more balanced approach to include both adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies (e.g., Ways of Coping
Questionnaire; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988 and the COPE Inventory; Carver et al., 1989 ).
It should be further noted that the MCI until recently had only been validated in German samples (see
Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996 ).Krohne et al. (2000) have reported on the construction and validation of an
English version of the MCI, demonstrating it has acceptable reliability and validity in terms of the factorial struc-
ture. To-date, however, limited research has been conducted with the English version of the MCI.
MAINZ COPING INVENTORY
Ego Threat Subtest
1.Speech: Imagine that you have to make a speech to a
group of people (i.e., participants of a course or
seminar, parents at a meeting at their children’s
school) in about 1 hour.
2.Exam: Imagine that you will have an important
examination the next morning.
3.Job interview: Imagine that you applied for a job and
that, in a few minutes, your application interview
will start.
4.Mistake on the job: Imagine that you have made a
mistake on the job which shouldn’t have happened
and that you are to have a talk with your boss.
Physical Threat Subtest
1.Dentist: Imagine that you haven’t been to the dentist
for quite a long time. You are now sitting in his
waiting room because you are having problems with
your teeth.2.Group of people: Imagine that you are walking along
through town in the late evening. A group of
people, who look suspicious, approach you out of
a side street.
3.Inexperienced driver: Imagine that you are a front
seat passenger next to an obviously inexperienced
driver. Road conditions are poor due to snow
and ice.
4.Turbulent flight: Imagine that you are sitting in an
airplane. The flight has been turbulent for quite a
while now, and the ‘No Smoking’ and ‘Fasten Seat
Belts’ signs have lit up.
Source :Krohne et al. (2000) . The assessment of dispo-
sitional vigilance and cognitive avoidance: Factorial
structure, psychometric properties, and validity of
the Mainz Coping Inventory. Cognitive Therapy &
Research, 24 , 297/C0311.
Reprinted with permission from Springer Science and
Business Media.
COPING REACTIONS FOR THE THREAT SCENARIO
‘PUBLIC SPEECH’
Imagine that you have to make a speech to a group
of people (i.e. participants of a course or seminar, par-
ents at a meeting at their children’s school) in about one
hour.
In this situation ...
1.I carefully review the topics I’m going to present.
2.I tell myself: ‘Everything will go well.’
3.I don’t think about the speech any more.
4.I think about what I can do if I lose track of what I
wanted to say.
5.I’m considerably more stressed than most people
I know.
6.I prefer to talk with friends about something other
than the speech.7.I think about what questions might be asked after
the speech.
8.I stay completely calm.
9.I remember the advice of people who already had to
make a similar speech.
10.I tell myself: ‘I’ve been able to cope with situations
that were far more trying.’
Items No. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9 indicate vigilant coping,
items 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10 indicate cognitive avoidance.
Source : Reprinted from Personality and Individual
Differences ,30(7), Krohne, H.W., Schmukle, S.C.,
Burns, L.R., Egloff, B., & Spielberger, C.D. The mea-
surement of coping in achievement situations: An
international comparison, 1225 /C01243. Copyright
(2001), with permission from Elsevier.331 TRAIT COPING MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION