Lazarus

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.
org
by 89.123.98.12 on 11/12/14. For personal use only.
ANNUAL
REVIEWS
Quick links to online content
Further
Annu. Rev. Psycho!.
1993.
44:1-21
Copyright 1993 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS TO

THE EMOTIONS: A History of
Changing Outlooks
R. S. Lazarus
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
KEYWORDS:
psychological stress, emotion, relational meaning, core relational themes,

appraisal, coping
CONTENTS
EARLY APPROACHES TO STRESS.....................................................................................
THE COGNITIVE MEDIATIONAL APPROACH: APPRAISAL . .
.
COPING WITH STRESS
. .
......
..
..................
.................
. .
..............
REGARDING STRESS AS A SUBSET OF THE EMOTIONS
... ..........
..
..
........ .........
....
.. .
...........
...........
..
.........................
...........
. . .
10
... . . . . . . . . . . ....
12
...............
A COGNITIVE-MOTIVATIONAL-RELATIONAL THEORY OF EMOTION ..
..
..
Relational Meaning: Core Relational Themes.....................................................
13
The Separate Appraisal Components...................................................................
14
Coping and Emotion.............................................................................................
16
FINAL THOUGHTS
.................................................................................................................
17
Research scholars are products of their times but their work also changes the
way scientific issues are studied after them. This reciprocal influence between
the outlook of a period and the research people do has been particularly
evident in the study of psychological stress and the emotions during the period
of my academic life from post-World War II to the present. In pursuing issues
about stress and the emotions that have been of particular interest to me,
historical shifts of great moment are revealed, which I intend to highlight in
this essay.
1
0066-4308/93/0201-0001$02.00
2 LAZARUS
EARLY APPROACHES TO STRESS

The term stress, meaning hardship or adversity, can be found-though without
a programmatic focus-at least as early as the 14th century (Lumsden 1981).
It first seems to have achieved technical importance, however, in the 17th
century in the work of the prominent physicist-biologist, Robert Hooke (see
Hinkle 1973). Hooke was concerned with how man-made structures, such as
bridges, must be designed to carry heavy loads and resist buffeting by winds,
earthquakes, and other natural forces that could destroy them. Load referred to

a weight on a structure, stress was the area over which the load impinged, and
strain was the deformation of the structure created by the interplay of both
load and stress.

Although these usages have changed somewhat in the transition from phys
ics to other disciplines, Hooke's analysis greatly influenced early 20th century
models of stress in physiology, psychology, and sociology. The theme that
survives in modem times is the idea of stress as an external load or demand on
a biological, social, or psychological system.
During World War II there was considerable interest in emotional break
down in response to the "stresses" of combat (e.g. Grinker & Spiegel
1945).
The emphasis on the psychodynamics of breakdown-referred to as "battle

fatigue" or "war neurosis"-is itself historically noteworthy, because in World
War I the perspective had been neurological rather than psychological; the
World War I term for breakdown was "shell shock," which expressed a vague
but erroneous notion that the dysfunction resulted from brain damage created
by the sound of exploding shells.
After World War II it became evident that many conditions of ordinary
life-for example, marriage, growing up, facing school exams, and being
ill-could produce effects comparable to those of combat. This led to a grow
ing interest in stress as a cause of human distress and dysfunction. The domi
nant model-parallel with Hooke's analysis-was basically that of input (load
or demand on systems) and output (strain, deformation, breakdown). The main
epistemology of the American academic psychology of those days, namely,
behaviorism and positivism, made this type of model appear scientific and
straightforward, though it turned out to be insufficient.
When I appeared on the scene, the discipline's interest in stress-presum
ably an esoteric topic-was modest, and the concept had not yet been applied
to the more ordinary conditions of daily life. The military wanted to know how
to select men who would be stress resistant, and to train them to manage stress.
The major research questions of the immediately post-World War II period
centered on the effects of stress and how they could be explained and pre
dicted. The research style was experimental, reflecting the widely accepted
view at the time that the most dependable way to obtain knowledge was in the
laboratory.
PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS AND THE EMOTIONS 3

It soon became apparent, however, that these questions did not have a
simple answer. In the 1950s, my colleagues and I, along with many others,
soon discovered that stressful conditions did not produce dependable effects;
for some persons the stress aroused by a given condition was great, while for
others it was small; and under stress conditions, depending on the task, the
performance for some was markedly impaired, for others it was improved, and
for still others there was no demonstrable effect (e.g. Lazarus & Eriksen 1952).
We concluded that to understand what was happening we had to take into
account individual differences in motivational and cognitive variables, which
intervened between the stressor and the reaction (Lazarus et al 1952). Our
1952 article, incidently, was one of the two most widely read in that journal
(as surveyed by the editor) in that academic year; the other was by Brown &
Farber (1951) which, expressing the zeitgeist, was a neobehavioristic analysis
of frustration and a treatment of emotion as an intervening variable. Psychol
ogy had barely begun to move away from stimUlus-response (S-R) models to
stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) models in an early stage of what later
was called the cognitive revolution by North Americans. The same mediating
variables are now well-established features of current theories of stress and
emotion.
I note, parenthetically, that psychology has long been ambivalent about
individual differences, opting for the view that its scientific task is to note
invariances and develop general laws. Variations around such laws are apt to
be considered errors of measurement, though they must be understood if
reasonably accurate prediction is to be possible.
Hooke too was interested in individual differences in the elasticity of met
als, which were a factor in their resistance to strain. For example, cast iron is
hard and brittle and breaks easily, but wrought iron is soft and malleable and
bends without breaking. This physical phenomenon is also used as a metaphor
for resistance to psychological stress. Thus, the capacity of metals to resist
deformation presaged interest in individual differences in the resiliency of
people under stress.
The analogy is evident today in the vigorous study of the personality traits
and coping processes that help some people resist the deleterious effects of
stress better than others. Some of the personality traits that appear to be
associated with resilience include constructive thinking (Epstein & Meier
1989), hardiness (Maddi & Kobasa 1984; see also Orr & Westman 1990),
hope (Snyder et al 1991), learned resourcefulness (Rosenbaum 1990), opti
mism-shades of Horatio Alger and Norman Vincent Peale-(Scheier &
Carver 1987), self-efficacy (Bandura 1982), and sense of coherence (An
tonovsky 1987).
The study of stress has been plagued by an inconsistent and potentially
confusing use of terms to denote the variables of the stress process. In the
medical tradition, for example, stress is treated as a set of psychological and
physiological reactions to noxious agents; Selye used stressor to denote the

