Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation. American psychologist, 38(11), 1161.
Summary
Reactions to a threatening event include 1) “a search for meaning”, 2) “an attempt to regain mastery”, and / or 3) attempts to enhance self-esteem. In searching for meaning, individuals often seek for causal attributions which allows them to “understand, predict, and control.” The need for control is also shown by individuals frequently attributing causes to events that they can control. In addition to causal attributions, people also seek to know the implications of the event to their current life. This is accomplished by changing attitudes toward life or by recognizing self-knowledge or self-change. In the case of a cancer diagnosis, some women reprioritized the events in their life (emphasizing events that brought satisfaction).
Causal attributions also assist with the quest for mastery. In the case of a threatening event, individuals seek to acquire “ a feeling of control over the threatening event so as to manage it or keep it from occurring again.” This seems particularly relevant to self-determination theory’s needs for both autonomy and competence. Autonomy is acting upon one’s environment, rather than being acted upon. Similarly, competency refers to successful pairing of volitional action with desired reaction. In short, a threat causes an individual to lose a sense of control, which they seek to regain. If control of the threat cannot be obtained (as is commonly the case with cancer), control will be sought in other areas (e.g., “acquiring information about cancer”).
Finally, after a threatening event, individuals may seek to shore up their self-esteem. This is frequently done through the use of downward comparisons (i.e., comparing themselves to someone worse off). Additionally, referents are selected according to “a dimension that would make one appear more advantaged than others.” This process seems similar to a self-protective measure outlined by Crocker and Major (1989) that is used by stigmatized individuals. Framing seems to be a powerful self-protection (and self-maintenance) measure.
Akin to the point made by Langer (1975), these coping strategies rely on the use of illusions, or beliefs for which little factual evidence exists. This conceptualization seems to be similar to what many people might call hope. For example, many cancer patients believe that they have “control over the course of or recurrence of their cancer.” This might be true, but also might not be true. Regardless, it was associated with positive adjustment. These illusions seem especially robust to disconfirmation. The author posits that disconfirmation of these illusions is viewed “as a temporary frustration.” These illusions seem to be essential for normal cognitive functioning, as is also pointed out by Taylor (1988).
Application
Consciously cultivating illusions can assist when dealing with threat. The three processes described can be utilized for many types of threatening events, including layoffs or firings.
Comments powered by Disqus.