Conceptualizations of coping potential appraisals

Given that the review aims to compare the definitions of coping/control appraisals in the major appraisal theories and Weiner’s attribution theory, the respective theories are not explained in full length. Table 1 provides the extracted key aspects that each theory used in defining coping/control appraisal. The definitions of coping potential appraisal are presented in form of operationalized appraisal questions. Furthermore, the key aspect of each definition was identified and labeled correspondingly. The definitions are sorted according to the key aspects.

2.1.3.1. The cognitive-motivational-relational theory by Lazarus

Lazarus organizes appraisal into two categories of primary and secondary appraisals (Lazarus, 1991). Primary appraisal comprises the criteria of goal relevance, goal

congruence/incongruence, and goal content. Secondary appraisal determines the options and prospects for coping. It involves the criteria of agency (oneself or another person), coping

CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 24 potential and future expectations about the predicted success of owns actions. Coping

potential evaluates whether and how the person-environment relationship can be improved.

Lazarus (1991) conceptualized coping potential as an appraisal that is important for generating emotions which is distinct from a coping process that follows emotions. The appraisal of coping potential determines the possibilities to influence an event and to improve its potential outcome. Coping potential appraises the degree to which a person believes coping is possible by any means (Smith & Lazarus, 1993). In contrast to action tendencies that are more rigid and automatic, Lazarus conceptualization of the coping process refers to strategies that are more psychological, complex, deliberate, and planful. As coping strategies, Lazarus distinguished between problem-focused and emotion-focused coping (cf. Lazarus, 1991).

Lazarus also considered a control aspect to be important in the emotion process. In an earlier work that focused on the relationship between stress, appraisal, and coping (Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984), he made a clear distinction between control as a (general or situational) belief that influences appraisal and as cognitive or behavioral efforts to deal with a stressful encounter.

Lazarus latest definition of coping potential was used for the present review (Lazarus, 2001). Coping potential appraisal is defined to consist primarily of the conviction about one’s ability (or inability) to act on a situation in order to change it to the better. This definition is included in Table 1 in form of two appraisal questions, which have been labeled as conviction about one’s ability and conviction about one’s inability. Lazarus emphasized that the

estimation of the ability to act is rather a subjective belief than a correct assessment of the objective controllability of a situation. Moreover, a subjective ability belief is highly situation specific.

CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 25 2.1.3.2. Theory of the core of emotion processes by Frijda

In an eclectic approach, Frijda (Frijda, 1986) encompassed all appraisal dimensions that are necessary to maximize a detailed differentiation between emotional states. He holds the view that it is best to think of emotions as processes “at the level of goals and action control rather than at the level of incipient or overt action” (Frijda, Kuipers, & Terschure, 1989, p. 213). In his theory of emotion, Frijda (1986, p. 454) described a diagnoser as a core appraisal of the emotion process. The diagnoser appraises a situation in terms of possible actions. Furthermore, in Frijda’s opinion, controllability influences primarily emotional intensity.

In his empirical work (Frijda, 1987; Frijda et al., 1989), Frijda and his collaborators showed that the appraisal dimensions of modifiability (“Was the situation’s outcome

immutable, or could someone or something still change it in some way?”) and controllability (“Could you still affect the situation in any way?”) loaded on the same factor in a factor analysis of the dimensionality of appraisal. In other words, the finding suggested a single bipolar dimension of a controllability-uncontrollability appraisal.

2.1.3.3. Roseman’s appraisal theory about emotions

Roseman’s appraisal theory tries to specify the appraisal criteria that elicit discrete emotions. In his theory he conceptualizes an appraisal of control potential that evaluates

“whether there is nothing one can do or something one can do about the motive-relevant aspects of an event” (Roseman, 2001, p. 68). The appraisal result is binary: the situational coping potential can be appraised as high or low. This implies that if personal abilities to influence an event are appraised as high, behavioral efforts are mobilized, whereas when they are appraised as low, no behavioral efforts are initiated.

