Stress and Coping Theory: Lazarus and Folkman’s Transactional Model

In the fast-paced rhythm of modern life, stress has become a ubiquitous companion, often leading us to the crossroads of challenge and opportunity. The intricate dance between stress and our response to it is a subject of profound importance, shaping not just our daily experiences but also our long-term well-being. This article delves into the heart of stress and coping theory, unraveling the psychological tapestry that dictates how we perceive stressors and marshal our internal and external resources to face them.

From the pioneering work of Lazarus and Folkman to contemporary applications, we explore the dynamic interplay of cognitive appraisals and coping strategies that empower us to navigate life’s tumultuous waters with resilience and poise. Join us as we embark on a journey through the landscape of the human psyche, examining the mechanisms that help us not just survive, but thrive in the face of adversity.

Introduction to Stress and Coping Theory

Stress research has long shown that psychological strain is not confined to the mind. Prolonged or excessive stress affects the body, shaping immune function, cardiovascular health, sleep, mood, and vulnerability to illness. In this sense, stress remains one of psychology’s clearest bridges between mental experience and physical well-being.

Susan Folkman observed that the field of psychological stress, coping, and health is “impressive in its breadth, depth, and complexity,” with researchers studying stress “from the micro levels of the genome and cell to the macro levels of culture and society” (Folkman, 2011).

Within this broad field, Folkman identified two enduring themes: the wear and tear of stress on mental and physical health, and the processes that support well-being and resilience in the face of stress (Folkman, 2011). Stress and coping theory, developed by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman, became one of the most influential frameworks for understanding these themes.

Why This Theory Matters

Stress and coping theory matters because it explains why the same event can overwhelm one person, challenge another, and barely register for someone else. The theory does not locate stress only in the event or only in the person. Instead, it examines the ongoing relationship between demands, meanings, resources, emotions, and coping responses.

Contemporary research continues to support the value of this framework. In a large psychosomatic inpatient sample, Obbarius and colleagues found that perceived stressors and personal resources were strongly associated with stress response, and that stress response was closely related to depressive symptoms (Obbarius et al., 2021). Their findings reinforce one of the central insights of the transactional model: stress cannot be understood by examining external demands alone. The resources a person brings to the encounter—such as self-efficacy, optimism, and coherence—shape how stress is experienced and how damaging it becomes.

History of Stress and Coping Theory

The development of stress and coping theory reflects a broader shift in psychology and medicine: from viewing stress primarily as a biological reaction to understanding it as a dynamic relationship between the person and the environment. Early stress research was strongly shaped by the work of Hans Selye, who introduced the concept of the general adaptation syndrome. Selye emphasized the body’s physiological response to prolonged demands, helping establish stress as a serious factor in health and disease (Selye, 1951).

Richard Lazarus expanded this early biological view by emphasizing meaning, appraisal, and adaptation. In Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, Lazarus argued that stress could not be understood by looking at external events alone (Lazarus, 1966). The same event may be threatening, challenging, or insignificant depending on how a person interprets it and what resources they believe are available.

Lazarus and Susan Folkman later developed this work into the transactional model of stress and coping. In this model, stress emerges from an ongoing transaction between environmental demands and personal appraisal. A person evaluates whether an event matters, whether it threatens well-being, and whether adequate coping resources are available (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Later developments in the theory expanded attention beyond distress and damage. Folkman and Moskowitz, for instance, emphasized that positive emotions can occur even during stressful circumstances and may support coping, resilience, and meaning-making (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Contemporary reviews continue to describe Lazarus and Folkman’s model as a cornerstone of psychological stress and coping research (Biggs et al., 2017).

This history matters because stress and coping theory does more than describe the body’s reaction to pressure. It explains how people interpret stressful events, mobilize resources, regulate emotion, and adapt over time.

For a fuller discussion of Selye’s biological model of stress, see General Adaptation Syndrome.

What Makes an Event Stressful?

In stress and coping theory, an event does not become stressful simply because it is difficult, unwanted, or unexpected. Stress emerges from the relationship between the event and the person experiencing it. Lazarus described emotion as arising from the adaptive “transactions” a person has with the environment (Lazarus, 1974). In other words, stress depends not only on what happens but also on how the person interprets what is happening and what possibilities for response appear available.

Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional model emphasizes that people evaluate events in relation to their goals, values, vulnerabilities, and perceived resources. This appraisal process determines whether an event is ignored, experienced as a challenge, or felt as a threat (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

For a deeper look at this interpretive process, see Lazarus’s cognitive appraisal theory.

