Coping Trap

Abstract

Cognitive rigidity and maladaptive behavioral patterns under conditions of prolonged stress represent a core challenge in clinical psychology and psychiatry. This book introduces and formalizes the concept of the Coping Trap – a pathological, self-stabilizing state (attractor) in the cognitive system’s state space, characterized by a regression from flexible, analytical (System 2) to rigid, heuristic (System 1) strategies. A novel interdisciplinary synthesis that bridges the conceptual frameworks of the Russian psychological school of intelligence (Institute of Psychology, RAS) with Western computational cognitive neuroscience is hereby proposed. This synthesis provides a multi-level causal model of cognitive collapse, initiated by specific socio-cognitive stressors – namely, responsibility aversion and moral conviction. These triggers induce a metacognitive overload, leading to a cascading failure of voluntary intellectual control and a disintegration of the structures of “mental experience”. The model is grounded in neurobiological evidence, identifying a specific pattern of neural network dysfunction and a corresponding computational signature (an expanded “deferral threshold”). Finally, the Coping Trap is reframed within the predictive processing framework, with a unified intervention model being proposed. It is suggested that psychological therapies (e.g., mindfulness) reshape the attractor landscape, whereas neuromodulatory techniques (e.g., NIBS) provide the necessary energy to escape from the pathological state. This work offers a testable, clinically relevant framework for understanding and treating a transdiagnostic mechanism of cognitive dysfunction.

1. A Harmonized Thesaurus for Interdisciplinary Synthesis

1.1. The Challenge of Interdisciplinary Synthesis

A fundamental challenge in any interdisciplinary research is the creation of a unified, coherent conceptual field that enables dialogue and synthesis between different scientific paradigms. This study, situated at the intersection of the USSR-Russian psychology of intelligence, as developed within the scientific school of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IPRAS), and Western computational cognitive neuroscience, requires a particularly rigorous effort to harmonize its conceptual apparatus. This section lays the methodological foundation for the entire work, offering a system of definitions and conceptual mappings that serves as a “Rosetta Stone’ for translating and integrating ideas between these distinct theoretical languages.

1.2. On the Boundaries and Assumptions of Interdisciplinary Synthesis

It is crucial to state that the proposed mapping is a functional operationalization, not an ontological identity. I formally propose that rich, descriptive psychological concepts, such as “mental space”, can be operationalized and modeled using computational frameworks like an “attractor landscape”. I acknowledge certain aspects of the original theories – for instance, the humanistic and personality components of M.A. Kholodnaya’s theory of mental experience – are not fully captured by a computational approach but are accepted as an essential context. This conceptual harmonization allows for a genuine interdisciplinary dialogue, translating qualitative psychological descriptions into the formal language of mathematical modeling.

1.3. The Central Phenomenon: From Psychological State to a Dynamical System Attractor

The central object of this study is an emergent cognitive state arising under conditions of high, prolonged stress, characterized by a regression from flexible, analytical decision-making strategies to rigid, heuristic patterns. The term Coping Trap is proposed as the most precise and heuristically valuable designation. It directly links the phenomenon to the key construct of Russian stress psychology – coping (sovladanie) – and reflects its dynamic, self-sustaining nature. Within this framework, coping (sovladanie) is understood as the multi-level process of managing stress; its productivity, flexibility, and variability are central to psychological resilience. The Coping Trap, therefore, represents a pathological state of failed coping, characterized by ineffective and rigid strategies. In the language of dynamical systems theory, the term “trap” is synonymous with an “attractor” – a stable state of a system toward which it tends to evolve and from which escape is difficult.

Coping Trap [Russ. – Ловушка совладания (Lovushka sovladaniya)] – a pathological, stable state (attractor) of interaction, characterized by rigid, repetitive, and ineffective coping strategies.

Cognitive Collapse [Russ. – Когнитивный коллапс (Kognitivnyy kollaps)] – a phenomenological description of the process of catastrophic narrowing of mental space and regression from analytical (System 2) to heuristic (System 1) strategies.

