 25. Self‑Regulatory Processes, Stress, and Coping  553
(Carver & Scheier, 2003; Scheier & Carver, 
1992). In one very early project, Scheier, 
Weintraub, and Carver (1986) asked un -
dergraduates to recall their most stress -
ful event of the previous month and rate a 
list of responses with respect to that event. 
Optimism was related to greater problem- 
focused coping, especially when the situa -
tion was judged to have been controllable. 
Optimism also related to positive reframing 
and (when the situation was seen as uncon -
trollable) with the tendency to accept the re -
ality of the situation. In contrast, optimism 
related inversely to the use of denial and the 
attempt to distance oneself from the prob -
lem.
The fact that optimists and pessimists dif -
fered in their use of problem focused-  coping 
is entirely consistent with the self-  regulation 
model. Not directly predicted, however, was 
the fact that optimists and pessimists also 
differed on other responses, including ac -
cepting the reality of difficult situations and 
putting the situations in the best possible 
light. In retrospect, however, the findings 
make sense within the self-  regulation frame -
work; that is, it may be easier to accept and 
take on the reality of a negative situation if 
one is confident of favorable eventual out -
comes.
This general pattern of effects has con -
tinued to emerge in work on optimism and 
coping across many years. In 2006, Sol -
berg Nes and Segerstrom published a meta- 
analysis of 50 studies of optimism and as -
pects of coping. They organized the coping 
responses measured in the various studies 
according to the conceptual framework we 
described in the preceding section: dividing 
them into problem-  focused versus emotion- 
focused, crossed by approach versus avoid -
ance. Across the studies, optimism was 
positively related both to problem-  focused 
approach coping and to emotion-  focused ap -
proach coping. This was especially true for 
problem-  focused coping with stressors that 
were characterized as being academic and 
health-  related, but less so for stressors that 
were trauma-  related. On the other hand, the 
positive association for emotion- focused ap -
proach coping was stronger for traumatic 
stressors than for academic stressors.
Optimism was even more strongly 
associated—  inversely—  with avoidance cop -ing, with pessimists reporting greater avoid -
ance. In this case, the associations were 
stronger with both aspects of avoidance cop -
ing in circumstances that were characterized 
as academic- or health- related than those 
characterized as trauma-  related (Solberg 
Nes & Segerstrom, 2006).
Optimism, Coping, and  Emotional  Well‑Being
These studies establish that optimists cope 
in different ways than do pessimists. Other 
work has linked such differences in coping 
to differences in emotional outcomes. One 
early study examined how women cope with 
treatment for early stage breast cancer dur -
ing the first year after treatment (Carver et 
al., 1993). Optimism, coping (with the diag -
nosis of cancer), and mood were assessed the 
day before surgery, 10 days postsurgery, and 
at three follow-  up points. Both before and 
after surgery, optimism was associated with 
a pattern of coping that revolved around ac -
cepting the reality of the situation, placing 
as positive a light on it as possible, trying 
to relieve the situation with humor, and (at 
presurgery only) taking active steps to do 
whatever there was to be done. Pessimism 
was associated with denial and behavioral 
disengagement at each measurement point.
These coping tactics also related strongly 
to subjects’ distress. Positive reframing, ac -
ceptance, and the use of humor all related 
inversely to distress, both before and after 
surgery. Denial and behavioral disengage -
ment related positively to distress at all mea -
surement points. Not unexpectedly, given 
the pattern of the correlations, the effect of 
optimism on distress was largely indirect 
through coping, particularly postsurgery. 
Similar results were found in another study 
examining head and neck cancer patients 
(Allison, Guichard, & Gilain, 2000).
Patients are not the only ones affected by 
health problems: Caregiving for patients is 
also stressful, and caregivers’ well-being is 
sometimes affected even more than that of 
the patients (Roach, Averill, Segerstrom, & 
Kasarskis, 2009). Higher optimism among 
cancer caregivers has been associated with 
less depression and less adverse impact of 
caregiving on the caregivers’ physical health 
(Given et al., 1993). Similar results have 
been found for spousal caregivers of Al -