Introduction to the Special Section

Good theories are needed for explaining and predicting psychological mechanisms in the domain of stress and coping. Likewise, theories are needed for designing and evaluating interventions that promote coping abilities. Despite recent advances in the field of stress and coping, there is still a major need for theory development and for the development of multidimensional theory-based assessments. Also, in addition to the more classical measurement approaches, the field would benefit from implementing more innovative techniques such as measuring stress and coping under real life conditions.

Bearing these issues in mind, this Special Section brings together a selection of six conceptual and empirical articles representing the broad field of stress and coping research. The papers are based on new research or comprehensive reviews of issues related to experimental approaches, interventions, and prospective studies in stress and coping. As Folkman (2009) notes in her commentary on this Special Section, all six papers are based on theoretical approaches that are contextual and appraisal-based. Various aspects such as the workplace, health and illness, social factors (e.g., dyadic interactions), terrorism, emotion, and personality are covered and take into account a perspective sensitive to culture, gender, or age. The six papers as well as the concluding commentary point out avenues for future research as well as interventions.

The first two studies use couples as the unit of analysis, which enriches and broadens our understanding of interpersonal dimensions of coping (e.g., Luszczynska, Boehmer, Knoll, Schulz, & Schwarzer, 2007): The first contribution by Knoll, Schwarzer, Pfueller and Kienle (2009) assesses the transmission of depressive symptoms in couples undergoing assisted-reproduction treatment. In this longitudinal study with three measurement points in time, the authors used the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM; e.g., Cook & Kenny, 2005) where the outcomes of the actors are predicted by both their own variables as well as the variables of their partners. Knoll et al. conclude that we might gain a better understanding of the transmission process when we investigate cognitive processes that mediate emotions in partners.

The second paper by O’Brien, DeLongis, Pomaki, Puterman, and Zwicker (2009) also focuses on couples coping with stress. The study examines the role of empathic responding by drawing on face-to-face interviews as well as twice-daily questionnaires in couples living in a step-family context. Using matched-pair hierarchical linear modeling analysis (e.g., Barnett, Raudenbush, Brennen, & Pleck, 1995) O’Brien et al. examine the unfolding of processes of stress and coping in couples over a given day and across days. Among other important findings, this study also demonstrates that it is important to include relational outcomes when certain coping strategies (e.g., empathic responding) are examined. The authors demonstrate that such an approach adds to the theoretical and explanatory value of stress and coping theories.

In a path-analytical approach, Greenglass and Fiksenbaum (2009) examine mediation models in proactive coping, positive affect, and well-being. The authors test their models in three different samples and with three different outcomes: (1) first year university students coping with depression, (2) rehabilitation patients mastering independence functioning following major surgery (as assessed by hospital personnel), and (3) absenteeism in employees. In line with recent theorizing (e.g., Folkman, 2008) the authors argue for broadening the focus in stress and coping research to include positive emotions and cognitions as well as their promotion by coping strategies.

Fourth, approaching the domain of stress and coping from a lifespan perspective Leipold and Greve (2009) provide a conceptual bridge between coping and development. In their paper they focus on resilience (e.g., Greve & Staudinger, 2006) and outline an integrative model of coping, resilience, and development that also links the field of stress and coping to the area of successful aging (Baltes & Smith, 2003). The contribution by Leipold and Greve is not only conceptual by introducing the Integrative Model of Coping, Resilience, and Development but also empirical as they refer to results illustrating the developmental conditions of assimilative and accommodative processes of coping (Brandtstädter & Renner, 1990).

In the fifth paper Luszczynska, Benight, and Cieslak (2009) provide a systematic review of self-efficacy and health-related outcomes of collective trauma. The authors have subjected 27 studies (total N of 8011) on survivors of acute, escalating, and chronic collective trauma to a meta-analysis. Self-efficacy was identified as a powerful predictor of posttraumatic recovery (both in terms of psychological as well as somatic outcomes). The authors state that this research employs a, mostly, pathogenic perspective and is characterized by a lack of interventions, and argue that self-efficacy might be a key variable to focus on in the design of empowering interventions.

