Communal coping is the collective effort of members of a connected network (familial or social) to manage a distressing event (Lyons, Michelson, Sullivan and Coyne, 1998). This definition and the scope of the concept positions communal coping as an offshoot of social support. According to Lyons et al. (1998), the communal coping conceptual framework emerged for two reasons. First, to expand the research that supports the claim that the coping process sometimes requires individual and collective effort (e.g. Fukuyama, 1995). Second, the need for a specific framework for investigating the cooperative characteristic of coping. To support the need for a framework which explores the social aspect of coping as a combined effort, the authors argued that the communal coping conceptual framework emphasizes the connectedness and reliance on personal network for coping. Developments to the communal coping framework include the explanation of the complex nature of the communal coping process (Afifi, Helgeson & Krouse, 2006) and specific personal outcomes (Helgeson, Jakubiak, Vleet, & Zajdel, 2018) following a communal coping process.
Lyons et al. (1998) introduced the communal coping framework. The first model Lyons et al. (1998) proposed mainly distinguished between communal coping and existing perception of coping as an individualistic or prosocial process. Also, the model provided a lens for examining other aspects of coping such as the benefits, cost and influential factors. Afifi, Hutchinson, and Krouse (2006) noted some of the achievements of the model is that it accounts for the relational process within coping and shifts the focus of researchers from treating the phenomenon as mainly a psychological process but also a relational or communication.
However, despite the contributions of the model to the coping research, some questions still need an answer and a couple of research challenges remained unaddressed. For instance, Afifi et al. (2006) noted some researchers confused the process of communal coping for collective coping, types, provision and seeking of social support. The scholars attributed the lack of conceptualization of communal coping as one of the factors responsible for the confusion. To address this gap in research and advance the existing model by Lyon's and colleagues, Afifi et al. proposed a theoretical framework. The scholars anticipated the model will serve as a template for measuring communal coping.
The goals for designing the new model were specifically to understand the communal coping process within naturally occurring groups (e.g. postdivorce families). Through the new model, Afifi et al. (2006) attempted to (a) provide a description of the complexities that characterize relying on other people to cope with a stressful event; (b) expand the discourse on the dynamic and interactive nature of the coping process; (c) explore the various factors that contribute to stressors within groups; (d) identify how characteristics of the group such as its structure, the beliefs, norms, and perspectives of its members are likely to influence the coping process and; (e) examine how context, source, and nature of the stressor impact the coping process. The refinement of the model addressed the problems Lyon and colleagues’ model could not account for. Nonetheless, one question remained unanswered ‘how does communal coping influence coping outcome?'. Thereby still leaving a gap in research. Helgeson, Jakubiak, Vleet, and Zajdel (2018) attempted to fill this gap by proposing a model that acknowledges the adjustment process and outcome of communal coping.
Similar to prior models, Helgeson et al’s (2018) framework identified supportive communication as a significant aspect of communal coping that is linked to individual adjustment to a stressor (e.g. illness). A core tenet within the model is that communication enhances coping outcomes. In this vein, Helgeson et al’s model purports the outcomes of communal coping for stressed individuals include (a) a high sense of control over the stressor; (b) perception of the stressor as less stressful; (c) enhanced feeling of self- regulatory capacity and (d) experiencing quality relationships.
Components of communal coping
The existing research on coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) served as a backdrop for the development of the communal coping framework. Zimmer-Gembeck and Skinner (2009, p. 333) defined coping as “how people of all ages mobilize, guide, manage, coordinate, energize, modulate, and direct their behavior, emotion, and orientation (or how they fail to do so) during stressful encounters”. From this definition, one can infer coping researchers consider the management of a stressor as an individual effort. In addition, despite the significant contribution of coping studies to empirical knowledge in research areas such as coping resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1980) and maintaining these resources (Hobbfall, 1989) it is still important to understand how collective coping efforts could make a difference in coping outcome of collective stressors such as the death of a breadwinner, natural disasters, environmental hazards, and epidemics. During these kinds of events, the desire to cope may not necessarily be for self-interest but the preservation of existing relationships and promoting the wellbeing of others that are affected. In these cases, collectively coping as part of a community or family supersedes individual effort to manage the distress. In this vein, Lyons et al. (1998) suggested the components of communal coping are salient and activated in such situations where at least one person treats the distressing event as ‘our problem’. Therefore, the components of the communal coping process require a communal coping orientation, communication about the stressor and cooperative action to address the stressor.
The components of communal coping may be defined as active steps towards achieving a positive coping outcome as part of a social unit. Lyons et al. (1998) proposed these active steps begin with one person adopting a communal orientation about how to manage the distressing event. The outcome of this action is the individuals involve share a mutual understanding of how to manage and overcome the stressor as a social unit versus ‘your problem’ where a specific individual is responsible for managing and overcoming the stressor. The actualization of this first step largely depends on and is completed through communication. In other words, the individuals involved need to communicate about the stressor.
Communication allows for a conversation about the situation, circumstances, and likely solutions. The conversations at this point may be controlled by the individual experiencing the stressor to inform members of their network who are willing to share responsibility for the stressor on how the issue should be addressed. Or, the conversation may be controlled by members of the personal network of the individual experiencing the stressor to negotiate their involvement in how to manage the stress. Irrespective of the direction the communication takes, the primary goal is to share a common sense of responsibility for the stressor as “our problem” among the people involved.
The outcome of the first two steps le toad the emergence of a sense of cooperative action. At this point, everyone works cooperatively to create strategies for alleviating the problem or stressor. Given that there is a likelihood for the processes of the three components of communal coping to unfold differently across situations and for affected individuals, it is not unusual to find differences in communal coping styles. Some of the factors responsible for these differences include the sense of obligation experienced by the connected individuals (Stack 1974) or compassion for others (Nussbam, 1990); the type and purpose of the relationship as well as the characteristics of the individual in the leadership role and personalities of members within the communal coping network (Lyon et al. 1998). However, despite these differences in coping styles, communal coping is beneficial for the management of and recovery from a distressing event
Influences on communal coping
Lyon et al. (1998) suggested four factors that influence how people use communal coping – situation, cultural context, characteristics of the personal relationship and sex. For instance, in a study on the role of marriage on health behaviors, Lewis, McBride, Pollak et al. (2006) discovered the transformation of motivation influenced how one chooses to help the other cope through a stressor. The scholars argued that in the case of romantic relationships, one partner's mere realization that a stressor (e.g. health treat) poses a danger to relationship quality could motivate the need for communal coping.
In addition, the perceived salience of communal coping within certain situations is defined by the severity of the stressor. Therefore, the ways individuals define the severity of a problem are likely dependent on (a) the priority or relevance attached to the problem (b) if they are directly or indirectly affected and (c) the decision whether to employ an individual or collective coping strategy. In this vein, following their studies on communal coping within postdivorce families, Afifi, Hutchinson, and Krouse (2006, p.399) argued the “specific demands or requirement of a stressor” influence the communal coping process.
The cultural context in which the distressing event occur also influence the salience of communal coping in alleviating the stressor. The concepts of collectivism and individualism are often used in cultural comparative studies about a phenomenon. Cultures that promote group interest (collectivist cultures) over personal goals (individualist culture) are more likely to invest in communal coping (see Bryer, 1986). Given that culture is a way of life, it reflects in the performance of our relationships such as how we define close relationships and depend on these relationships (Lyons et al., 1998). Therefore, one can conclude that relationships in which strong relational ties exist will perhaps guarantee better performance of communal coping than relationships without strong relational ties.
Moreover, the language of the affected individual also influences the coping process. Researchers (e.g. Rohrbaugh, Shoham, Skoyen, Jensen, and Mehl, 2012) labeled communal coping language as ‘we – talk’. In their studies of addiction and cessation (cigarette and alcohol) due to health threats, Rohrbaugh and colleagues discovered the pronoun used by couples in their study influenced the communal coping outcomes. In the cases where couples defined the addiction as “our problem” versus “your problem” or “my problem”, there were implicit adaptive problem-solving outcomes.
