{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020350877192982456, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.868312757201646, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Coping theory and research: past, present, and future.

In this essay in honor of Donald Oken, I emphasize coping as a key concept for theory and research on adaptation and health. My focus will be the contrasts between two approaches to coping, one that emphasizes style—that is, it treats coping as a personality characteristic—and another that emphasizes process—that is, efforts to manage stress that change over time and are shaped by the adaptational context out of which it is generated. I begin with an account of the style and process approaches, discuss their history briefly, set forth the principles of a process approach, describe my own efforts at measurement, and define coping and its functions from a process standpoint. This is followed by a digest of major generalizations that resulted from coping process research. The essay concludes with a discussion of special issues of coping measurement, in particular, the limitations of both coping style and process approaches and how these limitations might be dealt with. There has been a prodigious volume of coping research in the last decade or two, which I can only touch on very selectively. In this essay, I also ignore a host of important developmental issues that have to do with the emergence of coping and its cognitive and motivational bases in infants, as well as a growing literature on whether, how, and why the coping process changes with aging.