or use confrontation. This hypothesis receives some support from studies that show that depressed people tend to use more coping strategies, regardless of type, than nondepressed people (e.g., Coyne et al, 1981; Folkman & Lazarus, 1986). The sequence of coping activity in such cases can generate a volatile and complex emotional response.
Two principles need to be emphasized. The first is that every encounter, even the most simple, is usually complex and contains multiple facets and implications for well-being that either exist side by side or arise sequentially. This is why there can be more than one emotion in any encounter, and sometimes contradictory ones, as has been seen in younger children who can feel both happy and sad about what has transpired ( Harris, 1985; Terwogt, Schene, & Harris, 1985) and in students preparing for exams ( Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). To understand the emotion process, therefore, each emotion must be linked analytically to the cognitive appraisal that influences it.
The second principle concerns the temporal and unfolding quality of emotion and coping processes. Social scientists, especially those dealing with disaster, have long recognized that an encounter involving harm or benefit often has three or more stages--anticipation, confrontation, and postconfrontation. Coping in an anticipatory context offers an important opportunity to influence what happens at the point of confrontation by preventing or ameliorating a harm or facilitating a benefit. After confrontation, coping must be aimed at managing the consequences and their implications for the future. Emotions constantly shift through- out this process according to the changing status of the person-environment relationship. It is surprising that to date so little systematic attention has been given to the temporal aspects of the emotion process and to the place of coping within it.
Together, these two principles highlight the complex and dynamic nature of emotions and coping in social encounters and point the way for us to investigate empirically the precise mechanisms through which coping mediates the emotional response. Once their importance in emotion and adaptation is realized, the limitations of static, cross-sectional research designs and theoretical models reminiscent of stimulus-response formulations of the recent past become unacceptable, and systems analyses of the emotion process and research designs that permit intraindividual analysis of the temporal flow of many person and environment variables become mandatory.