Primary Appraisal

Primary appraisal is the first evaluation of an event’s personal significance. The person asks, in effect: Does this matter to me? Is something important at stake? An event may be appraised as irrelevant, benign-positive, or stressful. When it is appraised as stressful, the person may experience it as harm, threat, or challenge (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Harm refers to damage that has already occurred, such as a loss, injury, failure, or rupture in a relationship. Threat refers to anticipated harm, where the person expects danger, rejection, loss, or overwhelm. Challenge refers to a demanding situation that still carries the possibility of growth, mastery, or meaningful gain.

This first layer of appraisal shapes the emotional tone of the experience. A threat appraisal may bring anxiety, fear, or anger. A harm appraisal may bring grief, sadness, or shame. A challenge appraisal may still create tension, but it is often accompanied by energy, focus, or determination. This is why the same event may produce different emotional responses in different people.

Secondary Appraisal

Secondary appraisal involves evaluating one’s coping resources. After deciding that an event matters, the person assesses what can be done. Folkman explained that the coping process begins when a situation is appraised as stressful—that is, when it is personally significant and appears to tax or exceed the person’s coping resources (Folkman, 2011).

These coping resources may include skills, time, money, social support, emotional strength, prior experience, and possible courses of action. Distress becomes more likely when perceived demands exceed perceived resources. A person may feel trapped, helpless, or overwhelmed when a situation feels important but unmanageable. In contrast, the same event may feel less distressing when the person sees possible options, support, or a path forward.

Secondary appraisal does not always produce an accurate picture. Under stress, people may underestimate their resources, overlook available help, or overestimate the danger. For this reason, coping depends not only on actual resources but also on how those resources are perceived in the moment.

Reappraisal

Reappraisal is the ongoing revision of meaning as new information becomes available. Stressful situations rarely remain psychologically fixed. A person may initially appraise a problem as threatening, then later see it as manageable after receiving support, gathering information, or developing a plan.

Reappraisal can also move in the opposite direction. A situation that first seemed minor may become more stressful as consequences unfold. Lazarus and DeLongis emphasized that daily hassles may be transient, repeated, or chronic, and these ongoing pressures can accumulate into meaningful distress over time (Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983).

This ongoing process explains why coping is dynamic rather than static. People do not simply appraise once and respond once. They continually interpret, respond, adjust, and reinterpret. Through this cycle, stress and coping theory shows how distress can intensify, soften, or transform depending on the changing relationship between the person, the event, and available coping resources.

Coping Responses

Coping refers to the cognitive and behavioral efforts people use to manage internal and external demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding their resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Folkman and Moskowitz later described coping as a major area of research because it helps explain why some people fare better than others when facing stress, and because coping can often be strengthened through cognitive-behavioral and other psychological interventions (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004).

In stress and coping theory, coping is not a single reaction or fixed personality trait. It is a dynamic process embedded in the ongoing relationship between the person, the environment, and the meaning of the stressful encounter. Coping changes as people reassess the situation, discover new information, receive support, regulate emotion, or recognize limits in what they can control.

Coping strategies are often described as adaptive or maladaptive, but their effectiveness depends heavily on context. Folkman and Moskowitz warned that coping processes are not inherently good or bad; their value depends on the fit between the coping response and the demands of the situation (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). Problem-solving may be useful when a stressor can be changed. Emotional regulation may be more useful when the situation cannot be immediately altered. Meaning-making may become especially important when people must endure hardship, loss, uncertainty, or chronic strain.

Lazarus and Folkman emphasized two broad coping functions: problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Later research expanded this view by showing that positive emotions, social support, emotional expression, and meaning-making can also play important roles in coping, especially during ongoing stress (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). More recent integrative models, such as Stanisławski’s Coping Circumplex Model, further suggest that coping can be organized along problem-focused and emotion-focused dimensions, with styles ranging from effective problem solving to helplessness and avoidance (Stanisławski, 2019).

Problem-Focused Coping

Problem-focused coping involves efforts to change the stressful situation itself. The person directs attention toward the source of stress and asks, in practical terms: What can be done? This may include gathering information, making a plan, seeking advice, developing new skills, setting boundaries, changing routines, or removing a source of pressure.

This form of coping is most useful when the person has some degree of control over the stressor. For example, a student who feels anxious about an exam may create a study schedule, visit the instructor during office hours, or join a study group. A worker overwhelmed by unclear expectations may ask for clarification, renegotiate deadlines, or reorganize tasks. These actions do not simply reduce emotion; they attempt to alter the conditions producing the stress.

