Coping strategies: concept and types. Coping behavior and its relationship with defense mechanisms

A significant part of the research in the 60-70s was closely related to the problem of stress (Kröger F., Luban-Plozza V., Peldinger V., 1996). According to G. Selye's definition (1959), stress is a nonspecific, stereotypical, phylogenetically ancient reaction of the body in response to various environmental stimuli, preparing it for physical activity (for example, escape, etc.). He used the term “stressor” to describe the physical, chemical and mental stress that the body may experience. If the load is excessive or social conditions do not allow for an adequate physical response, these processes can lead to physiological and even structural disorders.

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

The theory of “coping” has received universal recognition and the most developed is the concept of R. Lazarus.

R. S. Lasarus (1966) understood “coping” as a means of psychological defense developed by a person from traumatic events and affecting situational behavior.

The term “coping” began to be actively used in American psychology in the early 60s to study individual behavior in stressful situations. These studies, in turn, became part of a massive cognitive movement that began to take shape in the 60s with the works of I. Jams (1958), M. Arnold (1960), D. Mechanic (1962), L. Murphy (1962), J. Rotter (1966), R. Lasarus, (1966).

Numerous works note that with insufficient development of constructive forms of coping behavior, the pathogenicity of life events increases, and these events can become a “trigger” in the process of the occurrence of psychosomatic and other diseases (Aleksandrovsky Yu. A., 1976; Kitaev-Smyk L. A. , 1983; Chekhlaty E. I., 1992; Nazyrov R. K., 1993; Veselova N. V., 1994; Taukenova L. M., 1995; Lazarus R., 1974; Perrez M., 1992).

A gradual change in the stress model developed by G. Selye (1956) occurred after the publication of the book by R. Lazarus “Psychological stress and the coping process” (1966), where coping was considered as a central element of stress, namely, as a stabilizing factor that can help the individual maintain psychosocial adaptation during periods of stress.

Limiting himself to the psychological aspect, Lazarus interprets stress as a reaction of interaction between a person and the outside world, indirectly assessed by the individual (Folkman S., Lazarus R., 1984). This state is largely a product of cognitive processes, way of thinking and assessment of the situation, knowledge of one’s own capabilities (resources), the degree of training in management methods and strategies of behavior in extreme conditions, and their adequate choice.

R. Lazarus attaches particular importance to the cognitive assessment of stress, arguing that stress is not just a meeting with an objective stimulus; its assessment by the individual is crucial. Stimuli may be assessed as irrelevant, positive, or stressful (as cited in Inglehart, 1991). The author also states that stressful stimuli lead to different amounts of stress in different people and in different situations(Alfert E., Lazarus R., 1964). Thus, the key point in Lazarus's research was that stress came to be viewed as the result of a subjective assessment of a harmful stimulus.

R. Lazarus and his colleagues paid special attention to two cognitive processes - assessment and overcoming (relief) of stress, which are undoubtedly important when a person interacts with environment. The word “evaluation” in this context means establishing the value or assessing the quality of something, and “overcoming” (“sorting”) means the application of behavioral and cognitive efforts to satisfy external and internal demands. Coping comes into play when the complexity of tasks exceeds the energy capacity of habitual reactions, and new costs are required, and routine adaptation is not enough (Nartova-Bochaver S.K., 1997).

In studies by Kocowski (1966), when comparing two extreme groups of subjects (resistant and unstable to stress), significant differences between the groups were found in relation to personality traits. Thus, those unstable to stress showed an intense feeling of inferiority, lack of faith in their own strengths, fearfulness, and significant impulsiveness in actions. On the contrary, people who were resistant to stress were less impulsive and less fearful, they were characterized by greater stability in overcoming obstacles, activity, energy, and cheerfulness (cited by Vares A. Yu.).

T. Holmes and R. Rahe (1967) introduced the concept of “critical perception of life experiences.” According to the authors, a stressful event begins with the perception of some internal (for example, thought) or external (for example, reproach) event. We are talking about a macrostressor or a strong, short-term stimulus that disrupts balance and is characterized by strong emotional involvement.