4 LAZARUS
agent, stress to denote the reaction; sociologists speak of stress as the disturb
ing agent (e.g. social disequilibrium; Smelser 1963) and of strain as the
collective reaction (e.g. a panic or riot).
Despite these different usages, however, certain essential meanings are
always involved. Whatever words are used to describe the stress process, four
concepts must always be considered: 1. a causal external or internal agent,
which Hooke called a load and others call stress or a stressor. In my own
analyses, I emphasize the person-environment relationship and relational
meaning (defined below); 2. an evaluation (by a mind or a physiological
system) that distinguishes what is threatening or noxious from what is benign;
3. coping processes used by the mind (or body) to deal with stressful demands;
and 4. a complex pattern of effects on mind and body, often referred to as the
stress reaction.
Because my focus is psychological rather than physiological stress, I
should digress briefly to point up the distinction. Early on, the two kinds of
stress were unified under homeostatic concepts-and in the related concept of
activation. Stress represented a deviation from some norm or steady state. The
principle of homeostasis was initially described by Claude Bernard, and its
mechanisms were later elaborated further by Walter Cannon (1939), as most
psychologists know.
An address by Hans Selye to the American Psychological Association in
1950 stimulated great interest in the overlaps between physiological and psy
chological stress. Se1ye (1956/1976) shifted attention from the catecholamines
of the adrenal medulla, which Cannon had focused on, to the steroids of the
adrenal cortex. Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) emphasized that
any agent noxious to the tissues (a stressor) would produce more or less the
same orchestrated physiological defense (stress reaction). The GAS may be
thought of as the physiological analogue of the psychological concept of
coping.
Psychological stressors were said also to produce the GAS. Yet in research
that has not gotten widespread attention, Mason et al (1976) presented data
suggesting that corticosteroid secretion may be more or less specific to psy
chological stress and not particularly responsive to physiological stresses such
as heat, exercise, and hunger. Although there are important overlaps between
them, psychological stress and physiological stress require entirely different
levels of analysis (see Lazarus 1966; Lazarus & Folkman 1984). What gener
ates physiological stress-that is, what is noxious to tissues-is not the same
as what is stressful ("noxious") psychologically.
Indeed, the differences between physiological and psychological stress are
profound and center on an issue that psychologists have long had great diffi
culty dealing with, namely, personal meaning. The key question is how to
define a load or stressor psychologically. I deal, below, with the question of
what an individual considers a harm, threat, challenge, or benefit. Notice that
in speaking of several kinds of states relevant to psychological stress and
emotion (namely, harm, threat, challenge, and benefit)
I abandon the early
idea that stress is merely a form of activation. Such a unidimensional con

cept-degree of stress-ignored qualitative differences.
There have been two influential qualitative expansions of the stress con
cept. First, although Selye (1956/1976) had originally postulated a general,
nonspecific physiological response to any stressor, late in his life (1974) he
drew a health-centered distinction between eustress and distress. Eustress was
the good kind of stress because it was associated, presumably, with positive
feelings and healthy bodily states; distress was the bad kind, associated with
negative feelings and disturbed bodily states.

Unfortunately, Selye did not tell us clearly what the differences were,
psychologically and physiologically. We might guess, of course, that, consis
tent with his views about the GAS, the differences would involve adrenal
corticosteroids, some of which are protective (anabolic) while others are de
structive (catabolic). The recent explosion of interest in, and the development
of technology for measuring, immune response variables and processes offer
additional means of distinguishing the two kinds. For example, eustress may
enhance immune system competence while distress may impair it.
Second, I had early on (Lazarus 1966) drawn a distinction among three
&
& Folkman 1984). Harm refers to psychological dam
kinds of stress, harm, threat, and challenge (Lazarus 1966, 1981; Lazarus
Launier 1978; Lazarus
age that had already been done----e.g. an irrevocable loss. Threat is the antici
pation of harm that has not yet taken place but may be imminent. Challenge
results from difficult demands that we feel confident about overcoming by
effectively mobilizing and deploying our coping resources.
These different kinds of psychological stress states are presumably brought
about by different antecedent conditions, both in the environment and within
the person, and have different consequences. For example, threat is an un
pleasant state of mind that may seriously block mental operations and impair
functioning, while challenge is exhilarating and associated with expansive,
often outstanding performance. To the extent that we take these variations
seriously, stress cannot be considered in terms of a single dimension such as
activation. As will be seen below, such a recognition involves considering
diverse emotional states, some negative, some positive.
THE COGNITIVE MEDIATIONAL APPROA CH:

APPRAISAL
Defmition of the psychologically noxious has been the central theme of my
theoretical and research efforts from the beginning. Allow me to summarize
my research in this area before turning to the parallel problem of the cognitive
mediation of the emotions-my current main concern.
6 LAZARUS

Although a number of influential early writers adopted the view that psy
chological stress is dependent on cognitive mediation (e.g. Arnold 1960; Grin
ker & Spiegel 1945; Janis 1958; Mechanic 1962), the cognitive movement in
North American psychology did not get fully under way until the 1970s. This
view is centered on the concept of appraisal, which is the process that medi
ates-I would prefer to say actively neg otiates-between, on the one hand, the
demands, constraints, and resources of the environment and, on the other, the
goal hierarchy and personal beliefs of the individual.
I believe the programmatic efforts of my colleagues and me in the 1960s
(e.g. Lazarus 1966, 1968; Lazarus et al 1970) helped convince many of those
still wedded to an input-output conceptualization (along with many newcom
ers to the scene) that appraisal played a significant role in stress reactions. A
powerful tide in psychology--eventually becoming a tidal wave that seems to
have swept old epistemologies aside-has moved us from behaviorism toward
a much freer outlook in the United States. Our psychologists, the main excep
tion being Skinner (1953, 1990), have become less hesitant about referring to
what goes on in the mind; we are now less reluctant to explain human and
animal actions and reactions in terms of thought processes.
My colleagues and I employed a simple experimental paradigm designed to
create psychological stress as naturalistically as possible in the laboratory. We
had subjects watch stressful films while we periodically sampled their subjec
tive reports of stress and continuously recorded their autonomic nervous sys
tem activity (primarily as reflected in heart rate and skin conductance).
Although a number of films were used in this research, two were particu
larly important. One presented a series of subincision operations-a male rite
of passage among the Arunta of Australia. The other, a film designed to teach
woodworking personnel how to avoid shop accidents, depicted such bloody
accidents as a worker being fatally impaled on a board thrust from a circular
saw and a worker getting his finger cut off.
We used recorded speech passages to orient viewers before the films were
shown. Their purpose was to influence the way subjects construed what was
happening in the movie (e.g. Lazarus & Alfert 1964; Speisman et al 1964).
These passages were based on ego-defense theory, which posited certain
themes people used to protect themselves from threat.
One passage, for example, mimicked denial-"The people in the film are
not hurt or distressed by what is happening," or "These accidents didn't really
happen but were staged for their effect." Another mimicked intellectualization
or distancing-"This is an interesting anthropological study of aboriginal
customs," or "The accidents portrayed in this film provide the basis for in
structions about how to avoid injuries in a woodworking shop." A third em
phasized the main sources of threat in the film-"Many of the people you see
in this film suffer severe pain and infection from these rituals." The effects of
these experimental treatments were compared with each other and with a

