Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Health and Social Behavior.
http://www.jstor.org
219
In this studywe soughtto answer two basic (1977), forexample, orders defense processes
questions about the coping process. First, to from primitiveto mature according to their
what extent are people consistent in coping "relative theoreticalmaturityand pathological
with the diverse stressfulevents of ordinary import" (p. 80). Menninger(1963) speaks of
living? If coping is determinedprimarilyby five orders of regulatorydevices representing
person variables, intraindividualcoping pat- levels of disorganization, and Haan (1977)
terns should be highly consistent across ranks ego processes as indicatingego-failure,
stressfulencounters. On the other hand, if defense, or coping according to their adher-
situationvariables are the majordeterminants, ence to an objective reality.The placementof
coping patternswill be situation-specific, and an ego process on an evaluative dimensionis
there will be low consistency. Second, what oftenmade on the basis of informationabout
are the actual factorsthatinfluencethe coping how well the person functions.This leads to
process? Five were considered: certain situa- the firstmajor difficulty, namely,a confound-
tional factors, includingwhat the event was ing between the process and the adaptational
about, who was involved, and how the event outcome.
was appraised, and two demographic vari- Two examples are the studiesof Wolffet al.
ables, age and gender. (1964) concerning"well-defended" parentsof
This reportdoes not examine the relation- children with terminalillness, and the more
ships between coping processes and adap- recentwork of Vaillant(1977). In the studyby
tational outcomes, such as morale, social Wolffet al., the parents' degree of defense
functioning,and somatic illness. Before this ("well-defendedness") was used to predict
can be done, it is necessaryto have a workable theirstresshormonelevel. However, the mea-
approach to the measurementof coping,and to sure of well-defendednesswas based partially
have at least a preliminaryunderstanding ofthe on evidence of lack of distress. It is no great
consistencyof the copingprocess across stress- surprise,therefore,thatthe outcome measure
ors and of some of the determinants of coping. of stress level, corticosteroidsecretion, was
This reportshould, therefore,be regardedas a also correlatedwith well-defendedness.
necessary firststep in programmaticresearch Vaillant's procedure for assigning defense
on coping and adaptationaloutcome. level scores to behaviors in his longitudinal
studyof the adaptive processes of male gradu-
ates of an Eastern universityalso illustrates
Approaches to the Measurementof
thisproblemof theconfoundingofprocess and
Coping
outcome. Behaviors at timesof crisis and con-
Current approaches to measurement are flict in each man's life were described, and
based on three broad perspectives, namely, these behaviorswere assigned a defenserating
coping conceptualized in terms of ego pro- according to their relative maturity.Raters
cesses (e.g., Haan, 1977; Vaillant, 1977), cop- were given a life-stylesummaryto assist them
ing conceptualized as traits(e.g., Lazarus et in ratingthe behavior-in other words, a de-
al., 1974), and coping conceptualized in terms fense was rated in the context of the man's
of the special demandsof specifickindsof situ- overall functioning.Level of defense (i.e.,
ations, such as illness (e.g., Moos, 1977),natu- maturityof defense) was subsequentlyused to
ral disasters (e.g., Lucas, 1969), and bereave- distinguishoutcome groups. However, when
ment(e.g., Parkes, 1972). A briefdiscussion of there is interdependencebetween the process
each of these perspectiveswill make clear why and the adaptationaloutcome, as in the case of
the measures of coping that have evolved are Vaillant's study,the process cannot be used to
unsatisfactory. explain the outcome.
