particular way of coping that are considered to be relatively stable across different stressful situations (e.g.,
Carver, Scheier, & Weintrab, 1989 ). In comparison, coping strategies are flexible responses to situational
demands ( Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ). Coping strategies are considered to be dynamic and responsive moment-
by-moment efforts in response to a specific stressful situation.
Conceptualization of coping as a trait (i.e., fixed) or as a state (i.e., flexible) process has its own merits and lim-
itations. There is utility in measuring stable coping styles across individuals ( Carver et al., 1989 ). Such an
approach allows for the identification of consistent ways of coping with stress. Does an individual in general
tend to orient towards or away from threat? Are they more likely to draw on social support rather than other
forms of coping? Answering these questions addresses predictive validity across a range of situations. Indeed,
trait coping measures share variance with personality traits ( Conner-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007 ), indicating that
these types of measures tap stable and predictable differences between individuals.
The study of coping styles has received criticism, however (e.g., Lazarus, 1991 ).Lazarus and Folkman (1984)
argued that an assessment of coping at the trait level stifles predictive validity within specific coping contexts,
because it ignores variation in behavior due to specific situational demands. They claimed that this underesti-
mates the complexity and variability in actual coping efforts and that an analysis of coping styles does not cap-
ture the multidimensional nature of coping processes.
In contrast, situational assessments view coping as a dynamic process that changes within individuals across
situations. State measures of coping assess how an individual reports coping in specific stressful situations, rather
than how they report coping with stress in general. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) claimed that in order to gain a
full understanding of the coping process, one must understand what problem an individual is coping with and
the specific strategies being used to cope in that situation. State coping measures are therefore likely to be more
predictive of coping outcomes within specific situations than trait coping measures.
A situation-specific analysis also allows for assessment of stress and coping as a dynamic feedback process
that unfolds over time. That is, an individual’s coping efforts respond flexibly to changes in the environment
(Daniels & Harris, 2005; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ). This conceptualization is distinct from the relatively static
analysis provided by trait measures of coping.
Thus, there is a tension in the coping literature between researchers who propose the use of trait measures of
coping and those who propose the use of state measures of coping. Yet both analyses are important for a full
understanding of the coping process. People are not ‘locked into’ a particular coping style that dictates their
response in every stressful situation. Such an adaptation would be useless and potentially dysfunctional. Nor are
people ‘blank slates’, reacting to every new situation in a completely novel way. Carver et al. (1989) proposed
that after repeated exposure to stress and successful resolution of this stress, some people come to habitually
implement the specific coping strategies that led to the successful outcome. Coping styles then provide the dispo-
sitional scaffolding that predisposes individuals to a particular way of coping. It appears that people engage
actively in the coping process, using tailored coping strategies and reacting dynamically to the demands of the
specific situation.
MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
The measures reviewed in this chapter fall into the two broad categories of dispositional (or trait) coping and
situational (or state) coping. The measures and their subscales are outlined below.
Trait Coping Measures
1.Miller Behavioral Style Scale ( Miller, 1987 )
2.Mainz Coping Inventory ( Krohne, 1993 )
3.Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations ( Endler & Parker, 1990, 1994 )
4.COPE Inventory ( Carver et al., 1989 )
State Coping Measures
1.Coping Strategy Indicator ( Amirkhan, 1990 )
2.Ways of Coping Questionnaire ( Folkman & Lazarus, 1988 )324 12. MEASURES OF COPING FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
III. EMOTION REGULATION