control condition that involved no attempt to influence the way subjects con
strued what was happening.
These orientation passages had powerful effects on self-reports of distress
and on psychophysiological stress reactions (heart rate and skin conductance).
Denial and distancing passages markedly lowered these reactions compared
with the control; the threat passage raised them. The tendency of the passages
to reduce stress levels could be predicted on the basis of differences among
viewers' cognitive styles.
In an attempt to understand what was happening, I shifted from an empha
sis on ego defenses to a general concept of appraisal as the cognitive mediator
of stress reactions. I began to view appraisal as a universal process in which
people (and other animals) constantly evaluate the significance of what is
happening for their personal well-being. In effect, I considered psychological
stress to be a reaction to personal harms and threats of various kinds that
emerged out of the person-environment relationship. But more of this below.
In subsequent experiments, we had subjects await a source of stress for
different periods-e.g. an electric shock that was anticipated but never actu
ally occurred (Folkins 1970; Monat et al 1973), or a bloody accident (on film)
. that had been foreshadowed by a flashback (Nomikos et al 1968). These and
other psychophysiological studies showed that the degree of stress reaction
depended on evaluative thoughts (appraisal and coping). In tum the contents
of these thoughts, such as "How bad will it be," depended on how long they
had to wait for the harmful confrontation. A strong empirical case was being
made that appraisal and coping processes shaped the stress reaction, and that
these processes, in tum, were influenced by variables in the environment and
within the person.
Such reasoning was consistent with the expansion in the 1960s and 1970s
of cognitive mediational views in psychology generally. The outlook was
anticipated by many illustrious figures in North American psychology, includ
ing Asch, Harlow, Heider, Kelly, McClelland, Murphy, Rotter, and White, as
well as their intellectual mentors, Lewin and Murray, and still others who
worked within the psychoanalytic framework. We often forget too that this
outlook dominated classical Greek and European thought, a point I return to
below. In any event, psychologists could now seriously and programmatically
ask what must be going on in the mind to influence people to act and react as
they do.
Nor is this way of thinking pure phenomenology. Because of different
goals and beliefs, because there is often too much to attend to, and because the
stimulus array is often ambiguous, people are selective both in what they pay
attention to and in what their appraisals take into account. Even when an
individual's appraisal deviates from the norm it may still result in a good
match between the appraisal and reality. There are many realities rather than a
single one, and deviance is not necessarily pathology.
8 LAZARUS
COPING WITH STRESS

As the cognitive mediational outlook developed further, the coping process
gained in importance too (Lazarus 1966; Lazarus et alI974). Because psycho
logical stress defines an unfavorable person-environment relationship, its es
sence is process and change rather than structure or stasis. We alter our
circumstances, or how they are interpreted, to make them appear more favor
able-an effort called coping.
Traditional approaches to coping had emphasized traits or styles-that is,

stable properties of personality. In contrast, my own analysis and research

(Lazarus 1966, 1981; Lazarus
& Folkman 1984; Lazarus & Launier 1978)
emphasized coping as process-a person's ongoing efforts in thought and

action to manage specific demands appraised as taxing or overwhelming.
Although stable coping styles do exist and are important, coping is highly
contextual, since to be effective it must change over time and across different
stressful conditions (e.g. Folkman
& Lazarus 1985). Empirical evaluation of
this idea requires study of the same persons over time and across diverse
stressful encounters. The Berkeley Stress and Coping Project, which got under
way in the late 1970s and continued to the late 1980s (see Lazarus
& Folkman
1987 for a review), addressed the contextual side of coping in a number of

field studies.
Coping affects subsequent stress reactions in two main ways: First, if a
person's relationship with the environment is changed by coping actions the
conditions of psychological stress may also be changed for the better. My
colleagues and I called this problem-focused coping. If we persuade our neigh
bor to prevent his tree from dropping leaves on our grass, we overcome the
original basis of whatever harm or threat their dropping caused us.
Other coping processes, which we called emotion-focused coping, change
only the way we attend to or interpret what is happening. A threat that we
successfully avoid thinking about, even if only temporarily, doesn't bother us.
Likewise, reappraisal of a threat in nonthreatening terms removes the cogni
tive basis of the stress reaction. For example, if a person can reinterpret a
demeaning comment by hislher spouse as the unintended result of personal
illness or job stress, the appraisal basis for reactive anger will dissipate. Denial
and distancing are powerful techniques in the control of psychological stress
because they enable a person to appraise an encounter as more benign. [n
short, whether the change is in external conditions or in one's construal of
them, coping influences psychological stress via appraisal; appraisal is always
the mediator.
We created a procedure for measuring the coping process in diverse stress
ful contexts. The Ways of Coping Questionnaire (Folkman
& Lazarus 1988b)
consists of 67 statements about thoughts and actions. An interviewer can use

these interactively, or a subject can respond to them in a self-administered
procedure. The questionnaire asks whether and to what extent a person had
used certain thoughts and actions in a particular stressful encounter.
By asking about thoughts and actions we avoided having our subjects make
inferences about their coping. Instead, we enabled observers' inferences based
on a factor analysis yielding eight factor scales, each representing a different
coping strategy. The procedure was designed to permit repeated measurements
on the same subjects over time and in different stress contexts (see, e.g.,
Folkma n & Lazarus 1 985; Folkman e t al 1986a; Folkman et al 1 986b)
.
number of replicable findings about coping emerged from this work, the
most important of which can be summarized as follows:
1. Coping is complex, and people use most of the basic strategies (factors) of
coping in every stressful encounter.
(Are sp ecifi c coping strategies tied to specific
stress contents, or does one strategy follow another in a sort of trial-and-error
process? The answer is likely both.)

2. Coping depends on appraisal of whether anything can be done to change the
situation. If appraisal says something can be done, problem-focused coping

predominates; if appraisal says nothing can be done, emotion-focused coping
predominates. Here we have rediscovered the Alcoholics Anomymous epigram,

that people should try to change the noxious things that can be changed, accept
those that cannot, and have the wisdom to know the difference.
3. When the type of stressful encounter is held constant--e.g. work-, health-, or

family-related stress-women and men show very similar coping pattems, despite
public predjudices to the contrary.

4. Some strategies of coping arc more stablc than others across diverse stressful
encounters while others are linked to particular stressful contexts. For example,
thinking positively about the situation is relatively stable and depends substan
tially on personality, whereas seeking social support is unstable and depends
substantially on the social context.
5. Coping strategies change from one stage of a complex stressful encounter to

another. If we lump together the stages in a complex encounter we gain a false
picture of the coping process.
6. Coping acts as a powerful mediator of emotional outcomes; positive outcomes

arc associated with some coping strategies, negative outcomes with others. Our
data from a nonprospective study suggested this (Folkman & Lazarus 1988a), and
Bolger (1990) has confirmed it in a prospective study in which the coping process
was measured independently and before the emotional outcome.
7. The util ity of any coping pattern varies with the type of stressful encounter,
the type of personality stressed, and the outcome modality studied (e .g. subj ective
well-being, social functioning, or somatic health). What works in one context may
be counterproductive in another. Thus, when there is nothing to do but wait until
grades are announced, distancing helps to reduce distress and dysfunction; but
when effort should be mobilized to study for a future exam, the same strategy leads
the person to abandon the effort to prepare, with the same lowered distress but a
later performance disaster (Folkman & Lazarus 1985).
10 LAZARUS
REGA RDING STRESS A S A SUBSET OF THE EMOTIONS

Psychological stress should be considered part of a larger topic, the emotions.
This
theoretical consolidation, while posing some difficulties, has important
positive consequences: First, though belonging together, the literature on psy

chological stress and the literature on emotions have generally been treated as
separate. Social and biological scientists interested in the emotions are often
unaware of a relevant stress literature, and vice versa. Because psychological

theory is tantamount to a theory of emotion, and because the two
stress
literatures share overlapping ideas, the two fields might usefully be conjoined

as the field of emotion theory. Second, we have already progressed from

unidimensional
(activation)
to
multi-dimensional
(e.g.
challenge) concept of stress. In contrast, recognition of
harm,
threat,
15 or so specific
emotions instead of the several dimensions of stress greatly increases what we

can say
about an individual's coping and adaptation. Knowing, for example,
that in a given encounter (or as a consistent pattern across encounters) this

individual feels angry, anxious, guilty, sad, happy, or hopeful tells us much
more than knowing merely that he/she is harmed, threatened, or challenged.
Use of stress as a source of information about an individual's adaptation to
environmental pressures is extremely limited compared with the use
array
of the full
of emotions.
An explosion of interest in the emotions is evident in all the relevant

scientific disciplines, each of which looks at emotion from a somewhat differ
ent perspective and at different levels of analysis. Many conceptually oriented
books on the topic have been appearing, most of them since 1980, including
readers by Calhoun & Solomon (1984), Harre (1986), Izard et al (1984),
& Kellerman (1980, 1983, 1986, 1989), and Scherer & Ekman
(1984), and theoretical monographs by Averill (1982), Frijda (1986), De
Sousa (1987), Gordon (1987), Izard (1971, 1977), Kemper (1978), Mandler
(1984), Ortony et al (1988), and Tomkins (1962, 1963), and myself (Lazarus
1991c).
Plutchik
Readers will appreciate the historical implications of this modem explosion

of interest more fully if they also understand that
60 years ago academic
psychologists seemed ready to abandon the concept of emotion. Allow me to

backtrack to the period when the stress concept was in growing favor but
emotion was in the doghouse. In
and hardly prescient statement
1933, Meyer made the following arrogant

about emotion:
Why introduce into science an unneeded term, such as emotion, when there are
already scientific items for everything we have to describe? ... I predict: the "will"
has virtually passed out of our scientific psychology today; the "emotion" is bound
to do the same. In 1950 American Psychologists will smile at both these terms as
curiosities of the past.
When I came on the academic scene in
1948, Duffy (1941a,b; 1960) was
arguing with great success that there was nothing special about emotion be-
PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS AND THE EMOTIONS
11
cause it denoted "all of life," that is, the ordinary adaptational activities by
means of which an organism maintained its internal equilibrium in the face of
threatened disruption from internal and external pressures.
Adaptational responses, she said, have direction, are reactions to relation
ships, and invoke energy mobilization. Therefore, we should abandon the
concept of emotion and substitute activation in its place. Was there any psy
chologically significant difference between a person running to his/her house
on a whim and a person, seeing a fire, running the same way in a panic? Her
answer was no. She wrote (1941a:287-88), for example, that

all behavior is
motivated. Without motivation
there is
no activity ... . The
responses called "emotional" do not appear to follow different principles of action

from other adjustive responses of the individual. Changes in internal or external
conditions, or in the interpretation of these conditions, always result in internal
accommodations. The responses made are specifically adjustive to the situation
and are not subject to classification into such categories as "emotional" and
"non-emotional." ... All responses-not merely "emotional" responses-are
adjustive reactions attempting to adapt the organism to the demands
of
the
situation.The energy level of response varies with the requirements of the situation
as interpreted by the individual.Diffuse internal changes (especially in the viscera)
are involved in the production of these changes in energy level. But continuous
visceral activity, with accompanying changes in energy level, is a function of life

itself not merely a function of a particular condition called "emotion."
,
At the time, Duffy's theme seemed reasonable and sound to me, though I
now reject her position. Those, such as I, who study the psychological process
of emotion contend that there is a world of difference between a non-emo
tional and an emotional event. Although there are behavioral and physiologi
cal overlaps, the ways whim-motivated and alarm-motivated actions are
organized psychologically are quite different. One's house being on fire elicits
motives, beliefs, appraisals, and coping processes different from those elicited
in whimsy, and some emotion theorists would wager that panic has its own
special physiological response pattern. Once aroused, emotion is a system of
its own. Duffy's question and response are reminiscent of Skinner's claim that
from a behaviorist's point of view there is no difference between the tears of
eye irritation and the tears of emotional distress.
Why did the stress concept survive and flourish in an epistemological
climate so hostile to the emotions? The initial noncognitive, nonmediational,
S-R view of psychological stress was suggested by Hooke's engineering anal
ysis. This view was carried over into analyses of stress prior to the so-called
cognitive revolution. A good example of the carryover was the frequent use in
the 1960s and 1970s of life events lists for measuring stress, which empha
sized such objective environmental changes as death of a spouse, divorce, and
loss of a job as stressors. However, by the 1970s much of North American
psychology had begun to change and was now receptive-though still some-
12 LAZARUS
what ambivalently-to a cognitive mediational approach to stress and the

emotions.
This historical account does not suggest that the study of stress is no longer
useful. Rather, the concept of emotion includes that of stress, and both are
subject to appraisal and coping theory. As a topic, stress is more limited in
scope and depth than the emotions, as I try to show below.

A COGNITIVE-MOTIVATIONAL-RELATIONAL THEOR Y
OF EMOTION
The topic of the emotions provides many more categories of reaction than
does that of stress, as many as there are emotions that we are willing to
acknowledge and study (itself a controversial subject). I believe that we can
identify 15 different emotions, more or less (Lazarus 1991b,c). There are
roughly
9 so-called negative emotions: anger, fright, anxiety, guilt, shame,
sadness, envy, jealousy, and disgust, each a product of a different set of

troubled conditions of living, and each involving different harms or threats.
And there are roughly 4 positive emotions: happiness, pride, relief, and love.
To this list we probably could add three more whose valence is equivocal or
mixed: hope, compassion, and gratitude. (Below I suggest the "core" relational
themes for each of these emotions).
What gives this multiplicity of emotions great analytic power is that each
emotion arises from a different plot or story about relationships between a
person and the environment; feeling angry has its own special scenario, and so
does feeling anxious, guilty, ashamed, sad, proud, and so forth. Notice that this
way of thinking complicates but enriches the job of understanding and predict
ing. If it is true that each emotion is brought about by a different appraisal of
the personal significance of an adaptational encounter, then we learn different
adaptationally relevant things from each about what is happening and about
the psychological characteristics of the person who is reacting.
Emotion theorists and researchers must now tackle many issues-too many
to examine adequately here. I spend the remainder of this essay on the one that
relational
I said, is the fundamental
has powered much of my research, namely, the achievement of

meaning through the process of appraisal. This, as
puzzle for students of both psychological stress and the emotions. Although I
have addressed the problem recently (Lazarus 1991a-c), the proposed solu
tions are still fluid and a number of other emotion researchers are also strug
gling to resolve it.
If one takes the position, as I do, that the particular emotion experienced
depends on one's thoughts about an encounter, then these thoughts can most
fruitfully be conceptualized at two related but different levels of abstraction,
one molar, the other molecular. I begin with the molar level.