Conceptualizingcopingin termsofdefensive Anotherdifficulty is thatadequate interrater
or ego processes poses several difficulties for reliabilityin assigninglabels to ego processes is
our understandingof the relationshipbetween difficultto attain. This problem is noted by
the coping process and the adaptational out- Vaillant (1971) and by Morrissey(1977) in his
come. review of studies employingHaan's tripartite
Usually defenses are hierarchicallyorgan- arrangementof ego processes. Raters' dis-
ized on an evaluative dimension. Vaillant agreementsstemin largepartfromthe amount
enoughopportunity to become the sortof present study falls within the cognitive-
personI'd liketo be? 3. My spouseappre- phenomenologicaltheoryof psychological
ciatesmejust as I am? (p. 19) stressdevelopedbyLazarusandhiscolleagues
And anotherasked: (e.g., Lazarus,1966;Lazarus,inpress;Coyne
and Lazarus, in press; Folkmanet al., 1979;
How oftendo you: 1. Tell yourselfthat Lazarus et al., 1980; Lazarus and Launier,
marital difficulties
arenotimportant? 2. Try 1978). The overall theoreticalframework is
to overlookyourspouse'sfaultsandpayat- transactional in thatthepersonand theenvi-
tention onlyto goodpoints?3. Tryto ignore ronment are seeninan ongoingrelationship of
difficultiesby lookingonlyat good things? reciprocalaction,each affecting and in turn
(p. 20) beingaffectedby theother.Lazarus has de-
Whena situational sourceofstressis defined finedtwoprocessesthatmediatethisrelation-
in termsof a generalquality,such as social ship:appraisaland coping.
atmosphere, we learnaboutan enduring aspect Appraisalis the cognitiveprocessthrough
of a clusterof specificsituationsthatin this whichan eventis evaluatedwithrespectto
case includesopportunity forself-expression,whatis at stake(primary appraisal)and what
and spousalappreciation or thelack thereof. coping resourcesand optionsare available
These are general,abstractqualitiesof situa- (secondaryappraisal).Thereare threemajor
tionsand do notinform us of thespecificde- typesof stressful appraisals:harm-loss, which
mandswithwhichthepersonis coping.Simi- refersto damagethathas alreadyoccurred;
larly,whena personis askedabouthowhe or threat, whichrefers toharmorlossthathasnot
she usually copes, information is being so- yetoccurredbutis anticipated; andchallenge,
licitedabouta personality disposition.At this whichrefersto an anticipated opportunity for
level of abstraction, measurement poses the mastery or gain.The degreeto whicha person
same problemsencounteredin the traitap- experiencespsychological stress,thatis, feels
proach to measurementdiscussed above. harmed,threatened, or challenged,is deter-
Overall,thereis usuallya poor relationship minedby therelationship betweentheperson
betweenwhatpeoplesay theyusuallydo and andtheenvironment inthatspecificencounter
whattheyactuallydo inspecificinstances. The as itis defined bothbytheevaluation ofwhatis
bestway to learnaboutthedemandsof situa- at stakeand theevaluation ofcopingresources
tions(such as a personalcriticism or a man- and options.
ifestation ofinterpersonalcoolnessorhostility) Copingis definedas thecognitiveand be-
and how people cope with them(e.g., by havioralefforts made to master,tolerate,or
counterhostility, avoidance,or withdrawal of reduceexternal andinternal demandsandcon-
interest)is to describehow people actually flictsamongthem.Such copingefforts serve
cope in specific stressfulencounters. twomainfunctions: themanagement or altera-
The second limitation of Pearlin and tion of the person-environment relationship
Schooler'sstudyis itsconcernwithpersistent thatis the sourceof stress(problem-focused
life-strains,thatis, enduring and henceunre- coping)andtheregulation ofstressful
emotions
solvedproblems"thathave thepotentialfor (emotion-focused coping).These functions of
arousingthreat. . ." (p. 3). Subjects were not copingare also recognizedby George(1974),
askedaboutstressestheyhadresolvedorwere Kahn et al. (1964), Murphyand Moriarty
successfulin overcoming. As a result,a large (1976),Murphy (1974),White(1974),Mechanic
domainofcopingresponses,thoseeffective in (1962),and Pearlinand Schooler(1978).
