Linking the issues of self-control and coping is a relatively new issue, despite the fact that the essence of these two constructs overlap. It is clear that findings in the area of ​​self-control can be stimulating for the area of ​​coping and vice versa. This is also confirmed by Eisenberg, Valiente and Sulik (2009) by stating that some chapters dealing with coping are essentially the same as chapters on self-control, therefore the findings in these areas can overlap and mutually enrich each other. But Rober and Wit (2006) add. that few authors have attempted to integrate coping and self-control theories.

We can think of self-control as helpful in the coping process. In order for a person to effectively manage a stressful situation, one must control thoughts, emotions and block excitement. The regulation of emotions, impulses and behavior are the main areas of self-control. An individual who uses self-control during a stressful situation will probably manage it better, as self-control will allow him to better adapt to changed environmental conditions. For this reason, the main goal of this work is to point out the existence of a relationship between self-control and coping and clarify its essence and limitations.

Definition of self-control

Self-control can be simply defined as the control an individual has over himself (Lováš, 2008). We could understand it as a personality characteristic, ability and as a cognitive structure where it forms part of the executive self, which also includes control thoughts, control strategies and self-regulation (Neiss et al., 2005). Muraven and Baumeister (2000) define self-control as a form of applied control of an individual over himself. It is an adaptive ability to overcome selfish impulses and behave in a desirable way in society according to rules and norms (ibid.). Here we can think about the active effort of the self, which is aimed at changing the current answer (Baumeister, Alquist, 2009). Lovaš (2008) states that self-control helps to achieve the necessary harmony of the individual with the environment by adapting the individual, as opposed to adapting to the environment. It helps to overcome the impulse to achieve the desired, targeted behavior (Muraven and Baumeister, 2000).

In the literature, we can find that some experts distinguish between the terms self-regulation and self-control. Baumeister, Exline (1999) clarifies that self-control represents only the operational phase of the self-regulation process, i.e. the individual's effort to change his behavior in order to conform to standards and goals. Therefore, we could think of self-regulation as an activation component that leads a person to form and set goals and represents a broader construct that includes self-control. On the contrary, we could consider self-control as an inhibitory component whose task is to inhibit current impulses. We define self-control as the effort we make to change our thinking, behavior, and feelings in order to act in accordance with social norms, cultural ideals, or personal goals. The main point is to suppress your current desires, urges and wishes and focus on longer-term goals with the desired behavior in mind. We are inclined to label self-control with the terms self-control and self-regulation, as even in professional literature it is not always clear whether the author is talking about self-control or self-regulation.

Self-control as a coping factor

In several authors (Compas et al., 2001, 2009; Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, 1997; Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007) we will encounter the definition of coping as an overarching concept for regulatory mechanisms, because the control of behavior and especially emotions is necessary for the adaptive management of a stressful event. We could generally define coping as an individual's effort to mobilize, organize or coordinate their behavior, emotions and attention when they are under the influence of stress. Emotional regulation represents one of the important coping strategies precisely when we cannot influence the stressful event, but we only have the opportunity to cope with our emotions arising from the stressful event. On the other hand, understanding regulation as a subset of coping processes could lead to the opinion that self-regulation and self-control is necessary and present only in situations when an individual is under the influence of stress. However, the individual uses self-control in both stressful and non-stressful situations. In circumstances that are evaluated as stressful, we can understand self-regulation as a synonym for coping (Compas et al., 2001). However, we would like to point out that self-control as an effort, the task of which is to inhibit current impulses in accordance with social norms, cultural ideals or personal goals, is also used by the individual in situations other than stress.

The culture and society we live in and want to be a part of requires us to follow the rules. Therefore, self-control acts as a "moral muscle" that helps us comply with social norms and rules. We could even say that self-control is related to Freud's understanding of the superego. The superego represents a moral weapon, it internalizes parental values ​​and norms. Many manifestations of problem behavior such as alcoholism and other addictions, sexual diseases, violence and aggression, emotional problems, insufficient performance at school, crime are the result of the inability to control oneself (Baumeister, Vohs, Tice, 2007). Self-control is also important in the process of finding and creating meaning, as it helps us achieve our goals.