Lastly, gender roles influence the performance of communal coping. Wells, Hobfoll and Lavin (1997) suggested the multiple roles some women take on tend to result in stressors. However, Women tend to be the fervent giver of social support making members of this gender community an active performer in the communal coping process (Vaux 1985, Bem 1993). Lyon et al. (1998) noted women's tendency to give social support to others supersedes receiving support as maintaining relationship quality is important for this group. The downside to this sense of responsibility is women manage and overcome their stressor alone which take an emotional and psychological toll.
Benefits of communal coping
Adapting the communal coping strategy after a distressing event is beneficial for the coping process itself, the self and relationships (Afifi, Helgeson & Krouse, 2006). As a beneficial strategy for the coping process communal coping holds the potential to allow connected individuals to increase their resources and ability to deal with the situation. For example, a single stressful event may require reliance on other people or the exploration of others’ financial resources to cope with the situation.
Another significant benefit of communal coping as a coping strategy is the facilitation of emotional social support which in turn facilitates psychological wellbeing. Individuals who can share their emotional distress with others are less likely to experience depression and burnout (Williamson & Shultz, 1990)or commit suicide (LaSalle, 1995).
Under certain circumstances, the constant encouragement of communal coping among connected individuals promotes a likelihood of consistent availability of social support. In these cases, communal coping may serve as a form of long-term investment. The last two statements are not intended to categorize communal coping and social support as the same phenomenon but rather to argue that the former creates a conducive social and relational climate for the later. According to Lyons et al. (1998), some of the long-term investments of communal coping may result in rewards such as food and money.
Moreover, in the event of a common disaster such as earthquakes and wars, communal coping allows the people involved to experience a sense of ‘solidarity’ or a feeling of ‘I am not the only victim’. This realization promotes mutual disclosure among all the affected individuals, a behavior found to buffer stress as well as ameliorate negative feelings and concerns (Pennebaker & Haber, 1993). In their study on how the process of communal coping unfolds after social support resources have diminished, Richardson and Maninger (2016) discovered that a sense of mutuality and shared problem increased.
Taken together, there is enough evidence that communal coping has a significant impact on relationships. These impacts are evident in the development and maintenance of relationships; the desire or obligation to cater to the wellbeing of others and the collective good (Lyon et al., 1998). Perhaps, in well-established relationships, communal coping is likely to strengthen relationship characteristics such as trust. For instance, the confidence that people within a connected network will exchange support during or after a distressing situation promotes a sense of dependence which may improve the quality of a relationship.
Lyons and colleagues argued the actualization of relationship development and maintenance regarding relational trust or improving relationship quality emerge from a sense of compassion (empathy-driven) or obligation (responsibility – driven) towards the wellbeing of others in the relationship. Although empathy-driven and obligation – driven motives are distinct based on the type of relational tie, in most cases the end goal is for the collective good.
The benefits of communal coping described to this point focus on the intention to meet the emotional need of others during a stressful life event. However, the self can also benefit from participating in the process. There is a likelihood for the person offering empathy-driven or obligation – driven support to experience a sense of fulfillment. Lyons et al. (1998) used social integration and excitement to explain self-benefits of communal coping. In their explanation of social integration as a benefit of communal coping, Lyons et al. noted people who consider themselves resourceful in the coping process of others consider themselves competent, valued, loved and indispensable. In the same vein, communal coping fosters a sense of togetherness and cooperation. Excitement usually results from a sense of togetherness and cooperation that yield positive results.
Given that people and resources such as money, time and goods are exchanged in the process of communal coping during certain stressful events, there is a likelihood for some of the individuals involved to experience discomfort. Lyons et al. (1998) alluded to this discomfort as costs of communal coping.
Costs of communal coping
A significant characteristic of communal coping is 'dependency'. Cultural (collectivism versus individualism) and social factors play into how we expect others to depend on us and how much we are willing to depend on others. Communal coping will perhaps be perceived as a cost in situations where there is a lack of mutual understanding and expectation within a social unit consisting of members experiencing a common or personal stressful event. In such instances, Lyon et al. [1] noted individuals in the social unit will need to deal with issues such as equity and individual-adaptation.
