Primary appraisals are made when an individual evaluates a situation as having significance for their well-
being. Appraisals of stressful situations fall into three main categories: harm, threat, and challenge ( Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984 ). Harm appraisals are made about situations in which psychological or physical damage has been
sustained. Threat appraisals are made about anticipated negative situations in which psychological or physical
damage could occur. In contrast, challenge appraisals are made about situations that carry the potential for posi-
tive outcomes, improvement, and growth. Whether someone appraises a stressful situation as representing harm,
threat, or a challenge critically impacts on that individual’s orientation towards the stressor, choice of coping
strategies, and his/her emotional experience of stress. Primary appraisals are not static or one-off cognitive repre-
sentations of events, however; individuals engage in a constant process of appraisal and reappraisal until stress
is resolved.
Secondary appraisals concern an individual’s perceived ability to handle a stressful event. These appraisals
are key in identifying what might and can be done to cope with the stressor. An important element that influ-
ences secondary appraisal is the availability of coping resources /C0practical and psychological tools that assist peo-
ple in meeting and overcoming demands in the environment.
Coping resources may be actual features of the environment that enable people to cope with stress (e.g., access
to money, availability of social support; Schwarzer & Leppin, 1991 ) or factors internal to the individual that aid
coping efforts (e.g., optimism, Scheier & Carver, 1992 ; hardiness, Eschleman, Bowling, & Alarcon, 2010 ; self-effi-
cacy; Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1992 ). These personal resources are distal predictors of coping strategies. For exam-
ple, internal locus of control is associated with greater problem-focused coping strategies ( Parkes, 1994 ). In a
recent meta-analysis, Conner-Smith and Flaschsbart (2007) found that extraversion and conscientiousness pre-
dicted more problem-solving and cognitive restructuring coping strategies. In contrast, neuroticism predicted
maladaptive coping strategies such as wishful thinking, withdrawal, and emotion-focused coping.
Given the wide variety of specific coping strategies available, researchers have found it useful to identify more
parsimonious dimensions by which to distinguish and categorize coping strategies ( Skinner, Edge, Altman, &
Sherwood, 2003 ). A common theoretical distinction in coping research is between approach and avoidance (an
individual’s orientation towards or away from threatening stimuli) /C0(Roth & Cohen, 1986 ).
Several measures reviewed here draw on this distinction. The Miller Behavioral Style Scale (Miller, 1981) dis-
tinguishes between monitors /C0individuals who seek out information about threats in the environment /C0and
blunters /C0individuals who seek to distract themselves from threat. The Mainz Coping Inventory ( Krohne, 1993 )
distinguishes the use of vigilant coping styles from avoidance coping styles. Vigilant coping involves the direction
of attention towards threatening information, and avoidance coping involves the direction of attention away
from threatening information.
Another basic distinction is between assimilation and accommodation (e.g., Brandstadter & Renner, 1990;
Piaget, 1985 ). Assimilative processes involve altering the env ironment or situation to bring it more in line with
one’s desires (e.g., trying to change stressful circumstan ces; exerting primary control). In contrast, accommoda-
tive processes involve adjusting one’s desires to fit with situational constraints (e.g ., accepting the situation
and looking for positives; exerting secondary control; Band & Weisz, 1988; Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995;
Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982; Weisz, McCabe, & Dennig, 1994 ).Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) classic dis-
tinction between problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping draws on the assimilation-accommodation
distinction. The Ways of Coping Questionnaire ( Folkman & Lazarus, 1988 ), reviewed in this chapter, measures
coping efforts aimed at altering the s tressful event, and those aimed at reg ulating emotional reactions to the
stressful event.
The dimensions of approach /C0avoidance and assimilation /C0accommodation can provide useful taxonomies for
classifying specific strategies into higher-order coping categories. This theoretical approach has received criticism,
however ( Skinner et al., 2003 ). There is ambiguity regarding the concrete classification of specific coping strate-
gies into either one dimension or another. For example, seeking social support could be considered an approach
coping strategy in that people seek out methods of helping them cope with a stressful event, or it could be con-
sidered an avoidance coping strategy whereby people seek to escape from the stressful event. Information seek-
ing may represent either a method of assimilation (to the extent that people seek to use the information to
change the situation) or accommodation (to the extent that people seek to use the information to accept and
adjust to the situation). Therefore, although broad coping taxonomies are useful theoretically, the multi-faceted
nature of coping necessitates use of specific measures that assess a broad range of coping strategies (e.g., Skinner,
2003). Measurement of specific coping strategies presents its own challenges, however.
The most pervasive debate in the coping literature centers on the measurement of dispositional coping
styles compared with situational coping strategies. Coping styles are dispositional tendencies toward a323 12. MEASURES OF COPING FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
III. EMOTION REGULATION