What are the Three Levels of Coping? Lazarus and Folkman Model Explained

Understanding the Lazarus and Folkman Coping Model

The Lazarus and Folkman coping model outlines three levels of coping that people utilize when faced with stress. Developed by psychologists Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman, this model aims to explain how we respond to difficult life events and challenges.

Problem-Focused Coping

The first level is problem-focused coping, which involves taking active steps to address the stressor and change the situation. For example, making a plan of action, seeking information and resources, or acquiring skills. This direct approach works best for controllable problems.

Emotion-Focused Coping

The second level is emotion-focused coping. This involves regulating your emotional responses and managing distressing feelings about the situation. Strategies like meditation, exercising, or seeking emotional support from others fall into this category. This indirect approach works well for uncontrollable problems.

Meaning-Focused Coping

The third level is meaning-focused coping, which entails changing your perspective and finding purpose or meaning in the stressful event. This might involve reinterpreting the stressor more positively, seeing benefits, or aligning it with your beliefs and values. This deeper approach helps with acceptance.

Coping Flexibly and Adaptively

The Lazarus and Folkman model emphasizes that coping is a process that changes over time as we gain resources and perspective. Coping flexibly across these levels helps us manage challenging situations adaptively and promotes wellbeing.

The Cognitive Appraisal Process: The Engine Behind Coping

To fully grasp the Lazarus and Folkman model, one must look beneath the three levels of coping to the engine that drives them: cognitive appraisal. This is the subjective process through which an individual evaluates whether an encounter with the environment is relevant to their well-being and, if so, in what way. Lazarus and Folkman divided this into two distinct stages: primary and secondary appraisal. Primary appraisal is the initial evaluation of a situation. When a person encounters a potential stressor, they subconsciously ask, “Is this a threat to my goals, my values, or my health?” They categorize the event as either irrelevant, benign-positive, or stressful. If categorized as stressful, the individual further distinguishes if it represents a ‘harm/loss’ (damage already done), a ‘threat’ (potential for future damage), or a ‘challenge’ (opportunity for growth despite the risk).

Secondary appraisal occurs almost simultaneously and involves an assessment of one’s resources and options. Here, the individual asks, “What can I do about this?” and “Will my efforts be successful?” This stage is not about the stressor itself, but about the person’s perceived ability to manage it. The interaction between these two appraisals determines the intensity of the stress response and dictates which of the three levels of coping will be initiated. For instance, if a person views a work deadline as a ‘challenge’ and believes they have the technical skills to meet it (high secondary appraisal), they are far more likely to engage in robust problem-focused coping. Conversely, if they view it as a ‘threat’ and feel their skills are lacking, they may spiral into emotion-focused coping to manage the resulting anxiety.

A critical, often overlooked aspect of this model is ‘reappraisal.’ This is a feedback loop where the person constantly re-evaluates the situation based on the results of their coping efforts. If a problem-focused strategy fails, the individual might reappraise the situation as uncontrollable, shifting their efforts toward emotion-focused or meaning-focused levels. This dynamic nature shows that coping is not a one-time reaction but a continuous transaction between the individual and their environment. Understanding this cycle allows individuals to recognize that their first reaction to stress isn’t permanent; by changing their appraisal of a situation, they can intentionally shift their coping strategy to a more effective level.

Advanced Problem-Focused Tactics: Instrumental Support and Resource Acquisition

While basic problem-focused coping involves making a plan, advanced application requires a sophisticated understanding of ‘instrumental support’ and ‘resource acquisition.’ Instrumental support is a subset of problem-focused coping where the individual seeks out tangible assistance to solve the problem. This differs from emotional support; it is not about being comforted, but about obtaining the tools, money, or labor needed to remove the stressor. For example, if a homeowner is stressed by a leaking roof, seeking instrumental support involves hiring a contractor or borrowing a ladder from a neighbor. In a professional context, it might mean delegating tasks to a subordinate or requesting a budget increase to hire a consultant. The effectiveness of this strategy relies heavily on the individual’s social capital and their ability to clearly communicate their needs without letting ego or shame interfere.