Table 1 Emotions and their core relational themes
Emotion
angr
anxIety
fright
guilt
Shame
sadness
envy
jealousy
disgust

happiness
pnde
relief
hope
love
compassion
Core relational theme

a demeaning offense against me and mine
facing uncertain, existential threat
an immediate, concrete, and overwhelming physical danger

having transgressed a moral imperative
failing to live up to an ego-ideal
having experienced an irrevocable loss
wanting what someone else has
resenting a third party for the loss of, or a threat to, another's affection
or favor
taking in or being too close to an indigestible object or (metaphorically
speaking) idea
makmg reasonable progress toward the realization of a goal
enhancement of one's ego-identity by taking credit for a valued object
or achievement, eitlier one's own or that of someone or group with
whom one identifies
a distressing goal-incongruent condition that has changed for the better
or gone away
fearing the worst but wanting better
desiring or participating in affection, usually but not necessarily recip
rocated
being moved by another's suffering and wanting to help
Relational Meaning: Core Relational Themes

said above, without explanation, that emotions are always a response to
relational meaning. The relational meaning of an encounter is a person's sense
of the harms and benefits in a particular person-environment relationship. To
speak of harms and benefits is to alludc to motivational as well as cognitive
processes; hence the complex name of the theory, which includes the terms
cognitive, motivational, and relational.
Personality variables and those that characterize the environment come

together in the appraisal of relational meaning. An emotion is aroused not just
by an environmental demand, constraint, or resource but by their juxtaposition
with a person's motives and beliefs. The process of appraisal negotiates be
tween and integrates these two sets of variables by indicating the significance
of what is happening for a person's well-being. This is an extension of the
cognitive mediational principle in psychological stress theory-namely, that
what causes the stress reaction is not the environmental "stressor" alone but
also its significance as appraised by the person who encounters it.
Although one can decompose molar relational meaning into separate, mo
lecular personality and environmental variables (e.g. as hostile actions by
another or a goal one is striving for), relational meaning results from a higher
or more synthetic level of analysis. At that level the separate variables are lost
in favor of a new relational concept--e.g. feeling demeaned, sensing an uncer
tain threat, feeling failure to live up to an ego-ideal, feeling attainment of what
one wants, sensing enhancement of one's self, or suffering an irrevocable loss.
Our penchant for reductive analysis in psychology often leaves us without the
ability to see how the separate variables are synthesized into molar ones. (For

14 LAZARUS
a classic discussion of the difference between reductive analysis and synthesis

or transaction, see Dewey & Bentley 1949; see Lazarus & Launier 1978 for
another).
Two spouses, A and B, construct different meanings from the same argu
mentative encounter. For A, the relational meaning of what is happening is
that he/she has been demeaned or slighted; this meaning motivates a desire to
repair the wounded self-esteem. For B, on the other hand, the argument's
relational meaning is that the marital relationship itself has been threatened.
The emotion experienced by B is anger, by A anxiety.
If we would demonstrate that relational meaning is the cognitive founda
tion of emotion, we must define and measure this meaning-address it empiri
cally. I call the core relational theme the relational meaning in each emotion
(Lazarus 1991b,c). Each emotion involves a different core relational theme. In
Table 1 I suggest core relational themes for the emotions discussed above.
The Separate Appraisal Components

A number of different but overlapping proposals have been advanced about
the molecular appraisal components underlying each emotion-see, for exam
ple, Frijda (1986), Lazarus (1991c), Reisenzein & Hofmann (1990), Roseman
(1984, 1991), Scherer (1984), Smith & Ellsworth (1985, 1987), and Weiner
(1986)-and these earlier efforts have been reviewed by Lazarus & Smith
(1988) and Smith & Lazarus (1990), Smith & Ellsworth (1985), and others.
Although their language often differs, these proposals share a number of
appraisal components, which suggests the beginnings of a common theoretical
ground. Most of these systems assume that one key appraisal component is
motivational; to have an emotion requires an active goal in an encounter; if no
goal is at stake there can be no emotion. Most also assume that the valence of
an emotion depends on whether the conditions of the encounter are viewed as
favorable to goal attainment (thereby begetting a positive emotion) or unfavor
able (thereby begetting a negative emotion). In most proposals, too, assign
ment of responsibility is factored into certain emotions-that is, whether a
harm or benefit is attributed to the self or another. The accountability of others
is an important component in the appraisal leading to anger, while self-ac
countability is important in pride, guilt, and shame.
In my treatment of the appraisal pattern for anger, I have adopted a some
what controversial position. I regard anger as resulting from an individual's
appraisal of injury to self-esteem. Blame is a key appraisal component of
anger. The angry person locates responsibility in an external agent-i.e. de
cides that the person who caused the injury could have refrained from doing
so. In contrast with the traditional frustration-aggression hypothesis (cf
Berkowitz 1989), I suggest that a person who could not have acted otherwise
is not blameworthy, and hence is not the object of anger. There is no malevo
lence or slight in such a situation, and if there is anger it will be directed

15
elsewhere on the basis of complex social attributions. Research addressing the

role of imputed intentions in the generation of anger has not yet adequately
resolved the theoretical question.
Three additional points should be made about appraisal and relational
meaning. First, the two levels of analysis, core relational themes and individ
ual appraisal components, are complementary ways of conceptualizing and
assessing the particular relational meaning in an emotion. One is synthetic and
molar, the other analytic and molecular. A single appraisal component pro
vides only part of this meaning. In the case of anger, for example, the rela
tional meaning cannot be determined from a sense of frustration alone. The
analyst has to observe a pattern composed of several appraisal components.
Not only does the subject have to feel thwarted, hislher self-esteem has to have
been demeaned, responsibility has to have been attributed, and the responsible
person has to have been presumed in control of hislher actions. In short, this
analysis can synthesize the complex relational meaning (a demeaning offense
against me or mine) only after at least four appraisal decisions have been
distinguished (out of a possible total of six; see Lazarus 1991c).
Second, disagreements about the details of the appraisal pattern for each
emotion should not obscure the considerable agreement about the appraisal
pattern required for most emotions, based on a long history of observation and
speculation. The current ferment in appraisal theory and research reflects
serious attempts to evaluate some of the disagreements empirically.
Third, among appraisal theorists only Scherer (1984) regards the process of
appraising as a sequential search of each appraisal question, thereby implying
a conscious and deliberate process of decision-making. Although it conflicts
with traditional usage among cognitive psychologists, a view of the evaluative
process of appraisal as often nonvolitional and unconscious may be emerging.
There is a resurgence of interest in a way of achieving meaning that is not
analytic and distant, but immediate and personal. Concepts such as being-in
the-situation (Heidegger; see Guignon 1984; Taylor 1985), embodied intelli
gence (Merleau-Ponty 1962), tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1966), and resonance
(Shepard 1984; see also Trevarthen 1979 on intersubjectivity) illustrate this
way of thinking. We sense things about our relationship to the environment
without being able to verbalize them. Our emotions often reflect this ephem
eral kind of knowing and evaluating (Lazarus & Smith 1988), as well as the
more deliberate and analytic processes studied in modem cognitive psychol
ogy (see, for example, Lazarus 1991a; and Varela et aI1991).
Despite current notions that emotions and reason are separate and opposing
functions and that people are inherently irrational, I now believe that the
emotions have an implacable logic. The task of theory is to determine that
logic for each emotion. One may reason poorly and attain a sound conclusion;
or one may reason well, and come to an unsound conclusion. These forms of
irrationality, if you will, are not the same. Although intense emotions may
16 LAZARUS
impair or disrupt reasoning, I believe that most of the time people are rational,
given their goals and belief premises.
What could be more logical than the principle that if our goals are thwarted
we react with a negative emotion, or that if we are making satisfactory prog
ress toward a goal we react with positive emotion? This reaction may not
always be wise, but there is nothing irrational about it. What is more logical
than the principle that emotions result from how we evaluate the significance
of events to our well-being? It may be foolish to want certain things, or to
believe certain things, but it is not illogical to emote on the basis of how we

are faring in attaining these goals.
Coping and Emotion

Coping shapes emotion, as it does psychological stress, by influencing the
person-environment relationship and how it is appraised. Coping involves
both
(a) attempts to change the person-environment realities behind negative