The theoretical conceptualization of coping potential in Roseman’s theory has slightly changed over the years. Based on the empirical evidence of his studies, he changed the initial appraisal label of legitimacy into power and then into control potential or influence potential

CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 26 (Roseman, 1984, 1991; 1996, respectively), which might reflect that it is difficult to find an appropriate label for this appraisal. Appraisal of control potential evaluates whether an event is controllable by the self, and whether one could do something about an event to change it (Roseman, Antoniou, & Jose, 1996, p. 262). Control potential does not evaluate whether one is able to cope with an event, which would be an appraisal of coping potential. Roseman and his collaborators distinguish two appraisals of control potential (i.e., perceived ability to act on an event) and coping potential (i.e., capacity to adjust to an event). For the sake of

simplicity, in the review, coping potential appraisal refers to Roseman’s appraisal concept of control appraisal.

Roseman (2001) proposes two levels of processing at which coping (control) potential appraisal is carried out by people. He distinguishes between a sophisticated assessment and a primitive judgment. The sophisticated assessment is based on a complex analysis of the skills and the resources a person has at his or her disposal. These appraisals are then compared to the situational demands as well as to the skills and the resources that other people have in this situation. Thus, the sophisticated assessment involves social comparisons and evaluates the availability of external (social) resources. On the contrary, the primitive judgment is based on the perceived speed (or suddenness) as well as the intensity of a situational input. However, he does not further specify whether these assessments, which differ in their processing complexities, are processed in parallel or in a sequence, whether they are always processed and to what extent their processing depends on the situation.

2.1.3.4. Structural appraisal model by Smith and Ellsworth

Smith and Ellsworth (1985) distinguish six independent appraisal criteria in their structural appraisal model. Two of them are self-other responsibility/control and situational control.

CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 27 The appraisal of the self-other responsibility/control evaluates two aspects: agency (self or others) and whether the agent(s) had situational control (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985).

The situational control appraisal evaluates whether anyone could control the circumstances or not. Although the appraisal of situational control is orthogonal to the appraisal of self-other responsibility/control, the appraisal outcomes along these two dimensions are predicted to be related (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). In the subsequent study, the appraisals of self-other

responsibility/control and situational control were highly related with each other contradicting a finding of a preceding study (Smith & Ellsworth, 1987). This inconsistency was explained by the different contexts of both studies indicating that the appraisal of coping potential (i.e., self-other responsibility/control and situational control) is context depend. Possible

underlying mechanisms are not specified in the structural appraisal model of emotion.

2.1.3.5. The Component Process Model by Scherer

In the Component Process Model (Scherer, 1984, 2001, 2009) one of the four central appraisal criteria is coping potential determination. Coping potential appraisal is predicted to consist of three appraisal aspects: (1) control, (2) power, and (3) adjustment (Scherer, 1984, 2001, 2009). Furthermore, the model predicts that these three appraisal aspects are assessed in a fixed sequence. Such a strong assumption about a sequential appraisal processing is not made by the other theories. The sequential processing of coping potential appraisal is predicted to be as follows: first, the control check assesses to what extent an event or its outcomes can be influenced by natural agents (people or animals). Next, if control is possible, the power check evaluates one’s power to exert control or to recruit others for help. If the appraisal result of control and power is that not much or nothing can be done about an event, the adjustment check determines how well a person can adjust or live with the consequences.

The Component Process Model emphasizes that control and power appraisals are independent of each other. Control refers to the evaluation whether an event can generally be

CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 28 prevented, accomplished, or modified in its consequences. On the contrary, power refers to the likelihood that the event can be influenced by own means (i.e., ability) or with the help of others.

2.1.3.6. Relational model of appraisal components by Smith and colleagues In collaboration with Lazarus, Pope, and Kirby, and based on reviewing the most prominent appraisal theories (e.g., Frijda, 1986; Roseman, 1984; Scherer, 1984; Smith &

Ellsworth, 1985; Weiner, 1985), Smith aimed to theoretically identify the major appraisal criteria around which he generated a cognitive-relational theory of emotion (Smith & Kirby, 2009b; Smith & Lazarus, 1990; Smith & Pope, 1992). Appraisals are, similarly to Lazarus’

cognitive-motivational-relational theory, organized into two categories of primary and secondary appraisal. Primary appraisals assess whether and in what way an event is relevant to the well-being of a person by appraising the motivational relevance and the motivational congruence or incongruence of an event. Secondary appraisals evaluate the resources and options a person has at one’s disposal to cope with an event. Secondary appraisal comprises of accountability, problem-focused coping potential, emotion-focused coping potential, and future expectancy appraisals.