The equity problem arises from a lack of agreement or existing social norms on the expectation of individual efforts channeled towards communal coping. In a comparison of gender roles after a distressing event, women specifically wives and mothers were expected to hold higher responsibility for helping others manage and recover from a stressor.[2] More so, given that communal coping requires significant reliance on other people, individuals who are used to this style of coping during or after a stressful event may experience trouble adapting to a situation or circumstance in the absence of someone to rely on. There is evidence for this in studies [3] about how people embedded in a strong community experience difficulty after a change of location for the pursuit of life goals.
One drastic consequence of communal coping is the possibility of stress contagion to occur. In this case, rather than working towards alleviating the stressor, connected individuals wallow in negative emotions and feelings. This behavior escalates old and fosters new stressors for all the people involved.[4] These factor provide evidence that the communal coping process follows a complicated pattern likely to yield contradictory results. Even more, some complex factors influence how people use communal coping. The complex nature of these factors is evident in how they are not universal or consistent.
Concept application
The communal coping framework is relatively new and there has not been much variation in the context to which the concept has been applied. Mickelson, Lyons, Sullivan and Coyne (2001) argue for the need to apply the communal coping conceptual framework to less collective stressors such as recovery from natural disaster (e.g. Richardson & Maninger, 2018) to more individualistic stressors such as job loss and illness (e.g. Vleet, Helgeson, Seltman, Korytwoski, Hausmann, 2018). Scholars who have attempted to apply the communal coping framework to context outside of illness and natural disaster have looked at the concept in relation to relational transgression (Pederson & Faw, 2019); the experience of athletes and members of their family (Nelly, McHugh, Dun & Holt, 2017) and; the experience of refugees ( Afifi, Afifi, Merill & Nimah, 2016).
Concept critique
The communal coping framework is very dynamic in the sense that it can be applied to distinct research contexts yet facilitate empirical and general knowledge that aligns with the tenets of its models. This strength also lies in the weakness of the framework. Some scholars within the distinct field to which the concept has been applied propose models for communal coping with little to significant variations. For instance, Lyons and colleagues (1998) from the field of psychology proposed the first model. Their model served as a backdrop for the emergence of other models from experts in communication (Afifi, Helgeson & Krouse, 2006); sociology and anthropology (Helgeson, Jakubiak, Vleet, & Zajdel, 2018). Keefe, LeFevbre, Egert, et al. (2000) also advocated for a communal coping model of pain catastrophizing. With the growth in the application of the conceptual framework, it might be beneficial to consider developing a model for studying the phenomenon that can be used across all fields or areas of research. A probable benefit of this suggestion is the promotion of jointly agreed conceptualization of the communal coping phenomenon.
Related Research Articles
A mental disorder is an impairment of the mind disrupting normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, or social interactions, and accompanied by significant distress or dysfunction. The causes of mental disorders are very complex and vary depending on the particular disorder and the individual. Although the causes of most mental disorders are not fully understood, researchers have identified a variety of biological, psychological, and environmental factors that can contribute to the development or progression of mental disorders. Most mental disorders result in a combination of several different factors rather than just a single factor.
A relationship breakup, breakup, or break-up is the termination of a relationship. The act is commonly termed "dumping [someone]" in slang when it is initiated by one partner. The term is less likely to be applied to a married couple, where a breakup is typically called a separation or divorce. When a couple engaged to be married breaks up, it is typically called a "broken engagement". People commonly think of breakups in a romantic aspect, however, there are also non-romantic and platonic breakups, and this type of relationship dissolution is usually caused by failure to maintain a friendship.
Equity theory focuses on determining whether the distribution of resources is fair to both relational partners. Equity is measured by comparing the ratio of contributions and benefits for each person. Considered one of the justice theories, equity theory was first developed in the 1960s by J. Stacy Adams, a workplace and behavioral psychologist, who asserted that employees seek to maintain equity between the inputs that they bring to a job and the outcomes that they receive from it against the perceived inputs and outcomes of others. According to Equity Theory, in order to maximize individuals' rewards, we tend to create systems where resources can be fairly divided amongst members of a group. Inequalities in relationships will cause those within it to be unhappy to a degree proportional to the amount of inequality. The belief is that people value fair treatment which causes them to be motivated to keep the fairness maintained within the relationships of their co-workers and the organization. The structure of equity in the workplace is based on the ratio of inputs to outcomes. Inputs are the contributions made by the employee for the organization.