A significant contribution to the study of coping behavior in somatic patients was made by E. Heim (1988). Studying coping processes in cancer patients and considering them from the point of view of overcoming the disease, E. Heim gives the following definition of coping: “Overcoming an illness can be defined as the desire to reduce existing or expected pressure from the disease intrapsychically (emotionally-cognitively) or through targeted actions to level out this state or process it.” E. Heim identified 26 forms of coping behavior in the cognitive, emotional and behavioral spheres. “In general,” writes E. Heim (1988), it is surprising how characteristically the adaptive factor of coping behavior operates in the sense of the three parameters we distinguish - action, cognition and emotional processing - primarily due to active action, and, conversely, unfavorable (non-adaptive ) factor, due to emotional dissonance. The important factor is the degree of flexibility or range of forms of coping available to the individual to cope favorably with the illness.”

Psychological adaptation of a person occurs mainly through coping strategies and psychological defense mechanisms.

Coping and psychological defenses

The same life events can have different stress loads depending on their subjective assessment.

A stressful event begins with the assessment of some internal (for example, thought) or external (for example, reproach) stimulus, resulting in a coping process. The coping reaction is triggered when the complexity of the task exceeds the energy capacity of the body’s usual reactions. If the demands of the situation are assessed as overwhelming, then coping can occur in the form of psychological defense.

In the general continuum of psychological regulation, coping strategies play a compensatory function, and psychological defenses occupy the last level in the adaptation system - the level of decompensation. Diagram 1 shows two possible styles of responding to negative events.

Scheme 1. Coping strategy and psychological defense. Response styles in stressful situations.

Two styles of responding to a problem situation

Problem-oriented(problem-focused) style is a rational analysis of a problem associated with the creation and implementation of a resolution plan difficult situation, its manifestation can be seen in the following reactions: independent analysis of what happened, seeking help from others, searching for additional information.

Subjective-oriented(emotion-focused) style is a consequence of an emotional response to a situation. It is not accompanied by specific actions, but manifests itself in the form of attempts not to think about the problem, involving others in one’s experiences, the desire to forget oneself in a dream, to dissolve one’s hardships in alcohol, drugs, or to compensate for negative emotions with food.

Psychological defenses

Psychological defenses This is a special system of personality stabilization aimed at protecting consciousness from unpleasant, traumatic experiences. Fencing occurs by repressing information that contradicts a person’s self-concept.

The principle of psychological defense is to weaken intrapersonal tension by distorting the existing reality or leading the body to the following changes:

• mental changes, bodily disorders (dysfunctions), manifested in the form of chronic psychosomatic symptoms,
• changes in behavior patterns.

With prolonged neurosis, the appearance of so-called secondary protective mechanisms is allowed, which consolidate neurotic behavior(for example, rationalization arises in order to justify one’s insolvency, going into illness, freeing one from responsibility for solving problems).

Coping

Coping (English “cope” - cope, withstand, cope) is a stabilizing factor that helps the individual maintain psychosocial adaptation during periods of stress. Coping strategies This is an adaptive form of behavior that maintains psychological balance in a problematic situation.
These are methods of psychological activity and behavior developed consciously and aimed at overcoming a stressful situation.

The problem situation is characterized by uncertainty, increased complexity, stress, and inconsistency.

Types of stressful situations

Macrostressors- critical life events that require long-term social adaptation, the expenditure of a large amount of effort and are accompanied by persistent affective disorders.

Microstressors- everyday overloads and troubles, localized in time, leading to a deterioration in well-being to restore adaptation, requiring a small amount of time (minutes).

Psychotrauma- traumatic events characterized by an extreme threshold of intensity, a sudden and unpredictable onset.

Chronic stressors– these are overloads with a long duration over time, characterized by repeated stress loads of the same type.

Stress can also perform a protective and sanogenic function.

The cognitive-phenomenological approach is a theory of coping with stress according to Lazarus (R. Lazarus, 1966-1998)

This theory describes the interaction between a person and stress; the concept of overcoming stress consists of two stages:

1) Initial assessment allows the individual to draw a conclusion about what threatens him: the stressor is a threat or prosperity. Initial assessment stress exposure is to ask: “What does this mean for me personally?”

When an event is assessed as destabilizing, the need for adaptation arises, its satisfaction is carried out through three channels:

1. The first channel is the release of emotions.
2. The second is the development of a co-ownership strategy.
3. The third is the social channel, it has less influence and is not taken into account.