Strategies for coping with stressful situations and self-control

Despite the fact that, as we stated in the introduction, the connection between self-control and coping is a relatively new topic, in the professional literature we will encounter several attempts to explain the relationship between self-control and specific coping strategies for stressful events. However, we must note that their quality is limited, as their primary goal was not to verify this relationship. Nevertheless, they point to a link between self-control and individual differences in preferred coping strategies.

Block and Block (2006) talk about self-regulation in terms of ego control, which represents the individual's efforts to control impulses and varies from adequate control to maladaptive excessive self-control and ego resilience, which represents the individual's capacity to modify his behavior depending on the changing situation, that is, the individual's effort to currently increase or decrease control, but still within the limits of personal limits and goals. When we take into account the definition of self-control that we presented above, we could consider that it is ego resilience that represents our understanding of self-control, as ego control reflects unwanted behavior in the form of excessive control, which is maladaptive.

Block and Block (2006) found that preschool children who had a problem with self-control were more often described by their teachers as aggressive and impulsive, on the contrary, children who had adequate ego resilience were able to adequately handle stressful events and used adaptive coping strategies. Therefore, they point out that regulatory mechanisms such as ego resilience can play a relevant role in understanding how an individual manages a stressful situation.

Similarly, Fabes et al. (1994); Fabes, Eisenberg, Eisenbud (1994); Kyrios, Prior (1990) point to the relationship between self-control and coping. In their studies, they found that children with adequate self-regulation used constructive coping strategies and did not prefer to use escape and aggressive coping responses. The mentioned authors focused on the study of the child population, so it is questionable whether these findings can be generalized to the adult population as well.

Pioneers in the field of examining the relationship between self-control and coping strategies in the adult population are Rosenbaum (1980), who intensively deals with self-control and its connection with coping. He defines self-control as voluntary and non-automatic behavior aimed at controlling emotions and cognitions. He categorized self-control behaviors as: a) using cognitions to control emotions and physiological responses, b) using problem-oriented coping strategies, c) the ability to postpone immediate gratification, d) perceived self-efficacy (ibid.).

He states that with the help of self-control, an individual can reduce distressed emotions and tension, thereby achieving controllability of the situation (Rosenbaum, 1980), and that effective self-control can help an individual stick to his goals even if he is limited in his efforts (Rosenbaum, Ben-Ari, 1985).

Despite the fact that this author has been devoted to coping and self-control for a long time, Tangney, Baumeister, Boone (2004) criticize his approach and point out that his understanding of self-control is truncated, since self-control includes unconscious processes in addition to conscious, volitional processes. They also add that the research focuses only on the population with clinical problems and not on the normal population, which largely limits the generalizability of its findings.

Fabes and Eisenberg (1997) also focused their research on examining the relationship between self-control and coping strategies in an adult population. Specifically, they aimed to test the hypothesis of the existence of a relationship between regulatory control and reactions to everyday stressors. They found that individuals who scored high in self-regulation did not experience a high degree of emotional arousal in response to a stressful event, managed the stressful event more constructively, and preferred to use proactive coping strategies, in contrast to individuals who scored low in self-control.

Eisenberg et al. (2007, 2009) in their later work talk about self-regulation in terms of effortful control (EC), representing a deliberate effort to inhibit unwanted impulsive behavior or emotions, or to plan and activate behavior aimed at achieving a goal, and reactive control (RC), which, on the other hand, represents unintentional reactions including impulsivity or excessive self-control. A low level of effortful control is related to problem behavior, on the contrary, a high level was correlated with self-regulation (Eisenberg et al., 2007). Furthermore, Eisenberg, Valiente and Sulik (2009) point out that several coping strategies directly reflect effortful and reactive control. Specifically, problem-solving strategies, emotional regulation, cognitive restructuring, and distraction are classified under emotional regulation. Strategies such as cognitive interference and emotional arousal under reactive regulation (Eisenberg, Valiente, & Sulik, 2009). However, we would like to point out that the definition of effortful control implies that it represents self-regulation as a broader and umbrella concept of self-control.