Resource acquisition is the proactive side of problem-focused coping. It involves identifying the ‘skill gaps’ that make a stressor difficult to manage and taking steps to fill them. If a person is stressed by financial instability, a resource-acquisition strategy might involve enrolling in a financial literacy course or learning a new high-demand skill to increase earning potential. This level of coping requires a high degree of ‘metacognition’—the ability to think about one’s own thinking and recognize where personal limitations are exacerbating the stressor. It is often the most sustainable form of coping because it doesn’t just manage the current problem; it prevents similar problems from arising in the future.

However, there is an ‘edge case’ known as the ‘controllability fit’ hypothesis. Problem-focused coping is highly effective when the stressor is objectively controllable. But when individuals apply these tactics to uncontrollable situations—such as trying to ‘fix’ a terminal illness or ‘manage’ a partner’s personality—they often experience ‘compensatory stress.’ This occurs when the failure of problem-focused efforts creates a secondary layer of frustration and helplessness. In these instances, the most adaptive move is to recognize the limits of problem-focused coping and transition into emotion-focused or meaning-focused strategies. Learning to distinguish between what can be changed and what must be endured is the hallmark of a mature coper.

The Nuances of Emotion-Focused Regulation: Distinguishing Healthy Regulation from Avoidance

Emotion-focused coping is frequently misunderstood as merely ‘feeling better,’ but it encompasses a wide spectrum of strategies ranging from highly adaptive to deeply maladaptive. At the adaptive end of the spectrum is ’emotional processing’ and ’emotional expression.’ Processing involves an active attempt to acknowledge, explore, and understand one’s emotions. Instead of just feeling ‘bad,’ a person might work to identify that they are specifically feeling ‘betrayed’ or ‘undervalued.’ This clarity reduces the overwhelming nature of the stressor. Expression, on the other hand, involves the intentional release of these emotions through journals, art, or conversation. When done correctly, this prevents ’emotional flooding,’ where a person becomes so overwhelmed by feelings that they can no longer function or think clearly.

A more complex version of emotion-focused coping is ‘distancing.’ While it sounds like avoidance, distancing can be a strategic tool. It involves consciously putting a problem ‘on the shelf’ to prevent burnout. For example, a surgeon might use distancing to separate their personal feelings from a difficult operation to maintain precision. The key distinction between strategic distancing and maladaptive avoidance (like denial or substance use) is intentionality and duration. Strategic distancing is temporary and used to preserve cognitive resources, whereas maladaptive avoidance is a permanent flight from reality that allows the underlying problem to worsen.

Another sophisticated emotion-focused strategy is ‘positive reinterpretation.’ This is not ‘toxic positivity’ or ignoring the bad; rather, it is the act of looking at a stressful situation and intentionally identifying any potential benefits or silver linings. For instance, a person who lost their job might use positive reinterpretation to see the event as a forced opportunity to pursue a career path they were previously too afraid to try. This doesn’t change the fact that they are unemployed (the problem), but it regulates the paralyzing fear associated with it, potentially freeing up the mental energy needed to eventually engage in problem-focused job hunting. By managing the internal emotional landscape, emotion-focused coping creates the stability required for all other forms of action.

Meaning-Focused Coping: Existential Reappraisal and Post-Traumatic Growth

Meaning-focused coping is often considered the ‘deepest’ level of the Lazarus and Folkman model because it addresses the core of an individual’s identity and belief system. It is particularly relevant in the face of ‘high-magnitude’ stressors—events that are uncontrollable and life-altering, such as the death of a loved one, a permanent disability, or a natural disaster. In these cases, problem-focused coping is impossible, and emotion-focused coping may only provide temporary relief. Meaning-focused coping works by transforming the stressor into a narrative that fits within the person’s ‘global meaning’—their overarching beliefs about the world and their place in it.

