Developmental Theory of Stress-Coping Processes

Coping with Irresolvable Stressor Situations

This website is a rough draft of what could become a multi-disciplinary sub-field. It proposes utilization of a mathematical theory (i.e. catastrophe theory) to explain the developmental process involved in dealing with irresolvable stressor situations. Currently, I'm applying this to developmental theory of stress to social processes (e.g. religious change, evolution of warfare), psychological processes (e.g. coping with domestic abuse, retirement stress, caregiver burden), or biological processes (e.g. number of pedals on a flower). This website is where I am organizing my notes, ideas, reviews of literature, and preliminary results. 

Perhaps at the most general level, stress-coping developmental processes occur as interactions between two contrasting, asymmetrical sub-processes:

  1. Differentiation. This is how organisms becomes more adaptive and specialized as they continually adapt to new niches and find new advantages for survival. This process promotes competition and diversification. 
  2. Integration. This is how organisms maintain order in an increasingly complex environment. New adaptations have to be reintegrated within the evolved system (e.g. status quo). This process promotes cooperation and consolidation.

In contexts involving irresolvable stressor situations we find both processes pushing in opposite directions as part of an overall dynamic system. Because the organisms or individuals involved cannot escape the system, they tend to express coping possibilities that evolve through four phases or stages in the evolution of the dynamic coping system. Catastrophe theory claims that for such systems involving a single outcome variable, there is only four, increasingly complex systems that can provide stable coping possibilities. Because of the progressive nature of these systems, they are referred to here as stages of coping. 

Unlike most developmental stages theories that focus on stages of individual change, these developmental stages reflect how the system (i.e. coping possibilities) evolves. These stages reflect the topological limitations-boundaries in coping possibilities as the system evolves under the dynamic pressures of differentiation and integration over time. Individuals do not necessarily go through each possibility, but differing coping possibilities emerge as options for individuals within the system as it evolves. Within this theoretical framework a variety of concepts illuminate differing aspects of relationships within the system dynamics: asymmetry, ambivalence, cognitive dissonance, and differentiation. The four stress-coping developmental stages include: 

  1. Undifferentiated (fold) stage. This stage has also been referred to as the naive or inchoate stage. This is where individuals tend to be unconscious of the true source of their stress. If they have been dealing with it a long time they may be in denial of the true cause of their stress but may have an unconscious awareness that they are suppressing, ignoring, or denying. They are undifferentiated in that they tend to have a singular view which excludes the possibilities of a more complex reality needed to understand the stressor. Consequently they fiercely cling to the status quo and resist learning how to accommodate other possibilities. At this early stage in the process, the status quo provides the validity and strong asymmetry in promoting this position, while not recognizing the validity of other possibilities. The role of this position throughout the later stages is in conservation of advantages existing within the status quo. By clinging resolutely to the original system in the face of newer evolved adaptations, it forces these newer evolved adaptations to continually be contrasted with the original system.
  2. Either/or (cusp) stage. This stage involves a bifurcation (having two possibilities and being able to switch between them). As the stress continues beyond a point of toleration or builds up to an unbearable point, some individuals will eventually rebel. We eventually loose our temper. A country will eventually go to war. A child will eventually rebel against their parents. At such points the system evolves to the second stages in which there are two different positions. The "or" position begins to gain in validity. This antithesis position is often in avoidance of the advantages of the former status quo and focuses on the newly evolved truths that are being excluded in the original system. 
  3. Reactive moderation (swallowtail) stage. Since both sides hold validity there will be those in either camp who are uncomfortable with the absolutist position. They feel a need to accept some of the truth of the antithesis (for the status quo people) or retain some of the prior adaptations that they valued (for the antithesis people) in spite of holding fast to their major conviction. We therefore see two new compromise possibilities emerging in the third stage.
  4. Proactive moderation & transcendence (butterfly) stage. As the system continues to evolve the fourth stage occurs where two more moderate compromises emerge. Whereas the first two compromises were more emotional/need based, the final two emergent moderation possibilities are more cognitive based. In the earlier stage, individuals feel like they have to moderate because they cannot reconcile the opposing positions. In this stage people choose to moderate because they have carefully deliberated on their options. This opens up new possible ways of integrating the old and new adaptations. 
        The butterfly stage also includes an area where all four moderation adaptations overlap. This diamond region is referred to as the transcendent adaptation. This region has a way of advocating the advantages of both the status quo and the antithesis, without advocating for the abuses of either. In so doing, this adaptive strategy provides a way of transcending the original stressor. Figuratively it is like walking through the fire without it burning you. Because they can see the advantages and disadvantages to both sides, as well as the limiting arguments of both sides, there is no longer a need to engage on the first level and they are able to transcend the originally irresolvable stressor situation.

Through the links below, I have provided some initial examples applying this developmental theory. In addition to the mathematical theory (topological and statistical theory), this perspective draws on literature from theories of stress-coping and dialectic psychology. The material on this website is still a work in progress and I anticipate its refinement and improvement over time. I expect to provide a review of literature on each of these general topics and then have separate websites where I provide review of literature on subtopics that will be illustrated separately (e.g. religious secularization, intergenerational solidarity, marital relationships, caregiver burden, retirement stress, conservative religious-homosexual conflict, domestic abuse, inflammatory disease processes, plant evolution, etc.). Seeing how this approach can be applied to these and other applications should make it more transparent. If others want to continue to apply this to their data or other contexts, I would be happy to add a space for their material on this website or to add links to their websites. The articles linked to this website are all still rough first drafts and eventually I hope to add to and update each of the different applications that I have undertaken to model with this approach.

Gary Horlacher, Ph.D.
University of Southern California

 

Concepts:

Applications:

Last Updated: 05/09/2008