2) Secondary cognitive assessment is considered basic and is expressed in asking the question: “What can I do in this situation?” - own resources and personal factors are assessed, such as:

• emotional stability;
• psychological toughness is a belief system;
• the ability to set a goal and the ability to see the meaning in what you do;
• type of psychological defense used;
• state at the time of stress;
• predisposition to states of fear and anger;
• social support.

Criteria by which we recognize the characteristics of social support:

• Are there people who are significant?
• Assessment of the social status of these people.
• How influential are they in the social environment?
• Can they influence the stressor with their personality?
• Frequency of contact with these people.

Social support has a buffer effect; it softens the blow.

The evaluation stages can occur independently and synchronously. The result of the relationship between the primary and secondary assessment is a decision about the priority type of reaction to stress for the body, as well as the development of a coping strategy.

Classification of coping strategies (Perret, Reicherts, 1992)

Theories about psychological defense mechanisms and coping strategies are used when planning psychotherapeutic interventions.

At the same time, the diagnosed defense mechanisms indicate the presence of rigidity of the “I-concept”, a huge layer of psychotherapeutic work.

The diagnosed coping reaction, in turn, indicates possible options coping and those personal resources that effectively help overcome a problematic situation.

literature:

1. Perret M., Bauman U. Clinical psychology - Peter, 2007 - 1312 pp.
2. Karvasarsky B.D. Clinical psychology - St. Petersburg, 2004 - 539 pp.
3. Nabiullina R.R., Tukhtarova I.V. Mechanisms of psychological defense and coping with stress / Educational and methodological manual- Kazan, 2003 - 98 pp.
4. Demina L.D., Ralnikova I.A. Mental health and protective mechanisms of personality - Altai State University Publishing House, 2000 - 123 pp.
5. Anneliese H., Franz H., Jurgen O., Ulrich R. Basic guide to psychotherapy - Rech Publishing House, 1998 - 784 pp.
6. Lectures on clinical psychology - GrSMU, Belarus, 2006.

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

What it is?

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

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

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

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

Classification of strategies

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

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

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

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

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

Efficiency and adaptability of coping

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

R. Lazarus and S. Folkman’s test methodology relies on eight predominant coping strategies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second aspect is personal characteristics individual:

• innate abilities;
• acquired skills and abilities.

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

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

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

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

Throughout his life, almost every person is faced with situations that he subjectively experiences as difficult, “disturbing” the usual course of life.

Experiencing such situations often changes both the perception of the world around us and the perception of our place in it. The study of behavior aimed at overcoming difficulties in foreign psychology is carried out within the framework of studies devoted to the analysis of “coping” mechanisms or “coping behavior”.

“Coping” is an individual way of interacting with a situation in accordance with its own logic, significance in a person’s life and his psychological capabilities.

“Coping” refers to constantly changing cognitive, emotional and behavioral attempts to cope with specific external and internal demands that are assessed as stress or exceed a person’s resources to cope with them.

The problem of “coping” (coping) of an individual with difficult life situations arose in psychology in the second half of the twentieth century. The author of the term was A. Maslow. The concept of “coping” comes from the English “cope” (to overcome).

In Russian psychology it is translated as adaptive, matching behavior, or psychological coping. The concept of “coping behavior” was originally used in the psychology of stress and was defined as the sum of cognitive and behavioral efforts expended by an individual to reduce the impact of stress. Currently, being freely used in various works, the concept of “coping” covers wide range human activity - from unconscious psychological defenses to purposeful overcoming of crisis situations. The psychological purpose of coping is to adapt a person to the requirements of the situation as best as possible.

The concept of “coping” is interpreted differently in different schools of psychology.

The first approach is neo-psychoanalytic. Coping processes are considered as ego processes aimed at productive adaptation of the individual in difficult situations. The functioning of coping processes involves the inclusion of cognitive, moral, social and motivational structures of the individual in the process of coping with a problem. If the individual is unable to adequately overcome the problem, defense mechanisms are activated that promote passive adaptation. Such mechanisms are defined as rigid, maladaptive ways of coping with a problem that prevent an individual from adequately orienting himself in reality. In other words, coping and defense function on the basis of the same ego processes, but are multidirectional mechanisms in overcoming problems.

The second approach defines coping as personality traits that allow the use of relatively constant options for responding to stressful situations. A. Billings and R. Moos identify three ways to cope with a stressful situation.

