations for which they are unprepared
thereby increasing the potential for failure rather than success. In terms of situational factors,
several studies on adaptation to chronic stressors suggest that people hold different
perceptions of control over different aspects of the interaction (Aspinwall and Taylor, 1997).
With regard to social support networks, significant others are very important regarding the
provision and the interpretation of feedback, for example when asking others: How did I do?
Or Did I overreact?

Schwarzer and Colleagues Proactive Coping Theory

Schwarzer and Taubert (2002) also distinguish proactive coping from reactive coping,
anticipatory coping and preventive coping. They differentiate between them by their temporal
location in the coping process and the level of certainty they involve (Schwarzer and
Luszczynska, 2008). In their framework, proactive coping is directed toward future
indeterminate events, whereas reactive coping is directed toward past or presently
experienced events (certain events) to deal with or to compensate for harm or loss. Proactive
coping is also purported to take place before anticipatory coping. Anticipatory coping occurs
before an event that is certain or fairly certain to occur in the near future to manage threats,
attain challenges, maximise benefits or a combination of them. Proactive coping occurs when
the stressor to be encountered is less certain than the stressors that elicit reactive coping or
anticipatory coping. However, proactive coping and preventive coping are comparable with
respect to their temporal position relative to a stressor and the level of certainty regarding that
stressor. Preventative coping involves efforts to build general resistance resources to cope
with an event that may or may not occur in the distant future whilst proactive coping involves
efforts to build up general resources aiming at confronting challenging goals and promoting
personal growth.
Schwarzer and Taubert (2002) specify that proactive coping is based on preparing for
possible positive appraisals of the future, whereas preventive coping is based on preparing for
10 Tracey Devonport

possible negative appraisals of the future. Given that proactive coping is not preceded by
negative appraisals, such as harm, loss or threat, the person has a more positive outlook of life
demands. Therefore, they define proactive coping as “an effort to build up general resources
that facilitate promotion toward challenging goals and personal growth” as opposed to
preventive coping that aims “to build up general resistance resources that result in less strain
in the future by minimising the severity of the impact, with less severe consequences of
stress, should it occur, or a less likely onset of stressful events in the first place” (Schwarzer
and Taubert, 2002, p. 27). In this conceptualisation, a proactive coper will tend to appraise
stressors as challenges and worry less, whereas a preventive coper will tend to appraise
stressors as threats and worry more (Greenglass, 2002; Greenglass and Fiksenbaum, 2009).
Regardless of these appraisals and levels of worry, it is proposed that proactive coping and
preventive coping manifest a similar set of skills. This definition of proactive coping is
distinguished by three features: “1) It integrates planning and preventive strategies with
proactive self-regulatory goal attainment, 2) it integrates proactive goal attainment with
identification and utilisation of social resources, and 3) it utilises proactive emotional coping
for self-regulatory goal attainment” (Greenglass, 2002, p. 41).
Proactive coping may be influenced by personal attributes such as self-efficacy, and
proactive attitude. Proactive coping may be considered to be function of self-efficacy beliefs
which influence motivation and volition by increasing a person’s perceived capabilities to
engage and maintain long-term courses of action. A proactive attitude may conducive for
proactive coping since it appears to be a key factor in goal oriented actions influencing the
type and difficulty of goals, configuring intentions, and influencing the initiation and
maintenance of goal oriented actions (Schmitz and Schwarzer, 1999).

CONCLUSION
This chapter outlines the importance of applying theory in practice and offers examples
of stress theories. In concluding this chapter, the importance of underpinning practice with
theory cannot be emphasised strongly enough. Practitioners should give due consideration to
coping theory and empirical literature before designing and implementing intervention
programmes or applied work. Systematically embedding theory in practice will inform the
design of interventions/applied work, provide a means for testing their effectiveness and
ultimately increase the likelihood of efficacious outcomes.

