Richard S.

Lazarus and Susan Folkman highlights the Transactional Model of Stress and

Coping. The theory is essentially, the transaction relating to stress is between the person and the

environment. Depending on the amount of demands that a person is confronted with and the amount

of resources that they have to deal with the demands, stress may either be in abundance or avoided

entirely. stressful situations are seen as person-environment transactions in Lazarus and

Folkman's theory. When a person's resources are perceived as being exceeded by their

surroundings and as endangering their well-being, stress is created. A number of coping

mechanisms, in addition to demographics and biological factors, influence how people respond

to disease or injury. These coping mechanisms, which also comprise cognitive assessment,

coping techniques, and coping resources, combine to influence how adjustments turn out. When

it comes to cognitive evaluation, the person assesses the stressor's potential for challenge,

threat, and controllability. The person then uses coping mechanisms and resources to deal with

the stressor. Approaches that are problem-, emotion-, and meaning-focused are a few

examples of coping mechanisms. Resources for coping can be both internal (such as

personality, optimism, and hope) and external (e.g., social support system). During a person's

adjustment to a stressor, both internal and external influences might alter these assessments,

coping mechanisms, and coping resources.

Further, the Theory of Adjustment has obvious effects on how people act in ways that

affect their health. Self-efficacy is seen as important for making decisions that affect health.

Self-efficacy beliefs can affect how a person sets health goals, whether or not they change their

health behavior, how much effort they put into changing their health behavior, and how long

they keep doing it even when things get hard.

Meanwhile, Sociology's social action theory is a critical theory based on the premise

that society is a production of the interactions and meanings of its members. It explains human
behavior on a microscopic, minute scale, allowing us to comprehend society structures. You

may also be familiar with the term interactionism.

Finaly, the Theory of Belongingness has defined homesickness in terms of grief, loss,

and attachment. Grief results from the loss of significant social connections, whereas

attachment is concerned with the security of one's relationships with others. So, the

belongingness hypothesis can be viewed as a metatheory that incorporates these more specific

impacts of the need to belong.

Need to belong predicted all loss-oriented (missing family, missing friends, loneliness,

ruminations about home) and restoration-oriented subscales of the Utrecht Homesickness Scale

(adjustment difficulties). In other words, it relates to homesickness resulting from both

separation from the previous location and arrival at the new location. This is consistent with

previous findings (Archer et al., 1998; Fisher, 1989; Stroebe et al., 2002) and with the

predictions of the belongingness hypothesis; people are expected to react with distress and

protest at separation from existing bonds and to also feel distressed if belongingness needs are

not fulfilled in the new location or have little potential to be fulfilled.