changingthe situation out of which the Copingefforts aremadeinresponseto stress
strainfulexperiencearose, was ignored.This appraisals. However, appraisal and coping
orientation towardenduringproblemsmight continuously influenceeach otherthroughout
helpexplainwhyresponsesto modify thesitu- an encounter.For example,an appraisalof
ationrepresented only3 of the 17 copingre- harm/loss, threat,or challengestimulates cop-
sponseselicited,a finding thatseemedto sur- ingefforts thatchangetheperson-environment
prisetheauthors. relationship by alteringthe relationship itself
The conceptualization ofcopingused in the (problem-focused coping)and/or by regulating
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
tO 12
4-)
11 N =100
z>
6
5
4
3
20
1>
Consistency Scores
Mean 2-tailed
Category Mean Difference df T-value Probabilitya
Coping
Problem-focused
Weofrk 9.780 -1.05 56 -2.61 .012
Mean 2-tailed
Category Mean Difference df T-value Probabilitya
Problem-focusedCoping
Health 7957 -2.02 51 -4.12 .000
Mean 2-tailed
Category Mean Difference df T-value Probabilitya
Problem-focusedCoping
Could do something 9.08 1.15 90 4.31 .000
Must accept 7.93
Could do something 9.28 _ 54 55 -1.26 .213
Needed more information 9.82
Could do something 9.46 .14 51 .34 .735
Had to hold back 9.32
Must accept 8.11 -1.71 60 -4.32 .000
Needed more information 9.82
Must accept 8.51 -.71 58 -1.76 .083
Had to hold back 9.22
Needed more information 10.05 1.00 36 1.76 .088
Had to hold back 9.05
Emotion-focusedCoping
Could do something 12.13 -1.21 91 -3.74 .000
Must accept 13.34
Could do something 12.65 -.05 54 - .09 .926
Needed more information 12.70
Could do something 12.82 -1.58 51 -2.43 .019
Had to hold back 14.40
Must accept 13.85 1.03 59 1.97 .053
Needed more information 12.82
Must accept 14.34 -.57 58 -1.08 .284
Had to hold back 14.91
Needed more information 12.76 -1.40 36 -1.82 .077
Had to hold back 14.16
a
Decision rule: reject null hypothesisif probabilityof Ts.02.
Number of 2-tailed
Category Cases Mean df T-value Probabilitya
Problem-focusedCoping
Self Only
Male 47 8.83 97 1.74 .085
Female 52 7.81
People at Work
Male 35 10.06
56 .81 .421
Female 23 9.17
Family Members
Male 37 8.08 84 -.34 .734
Female 49 8.34
Emotion-focusedCoping
Self Only
Male 48 12.83 9 .6.7
Female 52 13.40 98 -.56 .574
People at Work
Male 42 13.00 56 -.22 .824
Female 29 13.35
Family Members
Male 42 12.37 85 -1.31 .194
Female 51 13.73
a Decision rule: reject null hypothesisif probabilityof
T--.05.
Number of 2-tailed
Category Cases Mean df T-value Probabilitya
Problem-focusedCoping
Health
Male 34 7.82 75 -.16 .874
Female 43 7.95
Work
Male 42 10.19 69 2.08 .041
Female 29 8.44
Family
Male 41 8.39 90 .02 .981
Female 51 8.37
Emotion-focusedCoping
Health
Male 34 14.38 75- .18 .859
Female 43 14.60
Work
Male 42 13.00 69 .13 .897
Female 29 12.82
Family
Male 42 12.14 91 -1.47 .146
Female 51 13.67
a Decision rule: reject null hypothesisif probabilityof
T--.05.
Number of 2-tailed
Category Cases Mean df T-value Probabilitya
Problem-focusedCoping
Could do something:
Male 42 9.07 901297
Female 50 8.98 90 .12 .907
Must accept:
Male 47 8.76 97 .51 .014
Female 52 7.31
Needed more information:
Male 31 10.90 59 2.51 .015
Female 30 8.70
Had to hold back:
Male 30 8.87 57 -.88 .383
Female 29 9.59 -.8.8
Emotion-focusedCoping
Could do something:
Memale 540 11.59 90 -.86 .394
Must accept:
Male 48 13.31 98 -.47 .636
Female 52 13.73
Needed more information:
analyses were used to separate sources of varia- Cohen, F., and R. S. Lazarus
bility, and the inflationof relationships that 1973 "Active coping processes, coping disposi-
mighthave been caused by the dependency in tions, and recovery from surgery."
the data only led to more cautious statistical PsychosomaticMedicine 35:375-89.
procedures,as can be seen in thecase ofgender. 1979 "Coping with the stresses of illness." Pp.