1. Coping aimed at assessment is overcoming stress, which includes an attempt to determine the meaning of the situation and put into action certain strategies: logical analysis, cognitive reappraisal.

2. Problem-focused coping is coping with stress aimed at modifying, reducing or eliminating the source of stress.

3. Emotion-focused coping is coping with stress, which includes cognitive and behavioral efforts through which a person tries to reduce emotional stress and maintain affective balance.

In the third approach, coping acts as a dynamic process, which is determined by the subjectivity of experiencing the situation and many other factors. R. Lazarus and S. Folkman defined psychological coping as cognitive and behavioral efforts of the individual aimed at reducing the impact of stress. An active form of coping behavior, active overcoming, is the purposeful elimination or weakening of the influence of a stressful situation. Passive coping behavior, or passive overcoming, involves the use of a different arsenal of psychological defense mechanisms that are aimed at reducing emotional stress, and not at changing the stressful situation.

R. Lazarus identified three types of strategies for coping with a threatening situation: ego defense mechanisms; direct action - attack or flight, which is accompanied by anger or fear; coping without affect, when there is no real threat, but potentially exists.

Coping behavior occurs when a person finds himself in a crisis situation. Any crisis situation presupposes the presence of a certain objective circumstance and a certain attitude of a person towards it, depending on the degree of its significance, which is accompanied by emotional and behavioral reactions of varying nature and degree of intensity. The leading characteristics of a crisis situation are mental tension, significant experiences as special internal work to overcome life events or traumas, changes in self-esteem and motivation, as well as a pronounced need for their correction and for psychological support from the outside.

Psychological overcoming (coping) is a variable that depends on at least two factors - the personality of the subject and the real situation. For the same person different periods Over time, an event can have varying degrees of traumatic impact.

Exist various classifications coping strategies.

Some theories of coping behavior identify the following basic strategies:

1. Problem solving;

2. Search for social support;

3. Avoidance.

Conflictologists identify three planes in which coping strategies of behavior are implemented: behavioral sphere; cognitive sphere; emotional sphere. Types of coping strategies of behavior are divided and taking into account their degree adaptive capabilities: adaptive, relatively adaptive, non-adaptive.

A.V. Libin, within the framework of differential psychology, considers psychological defenses and coping as two different style response Response style refers to the parameter individual behavior, characterizing the ways a person interacts with various difficult situations, manifested either in the form of psychological protection from unpleasant experiences, or in the form of constructive activity of the individual aimed at resolving the problem. Response styles are an intermediate link between stressful events that have occurred and their consequences in the form of, for example, anxiety, psychological discomfort, somatic disorders accompanying defensive behavior, or emotional elation and joy from successfully solving problems characteristic of coping behavior.

L.I. Antsyferova explores the dynamics of consciousness and the actions of an individual in difficult life circumstances, which are the result of an individual’s mental processing of life’s adversities from the standpoint of his only partially realized “theory” of the world. At the same time, when considering life's difficulties, it is necessary to take into account the main thing - value, which under certain conditions can be lost or destroyed. This circumstance makes the situation stressful.

In order to preserve, protect, approve this value, the subject resorts to various techniques changes in the situation. Thus, the more significant the place in the semantic sphere of the individual is occupied by the object in danger and the more intense the “threat” is perceived by the individual, the higher the motivational potential for coping with the difficulty that has arisen.

Currently, according to S.K. Nartova-Bochaver, there are three approaches to the interpretation of the concept of “coping”. The first, developed in the works of N. Haan, interprets it in terms of ego dynamics as one of the methods of psychological defense used to relieve tension. This approach cannot be called widespread, primarily because its proponents tend to identify coping with its result. The second approach, reflected in the works of A.G. Billings and R.N. Moos defines "coping" in terms of personality traits - as a relatively constant predisposition to respond to stressful events in a certain way. However, since the stability of the methods in question is very rarely confirmed by empirical data, this understanding also has not gained much support among researchers.

And finally, according to the third approach, recognized by the authors R.S. Lazarus and S. Folkman, “coping” should be understood as a dynamic process, the specifics of which are determined not only by the situation, but also by the stage of development of the conflict, the collision of the subject with the outside world.