Coping Deadlock [Russ. – Тупик совладания (Tupik sovladaniya)] – a term indicating the ineffectiveness of strategies but carrying the connotation of a static, blocked state, which does not fully reflect the cyclical nature of the phenomenon.

1.4. Harmonizing Mental Experience and Generative Models on the Architecture of Cognition

This section maps the components of M.A. Kholodnaya’s theory of mental experience onto concepts from computational neuroscience, creating a structural basis for the analysis.

Mental Experience [Russ. – Ментальный опыт (Mental’nyy opyt)] – the integral characteristic of an individual’s cognitive resources and the form of their organization. Includes cognitive, metacognitive, and intentional levels.

Mental Space [Russ. – Ментальное пространство (Mental’noye prostranstvo)] – a subjective, multidimensional semantic field in which intellectual activity unfolds and available cognitive schemas and strategies are represented.

Conceptual Structures / Cognitive Schemas [Russ. – Понятийные структуры / Когнитивные схемы (Ponyatiynyye struktury / Kognitivnyye skhemy)] – basic elements of cognitive experience that organize incoming information and form the basis for thinking and decision-making.

1.5. The Dynamics of Coping: From Psychological Trait to System Property

This section operationalizes the process of coping, linking the holistic concept of “coping intelligence” to measurable system properties and stability indicators.

Coping Intelligence (CI) [Russ. – Совладающий интеллект (Sovladayushchiy intellekt)] – a specific form of mental experience organization that determines the productivity of coping with stress and resilience to cognitive collapse.

Stress-Coping System (SCS) [Russ. – Стресс-совладающая система (Stress-sovladayushchaya sistema)] – a unified, multi-level (biological, psychological, sociocultural) system that ensures the subject’s adaptation to stressful influences.

Measure of Differentiation of the “Stress” Concept [Russ. – Мера дифференцированности концепта “стресс” (Mera differentsirovannosti kontsepta “stress”)] – an indicator of the richness and structuredness of the subject’s cognitive experience regarding stressful situations.

1.6. Mechanisms of Cognitive Rigidity: From Social Psychology to Metacognitive Computation

This section focuses on the specific mechanisms that trigger and sustain the Coping Trap, connecting socio-psychological triggers with their cognitive and computational foundations.

Responsibility Aversion [Russ. – Неприятие ответственности (Nepriyatiye otvetstvennosti)] – a reduced willingness to make decisions when the well-being of others is at stake; a specific social stressor.

Demand for Certainty [Russ. – Требование к определенности (Trebovaniye k opredelennosti)] – an increased need for confidence about the best course of action when the well-being of others is affected.

Deferral Threshold [Russ. – Порог делегирования (Porog delegirovaniya)] – a behavioral marker of the metacognitive assessment of uncertainty; the point at which a subject prefers to delegate a decision.

Moral Conviction / Dogmatism [Russ. – Моральная убежденность / Догматизм (Moral’naya ubezhdennost’ / Dogmatizm)] – a deeply held belief perceived as an objective truth, serving as a basis for rigid heuristics and the avoidance of contradictory information.

2. The Foundations of Resilience and Vulnerability in the Architecture of Coping

To understand the mechanisms of vulnerability and resilience to cognitive collapse, we must turn to foundational theories describing the structure and organization of individual intellectual resources. The theory of mental experience (M.A. Kholodnaya) and the concept of coping intelligence (E.V. Volkova and I.O. Kuvaeva) provide a comprehensive theoretical basis for this, allowing us to define the dispositional factors that predetermine an individual’s behavioral trajectory under stress.

In M.A. Kholodnaya’s ontological theory of intelligence, intelligence is viewed not as a set of abilities but as the “form of organization of individual mental experience”. This organization has a three-level structure:

Cognitive Experience. Comprises the basic building blocks of thought – conceptual structures and cognitive schemas that allow an individual to categorize, structure, and interpret information.

Metacognitive Experience. Responsible for the self-regulation of intellectual activity. Its key component is voluntary intellectual control (conscious regulation, planning, evaluation, and correction of intellectual actions). The failure of this control is the central link in the “Coping Trap” mechanism.