Problem-focused coping is not always possible. Some events cannot be immediately changed. A diagnosis, a death, a layoff, or another person’s behavior may limit direct control. In these situations, repeated attempts to force a solution can increase frustration and distress. Effective coping requires a realistic appraisal of what can be changed and what must be managed in other ways.

Emotion-Focused Coping

Emotion-focused coping involves efforts to regulate the emotional distress that accompanies a stressful situation. Rather than changing the event directly, the person works with the emotional response. This may include calming the body, reframing the situation, seeking comfort, expressing grief, practicing acceptance, journaling, praying, meditating, or talking with a trusted friend.

Emotion-focused coping is especially important when a stressor cannot be quickly solved. When circumstances are uncertain, irreversible, or outside personal control, people still need ways to reduce overwhelm, restore emotional balance, and remain connected to life. These strategies do not necessarily remove the stressor, but they can soften its psychological impact.

However, emotion-focused coping can take healthier or less healthy forms. Seeking support, naming emotions, and creating space for grief may help a person adapt. Avoidance, denial, substance use, or chronic emotional suppression may provide temporary relief while allowing the underlying distress to grow. As Somerfield and McCrae (2000) observed, coping research must be careful not to treat coping categories as automatically good or bad apart from the situation in which they are used.

Similarly, repeated emotional processing can drift into rumination when reflection no longer supports problem solving or acceptance.

Meaning-Focused Coping

Meaning-focused coping refers to efforts to sustain purpose, values, hope, and positive emotion during stressful circumstances. This form of coping does not deny suffering. Instead, it helps people locate stress within a larger frame of meaning. A person may ask: What matters here? What values can guide me? What can still be protected, learned, repaired, or honored?

Folkman and Moskowitz (2000) emphasized that positive emotions can occur alongside distress and may play an important role in coping. Even during difficult periods, moments of gratitude, love, humor, spiritual connection, accomplishment, or hope can help replenish psychological resources. These emotions do not erase pain, but they may support endurance, flexibility, and resilience.

Meaning-focused coping is especially relevant in chronic stress, caregiving, illness, grief, trauma recovery, and other situations where quick solutions are limited. A caregiver may find meaning in loyalty and compassion. A grieving person may honor a loved one through memory and ritual. A person facing prolonged uncertainty may draw strength from faith, values, community, or a sense of responsibility.

Together, problem-focused, emotion-focused, and meaning-focused coping show that adaptation is not a single skill. Coping involves changing what can be changed, regulating distress when change is limited, and preserving meaning when life remains difficult.

The Complexity of Coping Effectiveness

Although coping categories are useful, coping effectiveness is difficult to judge in the abstract. A strategy that appears healthy in one context may be ineffective in another. For instance, direct problem-solving may help when a situation is controllable, but it may increase frustration when the stressor cannot be changed. Emotional distancing may be useful while waiting for medical test results, but chronic avoidance can become damaging when action is needed.

Folkman and Moskowitz described this as one of the central challenges in coping research: coping must be evaluated in relation to the situation, the person’s goals, and the outcomes being considered (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). A coping response may reduce immediate distress while creating long-term problems. Another may increase short-term discomfort while supporting future adaptation.

This is why coping flexibility matters. Effective coping often requires shifting strategies as circumstances change: acting when action is possible, regulating emotion when distress interferes with functioning, seeking support when personal resources are strained, and finding meaning when stress cannot be quickly resolved. Stanisławski’s Coping Circumplex Model reflects this complexity by organizing coping around both problem-oriented and emotion-oriented dimensions rather than reducing coping to a simple list of good and bad strategies (Stanisławski, 2019).

This perspective also fits the transactional model. Stress and coping unfold over time. People appraise, respond, reappraise, and adjust. The goal is not to find one perfect coping style, but to develop a flexible range of responses that match the demands, limits, and meanings of the situation.

Daily Hassles and Chronic Stress

Stress and coping theory is especially useful because it does not limit stress to major life events. While death, illness, divorce, job loss, and trauma clearly place demands on coping resources, much of human stress arises from the smaller pressures that accumulate across ordinary days. Lazarus and Folkman argued that stress should not be equated only with major catastrophes or dramatic life changes; daily life itself contains repeated demands that can irritate, frustrate, and distress us (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Lazarus and DeLongis described daily hassles as the “irritating, frustrating, distressing demands and troubled relationships” that trouble people day after day (Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983). These may include traffic, financial worries, household responsibilities, workplace interruptions, family conflict, loneliness, caregiving demands, or the strain of never having enough time. A single hassle may pass quickly. Repeated hassles, however, can keep the stress response active and continually draw on emotional and cognitive resources.

Chronic stress develops when demands persist without adequate recovery. A person may cope effectively with a difficult week, a tense conversation, or a sudden inconvenience. The deeper problem emerges when pressure becomes ongoing: a hostile work environment, chronic illness, financial insecurity, caregiving strain, or persistent relational conflict. Selye’s early work on the general adaptation syndrome emphasized that prolonged demands can produce wear and tear on the body’s adaptive systems (Selye, 1951). Later stress research extended this concern into the psychological and social domains, examining how persistent strain affects health, emotion, and coping (Folkman, 2011).

Daily hassles also shape appraisal. A minor inconvenience may feel manageable when a person is rested, supported, and emotionally regulated. The same event may feel overwhelming when it arrives after weeks of poor sleep, unresolved conflict, or accumulated strain. Stress, in this sense, is cumulative. The event itself matters, but so does the background load the person is already carrying.

This is why chronic stress often produces distress disproportionate to the immediate trigger. The visible event may be small—a forgotten appointment, a rude comment, a broken appliance—but the reaction reflects a larger pattern of depleted coping resources. The person is not “overreacting” to one event so much as responding from within an already burdened system. Gabor Maté similarly emphasized the health costs of prolonged stress, especially when individuals remain caught in conditions that exceed their adaptive capacities (Maté, 2008).

Recognizing the role of daily hassles and chronic stress broadens our understanding of coping. Effective coping requires more than heroic responses to major crises. It also involves managing recurring demands, protecting recovery time, strengthening social support, reducing unnecessary strain, and noticing when ordinary life has become persistently overwhelming.

Stress and Coping in Action

To see how stress and coping theory works in everyday life, consider Emily, a skilled software engineer who is asked to present her team’s project at a major technology conference. The assignment is professionally meaningful, but it also exposes one of her long-standing fears: public speaking. As the conference approaches, Emily notices racing thoughts, muscle tension, poor sleep, and a growing sense of dread.

At first glance, the stressor appears simple: Emily has to give a presentation. But stress and coping theory asks us to look more closely. The event becomes stressful through Emily’s appraisal of what is at stake, what might go wrong, and whether she has the resources to manage the situation.

Primary Appraisal

Emily’s primary appraisal centers on threat. She imagines forgetting her words, being judged by industry professionals, and damaging her reputation. Because the presentation touches her professional identity and need for competence, it feels personally significant. The event is not merely inconvenient; it seems to carry the possibility of embarrassment, failure, and loss of respect.

Over time, however, Emily also begins to appraise the situation as a challenge. The presentation could help her grow, strengthen her professional confidence, and make her work more visible. This does not remove her anxiety, but it changes the meaning of the event. The same situation now contains both threat and opportunity.

Secondary Appraisal

Emily then evaluates her coping resources. She asks herself what can be done, who can help, and what skills she can strengthen before the conference. At first, her anxiety makes the task feel larger than her capacity. She imagines the audience as critical and her own preparation as inadequate.

As she breaks the task into smaller steps, her secondary appraisal begins to shift. She realizes she understands the project well, has time to practice, can ask colleagues for feedback, and can use support from a mentor. Her distress softens as the situation becomes more manageable.

Problem-Focused Coping

Emily uses problem-focused coping by addressing the practical demands of the presentation. She outlines her talk, organizes her slides, rehearses key transitions, and practices answering likely questions. She first practices alone, then in front of trusted colleagues, gradually increasing her comfort with an audience.

She also asks a public-speaking coach for specific guidance on pacing, posture, and handling nervousness. These efforts do not simply make her feel better; they directly change her relationship to the stressor. The presentation becomes less vague, less unfamiliar, and more within her control.

Emotion-Focused Coping

Emily also uses emotion-focused coping to manage the anxiety that remains. She practices slow breathing before rehearsals, takes short walks after work to discharge tension, and talks honestly with a mentor about her fear of being judged. Rather than treating anxiety as proof that she cannot succeed, she begins to see it as a natural response to a meaningful challenge.

She also reframes her nervousness. Instead of telling herself, “I am going to fail,” she reminds herself, “My body is preparing me for something important.” This shift does not eliminate stress, but it reduces the secondary distress created by fighting against her own emotional reaction.

Meaning-Focused Coping

As the conference gets closer, Emily draws on meaning-focused coping. She reconnects the presentation to values that matter to her: learning, contribution, courage, and professional growth. She reminds herself that the goal is not a flawless performance but a sincere presentation of work she believes in.

This broader meaning helps Emily endure discomfort without being defined by it. Her anxiety remains present, but it no longer controls the entire story. The presentation becomes an opportunity to practice courage in the service of something valuable.

Reappraisal and Outcome

On the day of the conference, Emily still feels nervous. However, her appraisal has changed. What first appeared as a threat now feels like a demanding but manageable challenge. She has prepared carefully, strengthened her support system, and developed ways to regulate her emotional response.

Emily delivers the presentation with focus and clarity. She stumbles briefly during one answer, but she recovers and continues. Afterward, she receives encouraging feedback from colleagues and feels a sense of accomplishment.

This example illustrates the central insight of stress and coping theory: stress is not determined by the event alone. It emerges through appraisal, available coping resources, emotional regulation, and ongoing reappraisal. By combining problem-focused, emotion-focused, and meaning-focused coping, Emily transforms a distressing demand into a moment of growth.

Associated Concepts

• General Adaptation Syndrome: This is the early theory presented by Hans Selye on the bodies response to stress.
• Cognitive Appraisal Theory: This theory explains how emotions arise not directly from events themselves, but from our interpretations and evaluations of those events. In Lazarus’s model, primary appraisal assesses what is at stake, while secondary appraisal evaluates available coping resources.
• Resilience: The ability to bounce back from negative experiences with “competent functioning”; resilience is a dynamic process rather than a trait.
• Emotion Regulation: The process by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions.
• Social Support: The perception or reality that one is cared for by a social network, which plays a significant role in how people cope with stress.
• Health Psychology: This field often utilizes stress and coping theory to understand the psychological factors contributing to health and illness.
• Biopsychosocial Model: This model refers to the interrelated impact of biology, psychology, and social environments on an individuals health.
• Trauma and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): Coping strategies are crucial in the context of trauma and recovery from PTSD.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

As we conclude our exploration of stress and coping theory, we are reminded of the profound adaptability and resilience inherent in the human spirit. The strategies and insights gleaned from this field of study offer more than just academic knowledge—they provide a blueprint for navigating the complexities of life with grace and strength. Whether through problem-focused tactics that confront challenges head-on or emotion-focused approaches that soothe and reframe our experiences, we possess an incredible capacity to manage stress.

It is our hope that readers will emerge from this article not only informed but also inspired to apply these theories to their own lives, transforming potential strife into opportunities for growth and self-discovery. In the end, it is not the absence of stress that defines our journey, but the way we choose to respond to it that truly shapes our path forward.

Last Update: June 25, 2026

References:

Biggs, A.; Brough, P.; Drummond, S. (2017). Lazarus and Folkman’s psychological stress and coping theory. In C. L. Cooper & J. C. Quick (Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice (pp. 351–364). Wiley Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118993811.ch21
(Return to Main Text)

Folkman, Susan (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Stress, Health, and Coping. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780195375343; APA Record: 2010-25086-000
(Return to Main Text)

Folkman, Susan; Moskowitz, Judith Tedlie (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–774. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456
(Return to Main Text)

Folkman, Susan; Moskowitz, Judith (2000). Positive Affect and the Other Side of Coping. American Psychologist, 55(6), 647-654. DOI: 10.1037%2F0003-066X.55.6.647
(Return to Main Text)

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill. ASIN: B0000CNCSU
(Return to Main Text)

Lazarus, Richard S.; Folkman, Susan (1984). ‎Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer Publishing Company. ISBN: 9780826141927
(Return to Main Text)

Lazarus, Richard (1974). Psychological Stress and Coping in Adaptation and Illness. The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 5(4), 321-333. DOI: 10.2190/T43T-84P3-QDUR-7RTP
(Return to Main Text)

Lazarus, Richard; DeLongis, Anita (1983). Psychological stress and coping in aging. American Psychologist, 38(3), 245-254. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.38.3.245
(Return to Main Text)

Maté, Gabor (2011). When the Body Says No. ‎John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 9780470923351
(Return to Main Text)

Obbarius, Nils; Fischer, Florian; Liegl, Gregor; Obbarius, Alica; Rose, Matthias (2021). A modified version of the transactional stress concept according to Lazarus and Folkman was confirmed in a psychosomatic inpatient sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 584333. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.584333
(Return to Main Text)

Stanisławski, Krzysztof (2019). The Coping Circumplex Model: An integrative model of the structure of coping with stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 694. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00694
(Return to Main Text)

Selye, Hans (1951). The General-Adaptation-Syndrome. Annual Review of Medicine, 2(1), 327-342. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.me.02.020151.001551
(Return to Main Text)

Somerfield, Mark; McCrae, Robert (2000). Stress and Coping Research. American Psychologist, 55(6), 620-625. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.620
(Return to Main Text)