Coping refers to conscious strategies used to reduce unpleasant emotions. Coping strategies can be cognitions or behaviours and can be individual or social.
Social support is the perception and actuality that one is cared for, has assistance available from other people, and most popularly, that one is part of a supportive social network. These supportive resources can be emotional, informational, or companionship ; tangible or intangible. Social support can be measured as the perception that one has assistance available, the actual received assistance, or the degree to which a person is integrated in a social network. Support can come from many sources, such as family, friends, pets, neighbors, coworkers, organizations, etc.
Psychological resilience is the ability to cope mentally or emotionally with a crisis or to return to pre-crisis status quickly. The term was coined in the 1970s by a psychologist named Emmy E. Werner as she conducted a forty year long study of a cohort of Hawaiian children who came from low, socioeconomical back grounds. Resilience exists when the person uses "mental processes and behaviors in promoting personal assets and protecting self from the potential negative effects of stressors". In simpler terms, psychological resilience exists in people who develop psychological and behavioral capabilities that allow them to remain calm during crises/chaos and to move on from the incident without long-term negative consequences. A lot of criticism of this topic comes from the fact that it is difficult to measure and test this psychological construct because resiliency can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Most psychological paradigms have their own perspective of what resilience looks like, where it comes from, and how it can be developed. Despite numerous definitions of psychological resilience, most of these definitions center around two concepts: adversity and positive adaptation. Many psychologists agree that positive emotions, social support, and hardiness can influence an individual to become more resilient.
Appraisal theory is the theory in psychology that emotions are extracted from our evaluations of events that cause specific reactions in different people. Essentially, our appraisal of a situation causes an emotional, or affective, response that is going to be based on that appraisal. An example of this is going on a first date. If the date is perceived as positive, one might feel happiness, joy, giddiness, excitement, and/or anticipation, because they have appraised this event as one that could have positive long-term effects, i.e. starting a new relationship, engagement, or even marriage. On the other hand, if the date is perceived negatively, then our emotions, as a result, might include dejection, sadness, emptiness, or fear. Reasoning and understanding of one's emotional reaction becomes important for future appraisals as well. The important aspect of the appraisal theory is that it accounts for individual variability in emotional reactions to the same event.
The Normalization process model is a sociological model, developed by Carl R. May, that describes the adoption of new technologies in health care. The model provides framework for process evaluation using three components – actors, objects, and contexts – that are compared across four constructs: Interactional workability, relational integration, skill-set workability, and contextual integration. This model helped build the Normalization process theory.
In psychology, Posttraumatic growth (PTG) is a concept describing positive psychological change experienced as a result of struggling with highly challenging, highly stressful life circumstances. These circumstances represent significant challenges to the adaptive resources of the individual, and pose significant challenges to the individual's way of understanding the world and their place in it. Posttraumatic growth involves "life-changing" psychological shifts in thinking and relating to the world and the self, that contribute to a personal process of change, that is deeply meaningful.
Cognitive valence theory (CVT) is a theoretical framework that describes and explains the process of intimacy exchange within a dyad relationship. Peter A. Andersen, PhD created the cognitive valence theory to answer questions regarding intimacy relationships among colleagues, close friends and intimate friends, married couples and family members. Intimacy or immediacy behavior is that behavior that provides closeness or distance within a dyad relationship. Closeness projects a positive feeling in a relationship, and distance projects a negative feeling within a relationship. Intimacy or immediacy behavior can be negatively valenced or positively valenced. Valence, associated with physics, is used here to describe the degree of negativity or positivity in expected information. If your partner perceives your actions as negative, then the interaction may repel your partner away from you. If your partner perceives your actions as positive, then the interaction may be accepted and may encourage closeness. Affection and intimacy promotes positive valence in a relationship. CVT uses non-verbal and verbal communications criteria to analyze behavioral situations.
Relational transgressions occur when people violate implicit or explicit relational rules. These transgressions include a wide variety of behaviors. The boundaries of relational transgressions are permeable. Betrayal for example, is often used as a synonym for a relational transgression. In some instances, betrayal can be defined as a rule violation that is traumatic to a relationship, and in other instances as destructive conflict or reference to infidelity.