In contribution number six, Benyamini (2009) reviews the field of stress and coping with women’s health issues from a self-regulation perspective. Benyamini reminds us of the fact that conclusions drawn from mixed-gender studies might not apply both to men and women. Thus, we need studies allowing for a gender-sensitive analysis. The general finding that men have relatively good health but high mortality (Oksuzyan, Juel, Vaupel, & Christensen, 2008) reminds us that we need to focus our research on both males and females and the specific mechanisms in the different groups to advance the field. Benyamini stresses that we should not only focus on gender but also gender roles. Similarly, when we think about additional characteristics it is worthwhile not only to analyze stress and coping data in terms of chronological age (which reflects distance from birth) but also in terms of residual life expectancy (which represents distance to death: Ziegelmann, Lippke, & Schwarzer, 2006).

Finally Folkman (2009) provides a thorough discussion of the six contributions included in this Special Section integrating an outlook on next steps in stress and coping research, bearing in mind the complexity of the field with its recursive effects, multiple levels of analysis, and its dynamic systems. She identifies evaluation of coping as one of the major unanswered questions in coping research. In line with Luszczynska et al. (2009), Folkman also highlights the importance a situational assessment of the stressor as well as the related variables of appraisal, coping, and emotion processes whenever we operate with contextual theoretical models. While there are many unanswered questions in the assessment of coping, Folkman argues that it is of special importance to make advances in the assessment of meaning-focused coping (i.e., accessing positive meaning during the coping process: Folkman & Moskowitz, 2007) and related appropriate research designs. Thinking about how modern psychometric models can be applied to the temporal structure of affect (Eid, 2008) might be one avenue for future research in this area.

Emerging Themes and Future Research

As we are increasingly interested in examining how each person of a given sample changes over time (level 1 model for individual change) and how these changes differ across individuals (level 2 model for interindividual heterogeneity in change), we need to have more longitudinal studies with at least three waves of measurement to be able to address those within-person and between-person questions of change in multilevel models (Singer & Willett, 2003).

Future studies in the field of stress and coping might also benefit from new designs and statistical methods that filter out interindividual differences that might not be of interest in a given research context to be able to focus on interindividual similarities (Nesselroade, Gerstorf, Hardy, & Ram, 2008), which allows for disaggregating and subsequent informed aggregation of group data.

In a next step, we need to test whether the findings of (cross-sectional or longitudinal) correlational studies can be replicated in experimental studies, as the magnitude of effects that can result from these two research designs can differ substantially (Michie, Rothman, & Sheeran, 2007). Thus, we need to examine whether variables that are able to explain variance can also explain change, and whether those variables are amenable to change. Finally, to allow for a better transfer of intervention studies into applied settings, the change techniques for the variable in question need to be outlined in detail to allow for replication (Lippke & Ziegelmann, 2008).

Only when all these steps are realized in a given research setting can we advance the field of stress and coping with an ideal interplay between methodological development (both in terms of new assessment methods as well as in terms of innovative analysis procedures) and theory development and testing as well as subsequent theory refinement. The field of stress and coping benefits from interdisciplinary research as well as research that provides a fruitful exchange of stress and coping research across the discipline of psychology. Examples of such an exchange are the discussion of the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 2001) in the light of a life-span developmental perspective (Freund & Riediger, 2001) and the introduction of resilience as a conceptual bridge between coping and development (Leipold & Greve, 2009), or establishing the link between psychoneuroendocrinology, cognitive psychology, and stress (e.g., Nater et al., 2007). Finally, we need systematic overviews and reviews (Benyamini, 2009) as well as meta-analyses (e.g., Luszczynska et al., 2009) and theoretical synopses (e.g., Schwarzer & Knoll, 2007) and critical but, yet, constructive discussions of any theoretical advances (e.g., Lazarus, 2003) or interventions (e.g., Coyne, Stefanek, & Palmer, 2007) in the field of stress and coping.