In the theory of overcoming (coping, coping behavior), Lazarus distinguishes two processes: temporary relief and immediate motor reactions. The process of temporary relief is expressed in the form of alleviating the suffering associated with the experience of stress and reducing the psychophysiological effects in two ways.

The first is symptomatic: drinking alcohol, tranquilizers, sedatives, muscle relaxation training and other methods aimed at improving physical condition. And the second - intrapsychic, considering this method from the point of view of A. Freud, but at the same time calling it “cognitive defense mechanisms”: identification, displacement, suppression, denial, reaction formation and intellectualization. Direct motor reactions refer to actual behavior aimed at changing a person's relationship with the environment, and can be expressed in actions aimed at actually reducing the existing danger and reducing its threat. At the same time, Lazarus does not separate “defensive” processes from “coping” processes, believing that “these are the means by which a person exercises control over situations that are threatening, upsetting, or pleasurable.”

Discussions on the problem of the relationship between coping behavior and psychological defense continue to this day.

Distinguishing between defense and coping mechanisms represents a significant methodological and theoretical difficulty. Defense is considered an intrapersonal process, while coping is viewed as an interaction with the environment. Some authors consider these two theories to be completely independent of each other, but in most works they are considered as interrelated. It is assumed that the desire of the individual always affects both mechanisms in order to overcome the conflict. Therefore, coping behavior is based on reflection distortion. These authors, adhering to the theory of the unity of coping and defense, found that some coping strategies and defense mechanisms are positively interrelated: through regression and non-verbal expression of pain, attention and care from others are achieved.

Among domestic researchers, the concepts of “mechanisms of psychological defense” and “mechanisms of coping” (coping behavior) are considered as the most important forms of adaptation processes and an individual’s response to stressful situations, complementing each other. The weakening of mental discomfort is carried out within the framework of unconscious mental activity with the help of psychological defense mechanisms. Coping behavior is used as a strategy for an individual’s actions aimed at eliminating a situation of psychological threat.

Behavioral strategies that include psychological defense and coping are various options adaptation process and similar to the internal picture life path are divided into somatically, personally and socially oriented, depending on the predominant participation in the adaptation process of one or another level of life activity. The use of a systematic approach in maintaining health involves taking into account the mental and actual influences of the environment, personality traits that mediate these influences, biological mechanisms of stress regulation, mechanisms of stress regulation, mechanisms that determine nosological specificity.

Thus, coping behavior is a form of behavior that reflects the individual’s readiness to decide life problems. This is behavior aimed at adapting to circumstances and presupposing a developed ability to use certain means to overcome emotional stress. When choosing active actions, the likelihood of eliminating the impact of stressors on the individual increases. The features of this skill are related to the “I-concept”, locus of control, empathy, and environmental conditions. Coping behavior is realized through the use of various coping strategies based on the resources of the individual and the environment. One of the most important environmental resources is social support. Personal resources include an adequate “I-concept”, positive self-esteem, low neuroticism, internal locus of control, optimistic worldview, empathic potential, affiliative tendency (the ability to make interpersonal connections) and other psychological constructs.

Strategies for coping with stress have become the subject of theoretical and practical research relatively recently, although, according to R. Lazarus, stress and overcoming it are “two sides of the same coin,” and coping with stress is a central health problem.

The concept of “coping” - overcoming stress - was relatively clearly defined in the early 1980s, when it was established that in the interval between the stressor and the response of the body and personality lie certain processes mediated by the experience of reactions to stressful situations. One of the founders of the theory of coping, R. Lazarus, considers coping strategies as actual responses of the individual to a perceived threat, as a way of managing stress.

There are emotional, physiological, behavioral and social correlates that inform about certain coping processes and make it possible to measure them both in laboratory conditions and in real life.

Based on the success of coping with stress, it is customary to distinguish between effective (constructive) and ineffective coping strategies.

Goal-directed behavior aimed at eliminating or avoiding a threat (fight or retreat) designed to change the stress connection with the physical or social environment is called active coping behavior. Forms of coping with stress designed to reduce emotional stress before the situation changes are considered palliative, passive coping behavior.

Thus, coping with stress, is a process in which an individual attempts to:

Change or eliminate the problem;

Reduce its intensity by changing your point of view on the problem;

Ease the effects of stress through distraction or with the help of others in various ways overcoming it, such as the use of tranquilizers, alcohol, physical exercise and etc.

