Confrontive Coping
I did something which I didn’t think would work,
but at least I was doing something.
Tried to get the person responsible to change his
or her mind.
Distancing
Made light of the situation; refused to get too
serious about it.
Went on as if nothing had happened.
Self-Controlling
I tried to keep my feelings to myself.
Kept others from knowing how
bad things were.
Seeking Social Support
Talked to someone to find out more about
the situation.
Talked to someone who could do something
concrete about the problem.Accepting Responsibility
Criticized or lectured myself.
Realized I brought the problem on myself.
Escape /C0Avoidance
Wished that the situation would go away or
somehow be over with.
Hoped a miracle would happen.
Positive Reappraisal
Changed or grew as a person in a good way.
I came out of the experience better than when I
went in.
Source : Folkman, S., Lazarus, R.S., Dunkel-Schetter,
C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R.J. (1986). Dynamics of a
stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and
encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology ,50, 992/C01003.
Copyright r1986 by the American Psychological
Association. Adapted with permission.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
The effectiveness of a given coping strategy depends on a complex interplay of people’s appraisals, coping
resources, and specific features of the environment. This complexity makes it difficult to capture the full variation
in coping in one measure, leading some researchers to conclude that, ‘the measurement of coping is probably as
much art as it is science’ ( Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004 , p. 751). The structure of coping has dominated the
approach towards its measurement. It is difficult to establish a consistent structure across the diverse contexts in
which coping occurs (see Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004 ; Skinner, 2003).
Despite the challenges posed by the multidimensional na ture of the coping process, improvements can still be made
in the measurement of coping. Parker and Endler (2006) recently identified two main problems. First, the proliferation
of coping scales has made it difficult to observe meaningful a nd consistent coping patterns across different populations
or stressors. Second, coping research should be limited to usin g only the most psychometrically rigorous scales to pro-
cure valid and generalizable information about coping beh avior. We have attempted to follow these guidelines, and
chose to highlight only a few key coping scales to meet the challenge set out by Parker and Endler (2006) .
Another challenge is the length of coping questionnaires, which has limited published studies where the com-
plete instrument is used (and therefore validated). This is especially the case for some participant groups (e.g.,
employees, some clinical samples). Indeed, most validation studies reported here were conducted using student
samples. The lengthiness of coping instruments has resulted in many researchers only selecting the specific
‘ways of coping’ that interest them, or is relevant to the specific stressor or context under investigation.
Skinner’s (2003) review on coping taxonomies highlighted that specific ‘ways of coping’ are potentially more
relevant and powerful predictors of outcomes, as opposed to broader ‘families of coping’. Skinner concluded that
focusing on the specific coping mechanism is more likely to unravel the complex processes of coping behavior as
these indicators will be more specific predictors of coping outcomes. Researchers should be selective in the
coping instruments they choose to administer and base their decision-making on the content of the measures; i.e.,
ensuring the specific ‘ways of coping’ are included in any measure, which are relevant to the phenomenon, con-
text, or sample under investigation. This might mean researchers select a smaller number of relevant subscales
from the instruments reviewed here.
Criticisms have been leveled at current coping instruments ( Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Parker & Endler, 2006 ).
One criticism is that most coping inventories, including the measures reviewed above, involve responding either to
hypothetical scenarios or recalling past coping experiences (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996; Porter & Stone, 1996; Steptoe, 1989 ).
Both these procedures fail to assess actual ‘in-the-moment ’ coping. An alternative method of measurement is to use
experience sampling to assess ‘real time’ attempts at self-regulation and coping ( Hofmann, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2012 ).344 12. MEASURES OF COPING FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
III. EMOTION REGULATION