Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress.

The study of stress and coping points to two concepts central to an understanding of the response to trauma: approach and avoidance. This pair of concepts refers to two basic modes of coping with stress. Approach and avoidance are simply metaphors for cognitive and emotional activity that is oriented either toward or away from threat. An approach-avoidance model of coping is presented in the context of contemporary theoretical ap- proaches to coping. The research literature on coping ef- fectiveness, including evidence from our laboratory, is dis- cussed, and speculations are made about the implications for future research. The study of stress and coping has become quite popular in recent years, particularly in regard to traumatic life events. Although the area is broad and the coping process is complex, there is a striking coherence in much of the literature. This coherence is based on two concepts central to an understanding of coping with trauma: approach and avoidance. In its simplest form, this pair of concepts refers to two basic orientations toward stressful infor- mation, or two basic modes of coping with stress. Ap- proach and avoidance are shorthand terms for the cog- nitive and emotional activity that is oriented either toward or away from threat. In this article we will present the case for utilizing the concepts of approach and avoidance to provide a co- herent theoretical structure to our understanding of cop- ing with stress. Several different formulations of the ap- proach-avoidance dimension will be reviewed, followed by a brief review of the coping effectiveness literature. Several studies from our laboratory will be used to illus- trate the relationship between coping and outcome. Fi- nally, a general approach-avoidance model of coping will be presented, with suggestions for further research to cor- roborate or extend the theory. The study of coping with stress has been split into two areas: anticipation of future stressful events and re- covery from trauma. These areas have been kept re- markably distinct in both theory and research on coping. Although there are clearly important differences between the two cases, we have chosen not to emphasize this dis- tinction. For any given stress, anticipation and recovery are not always clearly separable; dealing with a trauma involves coming to terms with the event itself and with the threat of recurrence in the future. More important, Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Susan