Coping is assumed to perform two main functions: emotion regulation(emotion-focused coping) and problem management causing distress (problem-focused coping). In the first case, coping represents cognitive, emotional and behavioral efforts with the help of which a person tries to reduce emotional stress, emotional component distress. Behavior aimed at eliminating a threat (the influence of a stressor) is defined as problem-focused coping. Both functions are manifested in most stressful situations, and their ratio depends on how the situation is assessed. If the situation is perceived as fundamentally changeable, then problem-oriented coping is activated, and if it seems uncontrollable, then emotion-oriented strategies are used.

Types of defensive strategies can be manifested in behavioral, emotional and intellectual sphere.

They are associated with a change in the activity itself or a change in its form. This may be a reference to any activity that specifically resolves or replaces the problem.

Strategies of emotional coping manifest themselves in the form of various inadequate assessments of the situation, leading to experiences of irritation, protest, grief, anger, or to emphasized optimism and confidence in overcoming a difficult situation. Sometimes there is suffering due to placing blame on oneself, self-accusation, and in some cases, on the contrary, there is a complete rejection of the emotionally active reaction and a transition to passive complicity, when all responsibility for the consequences is removed from oneself and placed on others.

In the intellectual sphere, coping with stress is based on developed abstract-logical and theoretical thinking, the ability to work with information, often without relying on a specific life situation.

Coping behavior is implemented through the use of coping strategies based on personal and environmental coping resources, understood as relatively stable personal and social characteristics people, providing a psychological background for overcoming stress and promoting the development of coping strategies. One of the most important environmental coping resources is social support. TO personal coping resources include I- concept, locus of control, low neuroticism (psychological stability), empathy, affiliation (orientation to communication, need for communication) and some others psychological properties.

Psychological protection of the individual. The main mechanisms of psychological defense (repression, denial, projection, intellectualization, replacement, regression, compensation, reactive formations) (according to A. Freud), their adaptive and maladaptive significance, role in the formation of mental and somatic pathology.

Concept psychological protection (PP) owes its origin psychoanalytic theory and its founder – S. Freud. It was first formulated in 1894. The concept of psychological defense is used in almost all schools of psychotherapy. However, there are no generally accepted definitions and classification of psychological defense, and its role in the formation of personality disorders and neurotic symptoms is not fully understood.

According to Freud, defense mechanisms are innate; they run in extreme situation and perform the function of “removing internal conflict.” Initially, the mechanisms of mental health were considered as a means of resolving the conflict between consciousness and the unconscious. Subsequently, based on the developed psychoanalytic theory of personality, they began to be understood as functions of the Ego, responsible for integration and adaptation when the integrity of the individual is threatened. The only mechanism that S. Freud considered as a “non-neurotic”, “healthy” way of transforming instinctive impulses is sublimation. He believed that it was sublimation that ensures the development of human culture, helping to discharge the energy of instincts into socially acceptable forms of behavior and allowing one to replace needs that cannot be satisfied directly with socially approved goals, and instinctive behavior with ways of behavior accepted in society.

A. Freud tried to generalize and systematize the knowledge about the mechanisms of mental health that had accumulated by the mid-40s of the 20th century. Certain adjustments were made to S. Freud's basic concept: the role of defense mechanisms in resolving external, i.e. sociogenic conflicts; these mechanisms began to be viewed as products of development and learning; finally, the idea was formed that the set of defense mechanisms is individual and characterizes the level of adaptation of the individual. A. Freud, K. Horney (1993) and E. Alexander (1950, 1980) reconstructed the theory of PZ mechanisms, seeing their source in the struggle between two desires for security and satisfaction of needs, which causes repression.

MH mechanisms develop in ontogenesis as a means of adaptation and resolution of psychological conflicts, and the most powerful criterion of their effectiveness is the elimination of anxiety.

Accordingly, PZ is a method of intrapsychic adaptation. Its goal is to reduce emotional tension and prevent disorganization of behavior, consciousness and psyche as a whole.

Protection mechanisms can be divided by level maturity to protective(repression, denial, regression, reactive formation) and defensive (rationalization, intellectualization, isolation, identification, sublimation, projection, displacement). The former are considered more primitive; they block the entry of conflicting and personally traumatic information into consciousness. The latter accept traumatic information, but interpret it in the most “painless” way for the psyche.