Social undermining is the expression of negative emotions directed towards a particular person or negative evaluations of the person as a way to prevent the person from achieving their goals.
In psychology, stress is a feeling of emotional strain and pressure. Stress is a type of psychological pain. Small amounts of stress may be beneficial, as it can improve athletic performance, motivation and reaction to the environment. Excessive amounts of stress, however, can increase the risk of strokes, heart attacks, ulcers, and mental illnesses such as depression and also aggravation of a pre-existing condition.
An important part of the heritage of family resilience is the concept of individual psychological resilience which originates from work with children focusing on what helped them become resilient in the face of adversity. Individual resilience emerged primarily in the field of developmental psychopathology as scholars sought to identify the characteristics of children that allowed them to function "OK" after adversity. Individual resilience gradually moved into understanding the processes associated with overcoming adversity, then into prevention and intervention and now focuses on examining how factors at multiple levels of the system and using interdisciplinary approaches promote resilience. Resilience also has origins to the field of positive psychology. The term resilience gradually changed definitions and meanings, from a personality trait to a dynamic process of families, individuals, and communities.
One of the most common ways that people cope with trauma is through the comfort found in religious or spiritual practices. Psychologists of religion have performed multiple studies to measure the positive and negative effects of this coping style. Leading researchers have split religious coping into two categories: positive religious coping and negative religious coping. Individuals who use positive religious coping are likely to seek spiritual support and look for meaning in a traumatic situation. Negative religious coping expresses conflict, question, and doubt regarding issues of God and faith.
Adaptive performance in the work environment refers to adjusting to and understanding change in the workplace. An employee who is versatile is valued and important in the success of an organization. Employers seek employees with high adaptability, due to the positive outcomes that follow, such as excellent work performance, work attitude, and ability to handle stress. Employees, who display high adaptive performance in an organization, tend to have more advantages in career opportunities unlike employees who are not adaptable to change. In previous literature, Pulakos and colleagues established eight dimensions of adaptive performance.
Spirituality affects both mental and physical health outcomes in the general United States population across different ethnic groups. Because of the nuanced definitions of spirituality and religiosity, the literature on spirituality is not consistent in definitions or measures resulting in a lack of coherence. However, taken as a whole, research tends to show that the effect of spirituality is positive, associated with better health outcomes. For those who engage in spirituality, it may serve as a buffer from negative life events, often moderating the relationship between negative life experiences and levels of anxiety or depression. The exception is when negative spiritual coping is practiced. This type of coping has negative health implications.
Emotional approach coping is a psychological construct that involves the use of emotional processing and emotional expression in response to a stressful situation. As opposed to emotional avoidance, in which emotions are experienced as a negative, undesired reaction to a stressful situation, emotional approach coping involves the conscious use of emotional expression and processing to better deal with a stressful situation. The construct was developed to explain an inconsistency in the stress and coping literature: emotion-focused coping was associated with largely maladaptive outcomes while emotional processing and expression was demonstrated to be beneficial.
Self-blame is a cognitive process in which an individual attributes the occurrence of a stressful event to oneself. The direction of blame often has implications for individuals’ emotions and behaviors during and following stressful situations. Self-blame is a common reaction to stressful events and has certain effects on how individuals adapt. Types of self-blame are hypothesized to contribute to depression, and self-blame is a component of self-directed emotions like guilt and self-disgust. Because of self-blame's commonality in response to stress and its role in emotion, self-blame should be examined using psychology's perspectives on stress and coping. This article will attempt to give an overview of the contemporary study on self-blame in psychology.
The Vulnerability Stress Adaptation (VSA) Model is a framework for conceptualizing the dynamic processes of marriage, created by Benjamin Karney and Thomas Bradbury. The VSA Model emphasizes the consideration of multiple dimensions of functioning, including couple members’ enduring vulnerabilities, experiences of stressful events, and adaptive processes, to account for variations in marital quality and stability over time. The VSA model was a departure from past research considering any one of these themes separately as a contributor to marital outcomes, and integrated these separate factors into a single, cohesive framework in order to best explain how and why marriages change over time. In adherence with the VSA model, in order to achieve a complete understanding of marital phenomenon, research must consider all dimensions of marital functioning, including enduring vulnerabilities, stress, and adaptive processes simultaneously.