Based on the finding that several manifestations of problem behavior are the result of an individual's insufficient ability to control himself, we believe that an individual with an adequate level of self-control prefers the use of voluntary "voluntary" coping strategies, because they are conscious, adaptive and more flexible compared to involuntary "involuntary" strategies, which represent escape and avoidance reactions to a stressful situation. Among the "voluntary" strategies we include problem-oriented coping, acceptance of the problem, positive thinking, and among the "involuntary" escape strategies, physiological and emotional upset (Copas et al., 2001).

Strength model of self-control and coping

Baumeister (1999) provides a different perspective on the connection between the issues of self-control and coping, who explains the relationship between these two constructs based on the functioning of the power model of self-control. This model is based on the assumption that, just as we have limited sources of energy and strength, we also have a limited capacity for self-regulation, as self-regulation is a strenuous process and exertion leads to the depletion of energy resources, i.e. to a gradual decrease in self-control (Baumeister, Vohs, Tice, 2007). When a person uses self-control, it depletes their resources of control and energy, which leads to a subsequent reduced self-control in the next situation. The central prediction of this model is that effort is followed by a period of reduced capacity for self-control, which can lead to its failure and turn into unwanted behavior.

Muraven Tice and Baumeister (1998) did several experiments designed to measure the current state of self-control and its depletion. In the first experiment, the task of the participants was to consciously increase or decrease their emotional response while watching a sad film. The control group had the task of watching the aforementioned film as it was most convenient for them. In the experimental group, it was found that the effort to change the physical state and control the emotions led to a subsequent reduction in physical energy, which was measured by squeezing the hand. In the second experiment, participants were not supposed to think about a white bear, because suppressing thoughts is more difficult than expressing them. The authors confirmed that self-regulation has a limited capacity, because the experimental group regulated their emotions less successfully after watching a humorous film.

The coping process, like self-control, works on the basis of energy resources, and if an individual is exposed to long-term pressure and stress, especially in unpredictable stress situations, it depletes his energy resources (Baumeister, 2009). The author emphasizes that not only activities demanding self-control lead to its subsequent temporary reduction, but also the effects of long-term stress or trauma and the involvement of active or passive coping strategies lead to subsequent reduced self-control.

The mentioned connection of self-control and coping based on the ego exhaustion model brings a new perspective on this issue. It represents a new stimulus for dealing with stress from the point of view of the exhaustive mechanism of self-control and its possible experimental verification.

Conclusion

In the paper, we focused on pointing out the connections between self-control, coping and coping strategies. We also outlined the possibility of understanding stress and coping as a source of depletion of the power model of self-control. We are convinced that self-control not only helps us reduce distressed emotions, but can also be exhausted due to stressful and traumatic situations. Based on this, we could partially explain inappropriate impulsive behavior or other forms of failure of self-control in challenging situations. Despite the mentioned connections between self-control and coping, we also drew attention to their limitations. Therefore, we think that this topic should be continued to be addressed not only theoretically but also empirically.