(b) attempts to change either what is
emotions (problem-focused coping) and
attended to or how it is appraised (emotion-focused coping). However, inclu

sion of emotion in the study of coping provides a much richer perspective. One
might consider, for example, the sociocultural and intrapsychic implications of
having reacted with one or another of the 15 or so emotions. Thus if one
expresses anger in a context where anger is rejected by the community, the
emotion itself must be coped with---e.g. by inhibition or denial.
With the burgeoning of interest in the emotions has come the realization
that coping theory must become more concerned than formerly with the moti
vational implications of person-environment relationships, which underlie the
different emotions. The point can be illustrated by reference to recent research
by Laux & Weber (1991), who have been studying how marital partners cope
both with angry interchanges and with joint threats that produce anxiety.
Two main patterns have been observed: First, the coping manifested by
both parties in an argument is different from that in an anxiety encounter.
During an encounter involving anger, more effort is expended in repairing
wounded self-esteem than is expended in an anxiety encounter. In anger, such
efforts of reparation include attacking the other, escalating anger, defending
the self, and posturing. In anxiety encounters, more efforts are made to reas
sure the other and to preserve the relationship.
Second, even within an anger encounter, the way a marital partner copes
differs with hislher differing general goals and situational intentions.
If the
partner is preoccupied with preserving a relationship threatened by anger,

anger escalation is avoided. The partner threatened by damage to the relation
ship from anger may suppress and conceal hislher anger. I expect this partner
would also find excuses not to take offense (emotion-focused coping). On the
other hand, the partner whose intention is to repair a wounded self-esteem is
more apt to deliver comeuppance. We will understand the coping process
17
better when we understand the general goals and situational intentions, as well
as the emotions, of the parties in encounters.

FINAL THOUGHTS
The philosophical history of the emotions has been essentially cognitive from
ancient times to the present. Aristotle, who lived in the 4th century Be. might
be called the first cognitive theurit uf the emotions, writing in Rhetoric
( 1941: 1 380) that "Anger may be defined as a belief that we, or our friends,
have been unfairly slighted, which causes in us both painful feelings and a
desire or impulse for revenge." This statement contains the basics of an ap
praisal theory-for example, in its connecting a belief. desire, or motivation to
an impulse for revenge (what today is often called an action tendency). With
respect to how anger is aroused, Aristotle asks us to consider "( 1 ) what the
state of mind of angry people is, (2) who the people are with whom they
usually get angry, and (3) on what grounds they get angry with them. It is not
enough to know one or even two of these points; unless we know all three, we
shall be unable to arouse anger in anyone. The same is true of the other
emotions."
Here Aristotle speaks of the state of mind, and of a cognitively mediated
provocation to anger. He seems to be pointing the analysis of emotion toward
the researchable conditions behind the arousal of emotions. Quite modern
sounding, it seems to me.
Averill's ( 1 982) treatment of historical teachings about anger. particularly
his description of the views of Seneca, Lactantius, Aquinas, and Descartes,
leaves little doubt that cognitive mediation of the emotions has been a preemi
nent concept. And lest the reader think that ancient or medieval cognitive-mo
tivational-relational views went into hiding until recently, I quote G. C.
Robertson ( 1877:413), a 19th-century English philosopher who wrote-in a
fashion reminiscent of Rashomon-the following:
Four persons of much the same age and temperament are travelling in the same
vehicle. At a particular stopping-place it is intimated to them that a certain person
has just died suddenly and unexpectedly. One of the company looks perfectly
stolid. A second comprehends what has taken place. but is in no way affected. The
third looks and evidently feels sad. The fourth is overwhelmed with grief which
finds expression in tears, sobs. and exclamations. Whence the difference of the
four individuals before us? In one respect they are all alike: an announcement has
bcen made to them. The first is a foreigner. and has not understood the commu
nication. The second has never met with the deceased, and could have no special
regard for him. The third had often met with him in social intercourse and business
transactions, and been led to cherish a great esteem for him. The fourth was the
brother of the departed, and was bound to him by native affection and a thousand
ties earlier and later. From such a case we may notice that in order to [experience
an emotio n] there is need first of some understanding or apprehension; the
foreigner had no feeling because he had no idea or belief. We may observe further
18 LAZARUS

that there must secondly be an affection of some kind; for the stranger was not
interested in the occurrence. The emotion flows forth from a well, and is strong
in proportion to the waters; is stronger in the brother than in the friend. It is evident,
thirdly, that the persons affected are in a moved or excited state. A fourth
peculiarity has appeared in the sadness of the countenance and the agitations of
the bodily frame. Four elements have thus come forth to view.
The attempt to abandon emotion as a topic for scientific study-either by
subsuming it within other concepts or by arguing that, being nonmaterial,
emotion r equire s no explanation-seems to me to have been an historical
aberration. This aberration, in the form of radical behaviorism, occurred dur
ing the early development of academic psychology, which was-except in
North America-overly concerned with being ultrascientific in the image of
the natural sciences. It was not a reflection of the main lines of thought that
had existed for centuries and that have been restored in the last few decades
(see also Reisenzein & Schonpflug 1992 for an account of Stumpf's late
19th-century cognitive theory of emotion, which has been given virtually no
previous attention).
I entered academic psychology at the height of this movement which, as
Deese (1985:31) put it, was dedicated to "the abolition of mind." Psychology
was separated from the philosophy departments of modem Western European
and North American universities, within which it had traditionally been in
cluded, and psychologists were enjoined (this I vividly remember) to avoid
"armchair" speculation in the interests of being empirical scientists . Only in
recent years have most psychologists once again been willing to s e e value in
philosphical analyses, to take on large-scale theory, to take seriously observa
tions that are not obtained through laboratory experiment, to engage problems
of subjective m eaning, and to avoid the sterile scientism of the recent past.
The political and social changes my generation has lived through have been
profound-the Great Depression, World War II, the advent of rockets, jet
planes, atomic energy, and television. Today we observe with awe the pro
found political changes in Eastern Europe after the collaps e of the Soviet
Empire, as well as tranformations in Asia and the Middle East. And we are
correctly told that even the near future is impossible to predict with confi
dence.
We have lived through similar monumental changes in the way psychology
and its cognate social sciences go about their scientific business. These
changes have been no less extraordinary than the political and social ones.
They are manifest in the problems being studied and the rnindset for studying
them. I have tried to reflect them in a small way in my discussion of stress and
the emotions. Research and theory on the emotions are beneficiaries of this
changing epistemology. Though fads and fashions in psychology have waxed
and waned rapidly in the recent past, I believe the emotions are too central to
human adaptation for the current enthusiasm to disappear soon. I would cer
tainly like to be around to know.
PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS AND THE EMOTIONS 1 9