One primary technique here is ‘benefit finding.’ This involves identifying how a tragedy has led to personal growth, increased empathy, or strengthened relationships. Research into ‘Post-Traumatic Growth’ (PTG) shows that individuals who successfully employ meaning-focused coping often report a greater appreciation for life, more intimate social connections, and a shift in priorities toward more meaningful pursuits. For example, a cancer survivor might find meaning by becoming a patient advocate, turning their suffering into a tool for helping others. This doesn’t make the cancer ‘good,’ but it gives the experience a purpose that makes the pain more bearable.

Another aspect of this level is ‘existential reappraisal.’ This occurs when a stressor is so severe that it shatters a person’s previous worldview (e.g., “the world is a fair place”). Meaning-focused coping involves the painful but necessary work of rebuilding a new, more resilient worldview that can accommodate the existence of the stressor. This might involve spiritual or philosophical shifts, such as moving from a belief in ‘karma’ to a belief in ‘grace’ or ‘resilience.’ This level of coping is highly correlated with long-term psychological health because it prevents the ‘existential vacuum’—the feeling of pointlessness that often follows major trauma. By anchoring the stressor in a larger context, the individual ensures that the event defines a chapter of their life, rather than the entire book.

Interpersonal and Dyadic Coping: The Social Dimension of the Lazarus Model

While the original Lazarus and Folkman model focuses heavily on the individual’s internal process, modern expansions emphasize that coping is rarely a solitary act. ‘Interpersonal coping’ involves how we use our social network to manage stress. This goes beyond just ‘getting help’; it involves the complex dance of ‘social support seeking.’ There is a vital distinction between ‘perceived support’ (the belief that others will be there if needed) and ‘received support’ (the actual help provided). Interestingly, studies often show that perceived support is a stronger predictor of mental health than received support. This suggests that the mere knowledge of a safety net changes our primary appraisal of a stressor, making it seem less threatening from the outset.

‘Dyadic coping’ is a specific form of interpersonal coping that occurs within close relationships, such as between romantic partners or a parent and child. When one person is stressed, the other’s reaction can either amplify or dampen that stress. ‘Positive dyadic coping’ involves common efforts to solve a problem (problem-focused) or mutual empathy (emotion-focused). Conversely, ‘negative dyadic coping’ involves ‘protective buffering’—where one person hides their stress to avoid upsetting the other—or ‘over-protection,’ which can undermine the stressed person’s sense of self-efficacy. Effective dyadic coping requires high levels of ‘relational maintenance,’ ensuring that the communication channels remain open so that the couple can appraise and tackle stressors as a single unit.

There is also ‘communal coping,’ which occurs when a group of people (a family, a neighborhood, or a cultural group) views a stressor as ‘our’ problem rather than ‘my’ problem. This collective appraisal allows for a massive mobilization of resources that no single individual could manage. For example, after a community-wide disaster, communal coping involves shared rituals, collective labor, and mutual emotional support. This social dimension highlights that our ability to cope is not just a function of our personality, but also of the health and robustness of our social ecosystems. Building strong, reciprocal relationships is, in itself, a long-term coping strategy that pays dividends when crises inevitably occur.

Proactive Coping: Managing Stress Before It Happens

A significant evolution of the coping literature involves ‘proactive coping,’ a concept that expands on the Lazarus and Folkman model by looking at the timeline of stress. While traditional coping is ‘reactive’ (it happens after the stressor appears), proactive coping involves building up resources and planning for potential stressors that haven’t happened yet. This is the psychological equivalent of ‘preventative medicine.’ It involves five stages: resource accumulation, recognizing potential stressors, initial appraisal, preliminary coping efforts, and eliciting feedback about those efforts. By engaging in proactive coping, individuals can often prevent a potential stressor from ever becoming a full-blown crisis.