Types of psychological protection:

1. crowding out(analogous to suppression) into the unconscious of unwanted information or traumatic circumstances that cause anxiety. S. Freud considered it the main way to protect the infantile I, unable to resist temptations. An unacceptable impulse (thought, desire) becomes unconscious as a result of the action of this defense mechanism. Psychovegetative components of the emotional reaction are preserved, despite the lack of behavioral implementation.

2. Negation frustrating, anxiety-provoking circumstances, internal impulse or one’s own quality. It is characterized by an outwardly distinct distortion of the perception of reality, when what is obvious to others is not accepted by the individual himself.

3. Projection– unconscious and unacceptable for the individual’s own properties, feelings and thoughts are localized externally and attributed to other people. Projection is often associated with aggression (eg, bigotry).

4. Intellectualization(“rationalization”) – elimination of unpleasant experiences with the help of pseudological, pseudo-reasonable attitudes, reasoning, an overly “mental” way of overcoming a conflict or frustrating situation.

5. Substitution– transference of suppressed negative emotions(anger) at less dangerous or more accessible objects than the one that caused these experiences.

6. Regression– return to primitive, disorganized forms of response; replacing the solution of subjectively more complex problems with relatively simpler ones in difficult, frustrating situations. It is characterized by a change in the motivational-need sphere towards greater simplification and accessibility, combined with impulsiveness and weakness of self-control.

7. Reactive formations(overcompensation) - the elimination of subjectively unacceptable thoughts, feelings, and actions through the exaggerated development of opposite aspirations (for example, excessive care can be a reactive formation in relation to unconscious indifference, callousness, cruelty).

Psychological defense and mechanisms of coping with stress vary in a number of ways signs:

Psychological defense mechanisms are not adapted to the requirements of the situation and are rigid, while coping mechanisms and emotional self-control techniques are plastic and adapt to the situation;

Psychological defense mechanisms are “short-sighted”; they provide the opportunity for only a one-time reduction in tension (the principle of “here” and “now”), while coping strategies are designed for the future;

Psychological defense mechanisms are characterized by a distortion of the assessment of reality and oneself; self-control techniques are based on a realistic perception of the surrounding world, as well as an objective attitude towards oneself.

Thus, a person reacts to a stressful event either subconsciously (with automatic adaptive responses) or potentially with conscious, goal-directed adaptive actions. The main difference between defense mechanisms and coping strategies is the unconscious inclusion of the former and the conscious use of the latter. Coping strategies are considered to be more highly organized and complex protective norms of behavior. They can act as conscious holistic versions of unconscious defenses and/or include them as constituent elements.

USED ​​BOOKS:

1. Kalmykova E.S. Mechanisms of psychological protection and their role in personality development / E.S. Kalmykova // Methodological and theoretical problems modern psychology. - M., 1988. - 150 p.

2. Kvasenko A.V. Psychology of the patient / A.V. Kvasenko, Yu.G. Zubarev. - L.: Medicine, 1980. - 184 p.

3. Kitaev-Smyk L.A. Psychology of stress / L.A. Kitaev-Smyk. - M.: Nauka, 1983. - 386 p.

4. Mendelevich V.D. Adaptation mechanisms of neurogenesis / V.D. Mendelevich // Psychological. magazine – 1996. – T. 17, No. 4. – P. 107-115.

5. Mikhailov A.N. Features of psychological protection in normal conditions and in somatic diseases / A.N. Mikhailov, V.S. Rotenberg // Issue. psychology. - 1990. - No. 5. - P. 106-111.

6. Psychological diagnostics of protective and adaptive mechanisms of personality: A manual for doctors and psychologists / Institute named after. V.M. Bekhterev; comp. Wasserman L.I., Eryshev O.F., Klubova E.B. - St. Petersburg, 1995. - 16 p.

7. Selye G. Stress without distress: Trans. from English / G. Selye. - M.: Progress, 1979. - 125 p.

8. Tashlykov V.A. Psychology healing process. - L.: Medicine, 1984.

9. Freud A. Psychology of the “I” and defense mechanisms / A. Freud. – M.: Pedagogy – Press, 1993.

10. Lazarus R.S. Psychological stress and coping in adaptation and illness / R.S. Lazarus // Int. J. Psychiat. Med. - 1974. - Vol. 5. - P. 321-333.