Literature Cited
Antonovsky, A. 1 987. Unraveling the Mys
terv of Health: How People Manage
Stress and Stay We ll. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Aristotle. 1941. Rhetoric. In The Basic Works
of Aristotle, ed. R. McKeon. New York :
Random House
Arnold, M. B. 1960. Emotion and Personality,
Vols. 1, 2. New York: Columbia Univ.
Press
Averill, J. R. 1982. Anger and Aggression: An
Essay on Emotion. New York: Springer
Verlag
Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in
human agency. Am. Psychol. 44: 1 175-84
Berkowitz, L. 1989. Frustrati on-aggression hy
pothesis: examination and reformulation .
Psycho!. Bull. 106:59-73
B olger, N. 1990. Coping as a personality pro
cess: a prospective study. J. Pers. Soc. Psy
cho!. 59:525-37
Brown, J., Farber, I. E. 1951. Emotions con
ceptualized as intervening variables with
suggestions toward a theory of frustration.
Psychol. Bull. 48:465-95
Calhoun, C., Solomon, R. C., ed. 1984. What Is
an Emotion ? Classic Readings in Philo
sophical Psychology. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press
Cannon, W. B. 1939. The Wisdom of the Body.
New York: W. W. Simon. 2nd ed. First
edition, 1 932
Deese, J. 1985. American Freedom and the So
cial Sciences. NY: Columbia Univ. Press
De Sousa, R. 1987. The rationality of emo
tions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Dewey, J., Bentley, A. F. 1949. Knowing and
the known. Chapters 4-5, pp. 1 03-43 . Bos
ton: Beacon Press
Duffy, E. 1941a. An explanation of "emo
tional" phenomena without the use of the
c o n c ep t "emotion." J. Gen. Psycho!.
25:283-93
Duffy, E. 1941b. The conceptual categories of
psychology: a suggestion for revision. Psy
chol. Rev. 48:1 77-203
Duffy, E. 1 960. Activation and Behavior. New
York: Wiley
Epstein, S . , Meier, P. 1989. Co nstruct ive
thinking : a broad coping variable with spe
cific components. J. Pers. Soc. Psycho!.
57:332-50
Folkins, C. H. 1970. Temporal factors and the
cognitive mediators of stress reaction. J.
Pers. Soc. Psycho/. 14: 173-84
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S. 1985. If it changes
it must be a process: study of emotion and
coping during three stages of a college ex
amination. J. Pers. Soc. Psycho!. 48: 15070
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S. 1988a. Coping as a
mediator of emotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psycho!.
54:466-75
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S. 1 988b . Manualfor
the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter,
c., DeLongis, A., Gruen, R. 1986a. The
dynamics of a stressful encounter: cog
n i tive appraisal, coping, and encounter
outcomes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50 :9921003
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S . , Gruen, R . ,
DeLongis, A . 1986b. Appraisal. coping.
health status, and psychological symptoms .
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50:572-79
Frijda, N. H. 1986. The Emotions. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Gordon, R. M. 1987. The Structure of Emo
tions. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Grinker, R. R., Spiegel, J. P. 1945. Men under
Stress. New York: McGraw-Hill
Guigon, C. 1984. Moods in Heidegger's being
and time. In What Is an Emotion ? Classical
Readings in Philosophical Psychology, ed.
C. Calhoun, R. C. Solomon. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press
Harre, R., ed. 1986. The Social Construction of
Emotions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Hinkle, L. E. Jr. 1 973. The concept of "stress"
in the biological and social sciences. Sci.
Med. Man. 1 : 3 1-48
Izard, C. E. 197 1 . The Face of Emotion. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts
Izard, C. E. 1 977 . Human Emotions. New
York: Plenum
Izard, C. E., Kagan, J., Zajonc, R. B., ed. 1984.
Emotions, Cognition, and Behavior. New
Y ork: Cambridge Univ. Press
Janis, I. L. 1958. Psychological Stress: Psy
choanalytic and Behavioral Studies ofSur
gical Patients. New York: Wiley
Kemper, T. D. 1978. A Social Interaction The
ory of Emotions. New York: Wiley
Laux, L., Weber. H. 199 1 . Presentation of self
in coping with anger and anxiety: an inten
tional approach. Anxiety Res. 3:233-55
Lazarus, R. S. 1966. Psychological Slress and
the Coping Process. New York: McGraw
Hill
Lazarus, R. S. 1 968. Emotions and adaptation:
conceptual and empirical relations. In Ne
braska Symposium on Motivation, c d . W. J.
Arnold, pp. 1 75-266. Lincoln: Univ. Ne
braska Press
Lazarus, R. S. 1 98 1 . The stress and coping par
adigm. In Models for Clinical Psychopa
thology, ed. C. Eisdorfer, D. Cohen, A.
Kleinman, P. Maxim, pp. 177-214. New
York: Spectrum
Lazarus, R. S. 1 99 1 a. Cognition and motiva
tion in emotion. Am. Psychol. 46:352-67
Lazarus, R. S . 1991b. Progress on a cognitive
motivational-relational theory of emotion.

20 LAZARUS
Am. Psychol. 46:819-34
Lazarus, R. S. 1991c. Emotion and Adaptation.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Lazarus, R S., Alfert, E. 1964. The short-cir
cuiting of threat. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psycho!.
69: 1 95-205
Lazarus, R S., Averill, J. R, Opton, E. M. Jr.
1 970. Toward a cognitive theory of
emotions. In Feelings and Emotions, ed.
M. Arnold, pp. 207-32. New York: Aca
demic
Lazarus, R S., Averill, J. R., Opton, E. M. Jr.
1 974. The psychology of coping: issues of
research and assessment. In Coping and
Adaptation, ed. G. V. Coehlo, D. A. Ham
burg, J. E. Adams, pp. 249-3 1 5. New
York: Basic Books
Lazarus, R S., Deese, 1., Osler, S. F. 1952. The
effects of psychological stress upon perfor
mance. Psycho!. Bull. 49:293-3 1 7
Lazarus, R S., Eriksen, C . W . 1952. Effects of
failure stress upon skilled performance. J.
Exp. Psychol. 43: 1 00-5
Lazarus, R . S., Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, Ap
praisal, and Coping. New York: Springer
Lazarus, R S., Folkman, S. 1987. Transac
tional theory and research on emotions and
coping. Eur. J. Personality 1 : 1 4 1 -69
Lazarus, R. S., Launier, R. 1978. Stress-related
Monat, A., Averill, J. R, Lazarus, R S. 1973.

Anticipatory stress and coping under vari
ous conditions of unccrtainty. J. Pas. Soc.
Psychol. 24:237-53
Nomikos, M. S., Opton, E. M. Jr., Averill, J.
R. , Lazarus, R. S. 1968. Surprise versus
suspense in the production of stress reac
tion. J. Pas. Soc. Psychol. 8:204-8
Orr, E., Westman, M. 1 990. Does hardiness
moderate stress , and how?: a review. In
Learned Resou rcefulness: On Coping
Skills, Self-Control, and Adaptive Behav
ior, ed. M. Rosenbaum, pp. 64-94. New
York: Springer
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., Collins, A. 1988. The
Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cam
bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Plutchik, R., Kellerman, H. 1 980, 1 983, 1 986,
1989. Emotion: Theory, Research, and Ex
perience, Vols. 1-4. New York: Academic
Polanyi, M. 1 966. The Tacit Dimension. Gar
den City, NY: Doubleday
Reisenzein, R, Hofmann, T. 1 990. An investi
gation of cognitive appraisals in emotion
using the repertory grid technique. Motiv.
Emotion 14: 1-26
R e i s e n z e i n , R . , S chonpfl u g , W. 1 99 2 .
Stumpf's cognitive-evaluative theory of
emotion. Am. Psychol. 47:34-45
ment. In Perspectives in Interactional Psy