Resource accumulation is the most critical stage of proactive coping. This isn’t just about money; it’s about ‘psychological capital.’ This includes developing high self-esteem, a strong sense of self-efficacy, and a robust social network during times of relative peace. When a person is not currently under high stress, they have the cognitive bandwidth to learn new skills, cultivate hobbies that provide emotional regulation (like exercise or meditation), and strengthen their relationships. These resources act as a ‘buffer’ or a ‘reservoir.’ When a stressor finally hits, the individual doesn’t start from zero; they have a pre-existing toolkit to draw from, which significantly alters their secondary appraisal of the situation.

Proactive coping also involves ‘scanning’ the environment for early warning signs. For example, a proactive coper might notice a slight change in the economy and begin saving more money or updating their resume immediately, rather than waiting for a layoff. This early intervention is almost always more effective and less emotionally taxing than reactive coping. However, the challenge of proactive coping is that it requires ‘delayed gratification’ and a high degree of foresight. It can be difficult to motivate oneself to ‘cope’ with a problem that doesn’t exist yet. Cultivating a proactive mindset involves shifting one’s perspective from seeing stress as an intruder to seeing it as an inevitable part of life for which one can—and should—be prepared.

Barriers to Flexibility: Cognitive Distortions and Maladaptive Coping Cycles

The Lazarus and Folkman model emphasizes ‘coping flexibility’—the ability to switch between problem, emotion, and meaning-focused levels as the situation demands. However, many people find themselves ‘stuck’ in one mode, even when it is clearly failing. This rigidity is often caused by ‘cognitive distortions,’ which are biased ways of thinking that interfere with accurate appraisal. For example, ‘catastrophizing’ (expecting the worst-case scenario) can make a minor stressor seem so overwhelming that the person skips problem-focused coping entirely and collapses into paralyzed emotion-focused coping. Similarly, ‘black-and-white thinking’ can prevent meaning-focused coping because the individual cannot see any middle ground where growth can coexist with pain.

Another barrier is the ‘maladaptive coping cycle.’ This occurs when a person uses a short-term emotion-focused strategy that unintentionally makes the original problem worse. A classic example is ‘procrastination.’ Procrastination is actually a form of emotion-focused coping; the person feels anxiety about a task, so they avoid the task to regulate that anxiety. However, as the deadline approaches, the problem (the task) becomes more urgent, which increases the anxiety, leading to more avoidance. This creates a self-reinforcing loop of stress. Breaking this cycle requires ‘metacognitive awareness’—the ability to step back and realize that the current coping strategy is the actual source of the increasing stress.

Cultural and familial conditioning also play a massive role in coping rigidity. Some individuals are raised in environments where expressing emotion is seen as a weakness, leading them to over-rely on problem-focused coping even when they are facing uncontrollable grief. Others may come from backgrounds that emphasize fatalism, leading them to rely solely on meaning-focused coping (e.g., “it’s just God’s will”) while neglecting practical steps they could take to improve their situation. Developing coping flexibility involves identifying these ‘default settings’ and intentionally practicing the levels of coping that feel less natural. It involves the realization that a ‘good’ coper isn’t someone who never feels stress, but someone who has a diverse ‘portfolio’ of responses and the wisdom to know which one to use at any given moment.

FAQ

What are the three levels of coping?

The three levels are problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, and meaning-focused coping.

What type of coping is most effective?

There is no universally “best” coping strategy. Effectiveness depends on fit with the controllability of the stressor and a flexible use of different strategies over time.

How can coping help mental health?

Coping helps us tolerate and minimize distress, continue functioning, and find meaning. This protects mental health when faced with crises or adversity in life.

What are some examples of emotion-focused coping?

Examples include exercising, meditation, humor, seeking emotional support, relaxation techniques, acceptance, positive reinterpretation of the situation.

How do you develop meaning-focused coping?

Strategies include benefit finding, redefining the stressor through a lens of your values, understanding larger purpose through spiritual beliefs, and seeing opportunity for personal growth.