5. See Note 4. 217-54 in George C. Stone, Frances Cohen,
6. See Note 4. and Nancy E. Adler (eds.), Health Psy-
chology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Colligan, M. J., and L. R. Murphy
1979 "Mass psychogenicillnessin organizations:
REFERENCES An overview." Journal of Occupational
Psychology52:77-90.
Aldrich,C. K., and E. Mendkoff Coyne, J., and R. S. Lazarus
1963 "Relocation of the aged and disabled: A In "Cognition, stress, and coping: A
mortalitystudy." Journalof the American press transactionalperspective." In I. L. Kutash
GeriatricsSociety 11:401-8. and L. B. Schlesinger (eds.), Pressure
Andreasen, N. J. C., and A. S. Norris Point: Perspectiveson Stress and Anxiety.
1972 "Long-term adjustment and adaptation San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
mechanisms in severely burned adults." Cronbach, L. J.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1951 "Coefficient alpha and the internal
154:352-62. structure of tests." Psychometrika
Antonovsky,Aaron 16:287-334.
1979 Health, Stress, and Coping. San Francisco: Ekehammar,B.
Jossey-Bass. 1974 "Interactionismin personalityfroma his-
Averill,J. R., L. O'Brien, and G. W. DeWitt toricalperspective." PsychologicalBulletin
1977 "The influenceofresponse effectivenesson 81:1026-48.
the preference for warning and on Epstein, S.
psychophysiological stress reactions." 1962 "The measurementof drive and conflictin
Journalof Personality45:395-418. humans: Theory and experiment." Pp.
Averill,J. R., and M. Rosenn 127-209 in Marshall R. Jones (ed.), Ne-
1972 "Vigilant and nonvigilantcoping strategies braska Symposiumon Motivation.Lincoln:
and psychophysiological stress reactions Universityof Nebraska Press.
duringthe anticipationof electric shock." 1977 "Traits are alive and well." Pp. 83-98 in
Journalof Personalityand Social Psychol- David Magnusson and Norman W. Endler
ogy 23:128-41. (eds.), Personalityat the Crossroads. Hills-
Bakan, David dale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
1966 The Duality of Human Existence. Chicago: 1979 "The stabilityof behavior: I. On predicting
Rand McNally. most of the people much of the time."
Bem, S. L. Journalof Personalityand Social Psychol-
1974 "The measurement of psychological an- ogy 37: 1097-1126.
drogyny."Journalof Consultingand Clini- Folkins, C.
cal Psychology42:155-62. 1970 "Temporal factors and the cognitive
Bowers, K. S. mediatorsof stress reactions." Journalof
1973 "Situationism in psychology: An analysis Personality and Social Psychology
and a critique." Psychological Review 14:173-84.
80:307-36. Folkman, S., C. Schaefer, and R. S. Lazarus
Bulman, R. J., and C. B. Wortman 1979 "Cognitive processes as mediatorsof stress
1977 "Attributionsof blame and coping in the and coping." Pp. 265-98 in Vernon Hamil-
'Real World': Severe accidentvictimsreact tonand David M. Warburton(eds.), Human
to theirlot." Journalof Personalityand So- Stress and Cognition.Chilchester,England:
cial Psychology35:351-63. Wiley.
Byrne, D. Gardner,R. W., P. S. Holzman, G. S. Klein, H. B.
1964 "Repression-sensitizationas a dimensionof Linton, and D. P. Spence
personality." Pp. 170-220 in Brendan A. 1959 "Cognitive control, a study of individual
Maher (ed.), Progressin ExperimentalPer- consistencies in cognitivebehavior." Psy-
sonalityResearch, vol. 1. New York: Aca- chological Issues 1(4).
demic Press. George, A. L.
Clark, Margaret,and B. G. Anderson 1974 "Adaptation to stress in political decision
1967 Culture and Aging: An Anthropological making: The individual, small group, and
Studyof Older Americans. Springfield, Ill.: organizational contexts." Pp. 176-245 in
Charles C Thomas. George V. Coelho, David A. Hamburg,and
Coelho, George V., David A. Hamburg,and JohnE. JohnE. Adams (eds.), Coping and Adapta-
Adams (eds.) tion. New York: Basic Books.
1974 Coping and Adaptation. New York: Basic Gleser, G. C., and D. Ihilevich
Books. 1969 "An objective instrumentfor measuring