 25. Self‑Regulatory Processes, Stress, and Coping  547
Self-Regulation and  Stress  Models
The model of self-  regulation sketched in the 
preceding pages was intended to character -
ize the structure of everyday behavior. Al -
though examples used as illustrations often 
came from achievement- or task-  related con -
texts, the model is not one of achievement, 
or even of “task” behavior. Rather, the prin -
ciples apply to behavior in general. Some 
goals concern achievement; others concern 
the nourishment of human relationships 
(Fitzsimons, Finkel, & vanDellen, 2015). 
We believe, however, that the actions linked 
to these goals have a common structure, and 
that the structure is partially captured by 
the principles we outlined earlier.
Although this model is about behavior in 
general, we believe it provides a useful win -
dow on the experiences of stress and coping. 
From a self-  regulatory viewpoint, stress is a 
particular class of experiences, and coping is 
the responses that follow from these expe -
riences. From this viewpoint, stress occurs 
when people encounter obstacles to attain -
ing desired goals or avoiding threats. Coping 
is efforts to create conditions that foster con -
tinued moving toward desired goals (or away 
from threats), or efforts to disengage from 
goals that are seen as no longer attainable.
It may not be fully apparent, but this line 
of thought resembles other analyses of stress 
and coping per se. In this section we briefly 
consider two such analyses and their rela -
tions to these principles of self-  regulation.
Stress and  Coping
Most contemporary views of stress and cop -
ing trace in one way or another to the work 
of Lazarus and Folkman and their colleagues 
(e.g., Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 
1984). Their model assumes that stress ex -
ists when people confront circumstances that 
tax or exceed their ability to manage them. 
This places the experience of stress squarely 
in the domain of behavior in which difficul -
ties are being confronted. When people find 
themselves hard-  pressed to deal with some 
serious impediment or some looming threat, 
the experience is stressful.
The Lazarus and Folkman (1984) model 
incorporates several themes. One is that stress entails the perception (appraisal) of 
threat, loss, or challenge (though challenge 
has held up less well in this respect than the 
other two as a stressor). Threat  is a percep -
tion of the impending occurrence of some -
thing bad or harmful. Loss  is a perception 
that something bad or harmful has already 
happened, or that something of value has 
been taken away. Challenge appraisal,  in 
contrast, is a perception that one can gain 
or grow from what nonetheless will be a de -
manding encounter.
Although work in the Lazarus and Folk -
man tradition has not always emphasized this 
point, threats and losses are conditions that 
prevent or impede maintenance or attain -
ment of desired goal values. Loss prevents 
the continued existence of a desired state 
of affairs (e.g., death of a spouse prevents a 
continued relationship). Threat suggests im -
minent interference with continued pursuit of 
desired activities or conditions (e.g., serious 
illness threatens one’s life goals, one’s golf 
game, and one’s perception of reality).
We focused here on interference with de -
sired goals. It should be clear, however, that 
the principles apply just as well to avoidance 
of threats. Perceptions that imply the im -
minent occurrence of a punishing condition 
(Affleck, Tennen, Pfeiffer, & Fifield, 1987), 
or suggest the inability to escape from such 
a condition, will also be stressful.
Another point of similarity between 
self- regulation models and the Lazarus– 
Folkman model concerns the dynamic, con -
tinuous evaluation of the situation and one’s 
responses to it. In the Lazarus–  Folkman 
model, people do not always respond to 
stressful encounters in a reflexive, auto -
matic way. Rather, they often weigh various 
options and consider the consequences of 
those options before acting, via secondary 
appraisals. Decisions about how to cope de -
pend in part on confidence or doubt about 
the usefulness of a given response. Thus, is -
sues of confidence and doubt, as well as the 
disruption of intended behavior, are embed -
ded in this model.
Conservation of  Resources
Another view on the experience of stress, de -
veloped by Hobfoll (1989), begins with the 