In contrast to Lazarus, Smith further distinguishes coping potential into problem-focused appraisal and emotion-focus appraisal. It is important to note that these appraisals are distinct from coping strategies that can follow emotions (Smith & Kirby, 2009a; Smith &

Lazarus, 1993). Problem-focused coping potential evaluates a person’s ability to directly act on the situation to increase or to maintain current goals or needs. Emotion-focused coping potential appraises one’s ability to psychologically adjust to the situation, that is, “to act” on oneself. Adjustment can involve a modification of personal goals, a reappraisal of the

circumstances towards a more positive perspective, or a denial of the threatening and harmful aspects of an event.

CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 29 In further investigating problem-focused coping potential, Smith and Kirby (2009b) examined dispositional and situational factors that can influence this appraisal. Specifically, perceived ability, actual ability, and task difficulty were manipulated by using a mathematical problem-solving task. Participants’ situational appraisals of problem-focused coping potential were assessed by using a questionnaire. The results showed that when the task was easy, coping potential appraisal did not differ for the perceived and the actual (math) abilities. In contrast to when the task was difficult, coping potential appraisal varied as a function of both the perceived and the actual abilities. In particular, problem-focused coping potential was highest for participants that reported a low degree of perceived ability (i.e., level of

confidence) and that had the highest degree of actual ability. Unexpectedly, reported problem-focused coping potential was lowest for the high confident participants that had the highest ability. The results suggest that the estimation of problem-focused coping potential depends on the confidence in one’s ability.

For Smith and Kirby, this finding was contradicting their prediction. However, the finding can be explained by the task set-up. The participants were told that the task can be solved within one hour. Actually, it was impossible, also for the participants with the highest math ability, to solve the task within one hour. It is possible that the highest ability

participants that also had a high confidence to be able to perform well on the task had a realistic estimation about their abilities with respect to whether accomplishing the task within one hour was a feasible goal. They might have appraised that the task goal cannot be achieved by any means within one hour. Hence, they reported a lower level of problem-focused coping potential and a higher level of resignation. Taken together, having a high situational ability (e.g., a task-related expertise) may lead to a more realistic estimation whether it is worthwhile to increase efforts (i.e., problem-focused coping potential) or not in order to reach a feasible current goal.

CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 30 The results for emotion-focused coping potential showed no effects of task difficulty, perceived ability, and actual ability. This inconclusive finding of emotion-focus coping potential makes it difficult to draw conclusions. It remains unclear whether emotion-focused coping potential is carried out as it is predicted or whether it is better to consider it as an important (re)appraisal that follows emotions.

2.1.3.7. Weiner’s attribution theory

The key variables in Weiner’s theory of achievement motivation and emotion are causal attributions (Weiner, 1985). His theory tries to illustrate the link between cognitive processes and feelings in achievement-related contexts by specifying the causal attributions that people make to ascribe success and failure. The dimensions of attributing the causality of events are locus (internal vs. external), stability (stable vs. instable), and controllability

(controllable vs. uncontrollable). Although Weiner’s theory is about the role of attributions on the dynamics of feeling and action, the theory makes a strong connection between cognition and emotions.

According to Weiner, the more cognition is involved, the more differentiated is the emotional experience. In achievement contexts, the evaluation of an outcome elicits either general (positive and negative emotions, which are independent of any attributions) or distinct emotions (that dependent on the causal attributions). The emotions of anger, pity, guilt, and shame depend in particular on the attributions of the perceived controllability of negative outcomes such as failure. When events are perceived as controllable and the perceived ability is estimated as sufficient to allow volitional control, failure is attributed to a lack of effort.

The elicited emotions will then be either anger or guilt. Whereas, when events are ascribed as uncontrollable, a lack of ability is attributed. Thus, the elicited emotions will then be either pity or shame. Weiner’s theory is the only that conceptualized volitional controllability of events to explain the associated emotions that occur when people fail although they have the

CHAPTER 2:THEORETICAL PART 31 ability. In other words, the attribution of controllability is about whether one is able or is in possession of any means to attain a desired goal against the background of a particular situation.