individual ’s control (Terry & Hynes, 1998). And as if this weren ’t bad en-
ough, extensive use of avoidance strategies can create additional problems.
Because escape from anxiety sometimes includes drinking, people who typi-
cally rely on avoidance strategies may be at risk for alcohol problems
(Simpson & Arroyo, 1998; Windle & Windle, 1996). One study found that
adolescents who relied on avoidance coping were more likely than other stu-
dents to engage in a number of delinquent behaviors, including substance
abuse (Cooper, Wood, Orcutt, & Albino, 2003).
Although active strategies are almost always preferable to avoidance
strategies, the question of whether one should use a problem-focused oremotion-focused strategy is more difficult. Depending on the situation, eitherof these approaches might prove more effective for dealing with stress
(Austenfeld & Stanton, 2004). The key is whether there is any way to correct
the problem, or if the situation is one that eventually has to be accepted(Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Zeidner, 2007). If a means to resolve the situa-
tion is available, taking quick action to eliminate a problem probably is the
most effective course of action (Vitaliano, DeWolfe, Maiuro, Russo, &Katon, 1990). Students who fret over difficult material in their math classes
probably could do themselves a favor by seeking help right away instead of
hoping for sudden insight. However, we often encounter situations that we
can’t do anything about. In these cases, trying to make the problem go away
is fruitless. One study found that parents who reacted to their infant ’s death
with problem-focused strategies had a more difficult time coping with theloss than parents who used other coping tactics (Murray & Terry, 1999).
When a situation can ’t be changed, working on your emotional reaction to
the experience is probably the most effective approach.
One team of psychologists demonstrated this point in a dramatic way
(Strentz & Auerbach, 1988). In conjunction with the FBI and some domestic
airline companies, the researchers staged a 4-day hostage abduction. Pilots,copilots, and flight attendants who had volunteered to participate in the exer-
cise experienced what it would be like to be taken hostage by terrorists. Great
effort was taken to make the situation as realistic as possible. FBI agentsdressed as terrorists fired automatic weapons (blanks), handcuffed the hos-
tages, and made death threats. Measures taken throughout the study showed
that, as expected, the participants experienced high levels of anxiety. How didthey cope with this anxiety? Before the kidnapping, some participants were
instructed in the use of emotion-focused coping strategies whereas others
were trained to use problem-focused strategies. Remember, there was little ornothing the hostages could do to change the situation. But they could deal
with their emotional reactions. As a result, participants instructed in how touse the emotion-focused strategies experienced lower levels of anxiety thanthose who relied on problem-focused strategies.
Because different strategies work in different situations, the key to effec-
tive coping might be to know when to employ which type of strategy. Re-searchers refer to this ability as coping flexibility (Cheng, 2001, 2009; Cheng &
Cheung, 2005). That is, people who readily adjust their coping strategies tofit the realities of a given situation are likely to deal with life ’s problems130 CHAPTER 6 The Neo-Freudian Theories