ABSTRACT
Another reason for changing terminology from "coping" to "procedure" is that it allows us to broaden the way we look at procedures
for managing disease threats. Coping responses are conceptualized as actions taken to regulate feelings or actions taken to solve problems, ignoring that these responses typically have multiple functions. For example, if I take an aspirin to relieve a stress-induced headache, I am expecting to eliminate a symptom in a given time frame. By removing the symptom and the emotional distress caused by it, I can avoid the need to call on others for assistance in distress reduction and can turn to more pressing tasks. If the aspirin has its intended effect, it also confirms my representation of the problem as a stressinduced headache. On the other hand, if the response is ineffective, works too slowly, for too brief a period of time, or doesn't work at all, it may both disconfirm the efficacy of aspirin and suggest alternative representations of the problem (e.g., migraine, stroke). The alternatives will stimulate additional monitoring of the features of the self-system (e.g., search for motor deficits, visual changes) thought to be indicators of one or another of these underlying possibilities and may suggest the need for more extensive and potent interventions (e.g., a stronger drug, a visit to the doctor). In sum, procedures have multiple functions, as feedback from them has implications for every facet of the representation as well as for the competence of the individual's support system.