↑ Fiske, Veronica; Coyne, James C.; Smith, David A. (1991). "Couples coping with myocardial infarction: An empirical reconsideration of the role of overprotectiveness". Journal of Family Psychology. 5 (1): 4–20. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.5.1.4. ISSN0893-3200.
↑ "The relationship of self-concept and social support to emotional distress among women during the wall". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.
Further reading
Afifi, T. D., Afifi, W. A., Merrill, A. F., & Nimah, N. (2016). ‘Fractured communities’: uncertainty, stress, and (a lack of) communal coping in Palestinian refugee camps. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 44(4), 343-361 doi:10.1080/00909882.2016.1225166
Afifi, T. D., Hutchinson, S., & Krouse, S. (2006). Toward a theoretical model of communal coping in postdivorce families and other naturally occurring groups. Communication Theory, 16(3), 378–409.
Berg, C. A., Meegan, S. P., & Deviney, F. P. (1998). A social-contextual model of coping with everyday problems across the lifespan. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(2), 239–261.
Coyne, J. C., & Fiske, V. (1992). Couples coping with chronic and catastrophic illness.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity (Vol. 99). New York, NY: Free press.
Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J., & Coyne, J. C. (1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(5), 579–605.
Keefe, F. J., Lefebvre, J. C., Egert, J. R., Affleck, G., Sullivan, M. J., & Caldwell, D. S. (2000). The relationship of gender to pain, pain behavior, and disability in osteoarthritis patients: the role of catastrophizing. Pain, 87(3), 325–334.
Helgeson, V. S., Jakubiak, B., Van Vleet, M., & Zajdel, M. (2018). Communal coping and adjustment to chronic illness: Theory update and evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(2), 170–195.
Hobfoll, S. E., & London, P. (1986). The relationship of self-concept and social support to emotional distress among women during war. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(2), 189–203.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44(3), 513.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. The handbook of behavioral medicine, 282325.
Lewis, M. A., McBride, C. M., Pollak, K. I., Puleo, E., Butterfield, R. M., & Emmons, K. M. (2006). Understanding health behavior change among couples: An interdependence and communal coping approach. Social science & medicine, 62(6), 1369–1380.
Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., Skoyen, J. A., Jensen, M., & Mehl, M. R. (2012). We‐talk, communal coping, and cessation success in a couple‐focused intervention for health‐compromised smokers. Family process, 51(1), 107–121.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1990). Love's knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature. OUP USA.
Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer‐Gembeck, M. J. (2009). Challenges to the developmental study of coping. New directions for child and adolescent development, 2009(124), 5–17.
Pennebaker, J. W., & Harber, K. D. (1993). A social stage model of collective coping: The Loma Prieta earthquake and the Persian Gulf War. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), 125-145
Richardson, B. K., & Maninger, L. (2016). “We were all in the same boat”: An exploratory study of communal coping in disaster recovery. Southern Communication Journal, 81(2), 107–122.
Stack, C. B. (1975). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a black community. Basic Books.
Wells, J. D., Hobfoll, S. E., & Lavin, J. (1997). Resource loss, resource gain, and communal coping during pregnancy among women with multiple roles. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(4), 645–662.
Vaux, A. (1990). An ecological approach to understanding and facilitating social support. Journal of social and personal relationships, 7(4), 507-518
Van Vleet, M., Helgeson, V. S., Seltman, H. J., Korytkowski, M. T., & Hausmann, L. R. (2019). An examination of the communal coping process in recently diagnosed diabetes. Journal of social and personal relationships, 36(4), 1297–1316.
Wellman, B., Carrington, P., & Hall, A. (1983). Networks as personal communities. Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
Williamson, G. M., & Schulz, R. (1990). Relationship orientation, quality of prior relationship, and distress among caregivers of Alzheimer's patients. Psychology and Aging, 5(4), 502.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
