Communal coping is the collective effort of members of a connected network (familial or social) to manage a distressing event (Lyons, Michelson, Sullivan and Coyne, 1998).
To address this gap in research and advance the existing model by Lyon's and colleagues, Afifi et al. proposed a theoretical framework.
The goals for designing the new model were specifically to understand the communal coping process within naturally occurring groups (e.g. postdivorce families).
Helgeson, Jakubiak, Vleet, and Zajdel (2018) attempted to fill this gap by proposing a model that acknowledges the adjustment process and outcome of communal coping.
Similar to prior models, Helgeson et al’s (2018) framework identified supportive communication as a significant aspect of communal coping that is linked to individual adjustment to a stressor (e.g. illness).
Zimmer-Gembeck and Skinner (2009, p. 333) defined coping as “how people of all ages mobilize, guide, manage, coordinate, energize, modulate, and direct their behavior, emotion, and orientation (or how they fail to do so) during stressful encounters”.
In this vein, Lyons et al. (1998) suggested the components of communal coping are salient and activated in such situations where at least one person treats the distressing event as ‘our problem’.
Lyons et al. (1998) proposed these active steps begin with one person adopting a communal orientation about how to manage the distressing event.
Irrespective of the direction the communication takes, the primary goal is to share a common sense of responsibility for the stressor as “our problem” among the people involved.
For instance, in a study on the role of marriage on health behaviors, Lewis, McBride, Pollak et al. (2006) discovered the transformation of motivation influenced how one chooses to help the other cope through a stressor.
However, Women tend to be the fervent giver of social support making members of this gender community an active performer in the communal coping process (Vaux 1985, Bem 1993).
Under certain circumstances, the constant encouragement of communal coping among connected individuals promotes a likelihood of consistent availability of social support.
Moreover, in the event of a common disaster such as earthquakes and wars, communal coping allows the people involved to experience a sense of ‘solidarity’ or a feeling of ‘I am not the only victim’.
This realization promotes mutual disclosure among all the affected individuals, a behavior found to buffer stress as well as ameliorate negative feelings and concerns (Pennebaker & Haber, 1993).
In their study on how the process of communal coping unfolds after social support resources have diminished, Richardson and Maninger (2016) discovered that a sense of mutuality and shared problem increased.
For instance, the confidence that people within a connected network will exchange support during or after a distressing situation promotes a sense of dependence which may improve the quality of a relationship.
Although empathy-driven and obligation – driven motives are distinct based on the type of relational tie, in most cases the end goal is for the collective good.
Given that people and resources such as money, time and goods are exchanged in the process of communal coping during certain stressful events, there is a likelihood for some of the individuals involved to experience discomfort.
Communal coping will perhaps be perceived as a cost in situations where there is a lack of mutual understanding and expectation within a social unit consisting of members experiencing a common or personal stressful event.
The equity problem arises from a lack of agreement or existing social norms on the expectation of individual efforts channeled towards communal coping.
In a comparison of gender roles after a distressing event, women specifically wives and mothers were expected to hold higher responsibility for helping others manage and recover from a stressor.
There is evidence for this in studies [3] about how people embedded in a strong community experience difficulty after a change of location for the pursuit of life goals.
The communal coping framework is very dynamic in the sense that it can be applied to distinct research contexts yet facilitate empirical and general knowledge that aligns with the tenets of its models.