REFERENCES
Anshel, M. H., and Delany, J. (2001). Sources of acute stress, cognitive appraisals, and
coping strategies of male and female child athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 329-
353.
Aspinwall, L. G. (2005). The psychology of future-oriented thinking: From achievement to
proactive coping, adaptation, and aging. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 203-235.
Aspinwall, L. G., and Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time: Self- regulation and proactive
coping. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 417-436.
 A Brief Review of Commonly Used Theories and the Importance ... 11

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Burns, K. R., and Egan, E. C. (1994). Description of a stressful encounter: Appraisal, threat
and challenge. Journal of Nursing Education, 33, 21-28.
Crosby, R. A., Kegler, M., and DiClemente, R. J. (2009). Theory in health promotion practice
and research. In DiClemente, R. J., Crosby, R. A., and Kegler, M. (Eds.), Emerging
theories in health promotion practice and research (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Wiley.
Dewe, P., and L. Trenberth. (2004). Work stress and coping: Drawing together research and
practice. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 144-156.
Folkman, S. (2009). Commentary on the special section “Theory-based approaches to stress
and coping”: Questions, answers, issues, and next steps in stress and coping research.
European Psychologist, 14, 72-77.
Freedy, J. R., and Hobfoll, S. E. (1994). Stress inoculation for reduction of burnout: A
conservation of resources approach. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International
Journal, 6, 311-325.
Freund, A. M., and Riediger, M. (2001). What I have and what I do: The role of resource loss
and gain throughout life. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 370-380.
Furnham, A. (1997). The psychology of behaviour at work: The individual in the
organization. Hove, England UK: Taylor and Francis.
Grandey, A. A., and Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to
work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Green, J. (2000). The role of theory in evidence-based health promotion practice, Health
Education Research, 15, 125-129.
Greenglass, E. R. (2002). Proactive coping and quality of life management. In Frydenberg, E.
(Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions and challenges (pp. 37-62). New York,
Oxford University Press.
Greenglass, E. R., and Fiksenbaum, L. (2009). Proactive coping, positive affect, and well-
being: Theoretical and empirical considerations. European Psychologist, 14, 29–39.
Greenglass, E. R., Schwarzer, R., and Taubert, S. (1999). The Proactive Coping Inventory
(PCI): A multidimensional research instrument. [On- line publication]. Available at:
http://www.psych.yorku.ca/greenglass/
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress
process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 50, 337-370.
Hobfoll, S. E., and Lilly, R. S. (1993). Resource conservation as a strategy for community
psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 128-148.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991a). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion.
American Psychologist, 46, 819-834.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991b). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
12 Tracey Devonport

Lazarus, R. S. (1991c). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46,

352-367.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. In Y. L. Hanin
(Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 39–63). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lazarus, R. (2001). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. Human Relations, 54, 792-803
Lazarus, R., and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. and Lazarus, B. (1994), Passion and reason: Making sense of our emotions. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lyon, B. L. (2000). Stress, coping and health. A conceptual overview. In V. H. Rice (Ed.),
Handbook of stress, coping and health: Implications for nursing research, theory and
practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Michie, S., Johnston, M., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., and Eccles, M. (2008). From theory to
intervention: Mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour
change techniques. Applied Psychology: An international review, 57, 660-680.
Roskies, E., and Lazarus, R. S. (1980). Coping theory and the teaching of coping skills. In S.
M. Davidson (Ed.), Behavioural medicine: Changing health life styles. New York:
Brunner and Mazel.
Rutter, D. R., and Quine, L. (2002). Social cognition models and changing health behaviours.
In D. R. Rutter and L. Quine (Eds.), Changing health behaviour: Intervention and
research with social cognition models (pp. 1-27). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Schmitz, G. S., and Schwarzer, R. (1999). Teachers' proactive attitude: Construct description
and psychometric analyses. Zeitschrift fur Empirische Padagogik, 13, 3-27.
Schwarzer, R. (2000). Manage stress at work through preventative and proactive coping. In E.
A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp.
342-355). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Schwarzer, R. (2001). Stress, resources, and proactive coping. Applied Psychology: An
International Journal, 50, 400-407.
Schwarzer, R., and Taubert, S. (2002). Tenacious goal pursuits and striving toward personal
growth: Proactive coping. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions
and challenges (pp. 19-35). London: Oxford University Press.
Schwarzer, R., and Luszczynska, A. (2008). Reactive, anticipatory, preventive and proactive
coping: A theoretical distinction. The Prevention Researcher, 15, 22-24.
Selye, H. (1956). The Stress of Life. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
Selye, H. (1974). Stress without distress. Philadelphia: Lippincott Co.
Selye, H. (1983). The stress concept: Past, present, and future. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Stress
research: Issues for the eighties (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Selye, H. (1993). History of stress concept. In L. Goldberger and S. Breznitz (Eds.),
Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (2nd ed.) (pp. 7-17). New York: The
Free Press.
Tache, J., and Selye, H. (1985). On stress and coping mechanisms. Issues in Mental Health
Nursing, 7, 3–24.
Wells, A., and Matthews, G. (1994). Attention and emotion. London: Erlbaum.