chology, ed. L . A . Pervin, M . Lewis,
287-327. New York: Plenum
Lazarus, R S., Smith, C. A. 1988. Knowledge
and appraisal in the cognition-emotion re
lationship. Cognit. Emotion 2:28 1 -300
Lumsden, D. P. 1 98 1 . Is the concept of "stress"
of any use, anymore? In Contributions to
Primary Prevention in Mental Health:
Working Papers, ed. D. Randall. Toronto:
Toronto Natl. Off. Can. Mental Health
Assoc.
Maddi, S. R, Kobasa, S. C. 1 984. The Hardy
Executive: Health Under Stress. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Mandler, O. 1984. Mind and Body: Psychol
ogy of Emotion and Stress. New York:
Norton
Mason, J. W., Maher, J. T., Hartley, L. H.,
Mougey, E., Perlow, M. J., Jones, L. G.
1 976. Selectivity of corticosteroid and cat
echolamine response to various natural
stimuli. In Psychopathology ofHuman Ad
aptation, ed. G. Serban, pp. 147-7 1 . New
York: Plenum
Mechanic, D. 1962. Students under Stress: A
Study in the Social Psychology of Adapta
tion. New York: The Free Press. Reprinted
1978, Univ. Wisconsin Press
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of
Perception, transl. C . S mith. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul
Meyer, M. F. 1933. That whale among the
fishes-the theory of emotions. Psychol.
Rev. 40:292-300
2:413-15
Roseman, I. J. 1984. Cognitive determinants
of emotion: a structural theory. In Review
of Personality and Social Psychology:
Emotions, Relationships, and Health, ed.
P. Shaver, 5 : 1 1 -36. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage
Roseman, I. J. 1 9 9 1 . Appraisal determinants of
discrete emotions. Cognit. Emotion 5 : 1 6 1 200
Rosenbau m , M . , ed . 1 990. Learned Re
sourcefulness: On Coping Skills, Self-Con
trol, and Adaptive Behavior. New York:
Springer
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S. 1987. Disposi
tional optimism and physical well-being:
the influence of generalized outcome ex
pectancies on health. J. Pers. 55: 1 69-21 0
Scherer, K. R 1 984. O n the nature and nmc
tion of emotion: a component process ap
proac h . See S c herer & Ekman, p p .
293-3 1 7
Scherer, K . R., Ekman, P., ed. 1 9 84. Ap
proaches to Emotion. H i l l s dale, N J :
Erlbaum
Selye, H. 1 95611976. The Stress of Life. New
York: McGraw-Hill
Selye, H. 1974. Stress without Distress. Phila
delphia: Lippincott
Shepard, R. N. 1 984. Ecological constraints on
internal representation: resonant kinemat
ics of perceiving, imagining, thinking, and
dreaming. Psychol. Rev. 9 1 :4 1 7-47
Skinner, B. F. 1953. Science and Human Be
havior. New York: Macmillan
transactions between person and environ
Robertson, G. C. 1877. Notes. Mind: Q.
Rev.


Skinner, B. F. 1990. Can psychology be a sci
ence of mind? Am. Psycho!. 45: 1 206-10
Smelser, N. J. 1963. Theory of Collective Be
havior. New York: The Free Press
Smith, C. A., Ellsworth, P. C. 1985. Patterns of
cognitive appraisal in emotion. J. Pers.
Soc. Psycho!. 48:8 1 3-38
Smith, C A., Ellsworth, P. C. 1987. Patterns of
appraisal and emotion related to taking an
exam. J. Pers. Soc. Psycho!. 52:475-88
Smith, C A., Lazarus, R. S. 1 990. Emotion
and adaptation. In Handbook of Personal
ity: Theory and Research, pp. 609-37 .
New York: Guilford
Snyder, C R., Harris, C, Anderson, J. R.,
Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., et al. 1 99 1 .
The will and the ways: development and
validation of an individual difference mea
s ure of hope. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
60:570-85
Speisman, J. C, Lazarus, R. S., Mordkoff, A.

M., Davison, L. A. 1 964. The experimental
reduction of stress based on ego-defense

theory. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psycho!. 68:367-
80
Taylor, C 1985. Philosophical Papers, Vols.

1 , 2. London: Cambridge Univ. Press
Tomkins, S. S. 1962, 1963. Affect, Imagery,
Consciousness, V o is. I , 2. New York:
Springer
Trevarthen, C 1 979. Communication and co
operation in early infancy. A description of
p r i m a r y i n t e r s u bj ec ti vi t y. In Before
Speech: The Beginnings of Human Com
munication, e d . M . B ullowa. London:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., Rosch, E. 199 1 .
The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science
and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
Weiner, B. 1986. An Artributional Theory of
Motivation and Emotion. N e w Y o r k :
Springer-Verlag

Lazarus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lazarus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lazarus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.

Quick links to online content

Annu. Rev. Psycho!.

Copyright 1993 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS TO

psychological stress, emotion, relational meaning, core relational themes,

COPING WITH STRESS

REGARDING STRESS AS A SUBSET OF THE EMOTIONS

A COGNITIVE-MOTIVATIONAL-RELATIONAL THEORY OF EMOTION ..

Relational Meaning: Core Relational Themes.....................................................

The Separate Appraisal Components...................................................................

Coping and Emotion.............................................................................................

EARLY APPROACHES TO STRESS

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

load and stress.

The emphasis on the psychodynamics of breakdown-referred to as "battle

PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS AND THE EMOTIONS 3

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS AND THE EMOTIONS 5

emotion (namely, harm, threat, challenge, and benefit)

I abandon the early

idea that stress is merely a form of activation. Such a unidimensional con

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

THE COGNITIVE MEDIATIONAL APPROA CH:

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS AND THE EMOTIONS 7

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

COPING WITH STRESS

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

stable properties of personality. In contrast, my own analysis and research

& Folkman 1984; Lazarus & Launier 1978)

emphasized coping as process-a person's ongoing efforts in thought and

& Lazarus 1985). Empirical evaluation of

1987 for a review), addressed the contextual side of coping in a number of

& Lazarus 1988b)

consists of 67 statements about thoughts and actions. An interviewer can use

PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS AND THE EMOTIONS 9

(Are sp ecifi c coping strategies tied to specific

stress contents, or does one strategy follow another in a sort of trial-and-error

process? The answer is likely both.)

situation. If appraisal says something can be done, problem-focused coping

predominates. Here we have rediscovered the Alcoholics Anomymous epigram,

3. When the type of stressful encounter is held constant--e.g. work-, health-, or

public predjudices to the contrary.

5. Coping strategies change from one stage of a complex stressful encounter to

6. Coping acts as a powerful mediator of emotional outcomes; positive outcomes

was measured independently and before the emotional outcome.

REGA RDING STRESS A S A SUBSET OF THE EMOTIONS

theoretical consolidation, while posing some difficulties, has important

positive consequences: First, though belonging together, the literature on psy

unaware of a relevant stress literature, and vice versa. Because psychological

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993.44:1-22. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

as the field of emotion theory. Second, we have already progressed from

challenge) concept of stress. In contrast, recognition of

emotions instead of the several dimensions of stress greatly increases what we

about an individual's coping and adaptation. Knowing, for example,

that in a given encounter (or as a consistent pattern across encounters) this