*Author: Vavricová Monika*

LITERATURE**

Baumeister, R.F., (1999). Coping and Ego depletion. In: C.R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The Psychology of What Works, 50 - 69 Baumeister, R.F., Alquist, J.L., (2009). Is There a Downside to Good Self-control? Self and Identity. 8: 2, 115-130 Baumeister, R.F., Exline, J.J., (1999). Virtue, personality, and social relations: Self-control as the moral muscle. Journal of Personality, 67, 1165–1194 Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., Tice, D.M., (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351 - 355 Block, J.H., Block, J., (2006). Venturing a 30-year Longitudinal Study American Psychologist, 61, 4, 315 – 327 Compas, B.E., (2009). Coping, regulation, and development during childhood and adolescence. In E. A. Skinner & M. J. Zimmer-Gembeck (Eds.), Coping and the development of regulation. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 124, 87–99 Compas, B.E., Connor, J.K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A.H., Wadsworth, M.E., (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127 Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A., Guthrie, I.K., (1997). Coping with stress. The roles of regulation and development. In S. A. Wolchik, I. N. Sandler (Eds.), Handbook of children's coping: Linking theory and intervention, 41 – 70 Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, L.T., Gaertner, B., Popp, T., Smith, C.L., Kupfer, A., Greving, K., Liew, J., Hofer, C., (2007). Relations of Maternal Socialization and Toddlers' Effortful Control to Children's Adjustment and Social Competence. Developmental Psychology, 43, 5, 1170–1186 Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Sulik, M.J., (2009). How the study of regulation can inform the study of coping. In E. A. Skinner & M. J. Zimmer-Gembeck (Eds.), Coping and the development of regulation. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 124, 75–86 Fabes, R.A. & Eisenberg, N., (1997). Regulatory control and adults' stress-related responses to daily life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1107–1117 Fabes, R.A., Eisenberg, R. & Eisenbud, L., (1993). Physiological and behavioral correlates of children's reactions to others in distress. Developmental Psychology, 29, 655–663 Fabes, R.A., Eisenberg, N., Karbon, M., Bernzweig, J., Speer, A.L. & Carlo, G., (1994). Socialization of children's vicarious emotional responding and prosocial behavior: Relations with mothers' perceptions of children's emotional reactivity. Developmental Psychology, 30, 44–55 Kyrios, M. & Prior, M., (1990). Temperament, stress and family factors in behavioral adjustment of 3 - 5-year-old children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 13, 67–93 Lovaš, L., (2008). Aggression and self-control. Proceedings of the Faculty of Philosophy of the Comenius University. Psychologist XXXVIV. Bratislava Stimul FiF UK. ISBN 9788089236459, p. 66 - 77 Muraven, M., Baumeister, R.F., (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247-259 Muraven, M., Tice, D.M. & Baumeister, R.F., (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 774–789 Neiss, M.B., Stevenson, J., Sedikides, C., Finkel, E.J., Kumashiro, M., Rusbult, C.E., (2005). Executive Self, Self-Esteem, and Negative Affectivity: Relations at the Phenotypic and Genotypic Level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2005, 89, 4, 593 - 606 Ridder, D., Wit, J., (2006). Self-regulation in health behavior. NewYork: Wiley Rosenbaum, M. (1980). A schedule for assessing self-control behaviors: Preliminary findings. Behavior Therapy, 11, 109 - 121 Rosenbaum, M., Ben-Ari, K., (1985). Learned helplessness and learned resourcefulness: Effects of noncontingent successes and failures on individuals differing in self-control skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 198 - 215 Skinner, E.A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., (2007). The development of coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 119–144 Tangney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F., Boone, A.L., (2004).

High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324

The paper was presented at the 5th annual conference entitled ,,Psychology of health 2010", which took place on May 19, 2010 in Bratislava. The conference was organized by the health psychology section of the SPS at SAV in cooperation with the health section of the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic. The following participated in the preparation of the event: National Institute of Heart and Vascular Diseases in Bratislava, VŠZaSP St. Elizabeth in Bratislava, WHO Office in Slovakia, KISH Košice, Department of Psychology FF KU in Ružomberok and Department of Psychology FF TU in Trnava.

Proceedings from the 5th conference of health psychology, Bratislava, 2010 was published only in electronic form Availability: http://www.prohuman.sk/psychologia/zbornik-prispevkov-z-konferencie-psychologia-zdravia-2010