12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      What is wrong with coping assessment? A review of conceptual and methodological issues

      Psychology & Health
      Informa UK Limited

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes.

          Despite the importance that is attributed to coping as a factor in psychological and somatic health outcomes, little is known about actual coping processes, the variables that influence them, and their relation to the outcomes of the stressful encounters people experience in their day-to-day lives. This study uses an intraindividual analysis of the interrelations among primary appraisal (what was at stake in the encounter), secondary appraisal (coping options), eight forms of problem- and emotion-focused coping, and encounter outcomes in a sample of community-residing adults. Coping was strongly related to cognitive appraisal; the forms of coping that were used varied depending on what was at stake and the options for coping. Coping was also differentially related to satisfactory and unsatisfactory encounter outcomes. The findings clarify the functional relations among appraisal and coping variables and the outcomes of stressful encounters.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            An Analysis of Coping in a Middle-Aged Community Sample

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Monitoring and blunting: validation of a questionnaire to assess styles of information seeking under threat.

              Subjects were divided into information seekers (high monitors)/information avoiders (low monitors) and distractors (high blunters)/nondistractors (low blunters) on the basis of their scores on a self-report scale to measure coping styles, the Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS). In Experiment 1, subjects were faced with a physically aversive event (the prospect of electric shock). High monitors and low blunters chose to seek out information about its nature and onset whereas low monitors and high blunters chose to distract themselves. This effect was strongest with the blunting dimension. High monitoring and low blunting were also accompanied by sustained high anxiety and arousal. In contrast, low monitors and high blunters were able to relax themselves over time. In Experiment 2, subjects worked on a series of tests that presumably predicted success in college. They could attend as often as they wished to a light that signaled how well they were performing. Results showed that coping-style scores accurately predicted informational strategy, particularly with the monitoring dimension: High monitors tended to look at the light whereas low monitors tended to ignore it. Thus the MBSS measure of coping styles appears to be a valid instrument for predicting behavioral strategies in response to both physical and psychological stressors. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Psychology & Health
                Psychology & Health
                Informa UK Limited
                0887-0446
                1476-8321
                May 1997
                May 1997
                : 12
                : 3
                : 417-431
                Article
                10.1080/08870449708406717
                7d7e73d6-d7f1-4250-b216-617ced215c34
                © 1997
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article