convinced that all is well. Tick allof the statements
that might apply to you.
____ I would carefully read the information
provided about safety features in the plane and
make sure that I knew where the exits were. (M)
____ I would make small talk with the passenger
beside me. (B)
____ I would watch the end of the movie, even if I
had seen it before. (B)
____ I would call the flight attendant and ask
him/her exactly what the problem was. (M)
____ I would order a drink from the
stewardess. (B)____ I would listen carefully to the engines for
unusual noises and would watch the crew to see if
their behavior was out of the ordinary. (M)
____ I would talk to the passenger beside me
about what might be wrong. (M)
____ I would settle down and read a book or
magazine or write a letter. (B)
Subscales :M5Monitoring, B 5Blunting.
Source :Miller (1988) . The interacting effects of coping
styles and situational variables in gynecologic set-
tings: Implications for research and treatment. Journal
of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology ,9,2 3/C034.
Reprinted with permission from Informa Healthcare.
Mainz Coping Inventory (MCI)
(Krohne, 1993 ).
Variable
The MCI measures the degree to which individuals adopt a vigilant or avoidant coping style when approach-
ing threatening situations.
Description
The MCI distinguishes between coping strategies that are designed to reduce ambiguity and increase under-
standing (vigilance) and strategies designed to protect the individual from threatening information and manage
emotional distress (cognitive avoidance). Unlike the MBSS, which was originally intended to categorize people as
either high monitors/low blunters or low monitors/high blunters, Krohne’s measure treats vigilance and avoid-
ance as independent from one another. Thus, it is possible for people to score high in both cognitive avoidance
and vigilance at the same time.
Given that the scales are relatively independent, people can be grouped in terms of four coping profiles.
People high in vigilance and low in cognitive avoidance are referred to as sensitizers and adopt a rigid monitoring
style in threatening situations. People low in vigilance and high in cognitive avoidance, however, are known as
repressors and adopt a consistent avoidant style in threatening situations. A high score on both vigilance and cog-
nitive avoidance is thought to be a particularly maladaptive coping profile (indeed, this group is referred to as
unsuccessful copers orhigh anxious ) while a low score on both dimensions is the hallmark of flexible ornon-defensive
coping.
The MCI consists of eight hypothetical threat scenarios, half of which depict a physical threat situation (e.g., a
turbulent plane ride) and the other half an ego threat situation (e.g., making a public speech). The MCI can there-
fore be divided into two subtests of responses to physical and ego threats. Each scenario is followed by 18 possi-
ble responses that are reworded to reflect the content of the particular scenario. These 18 responses comprise
nine vigilant coping strategies and nine avoidance coping strategies. The nine vigilant coping strategies are:
(1) recalling negative events; (2) self-pity; (3) information search; (4) comparison with others; (5) planning; (6)
escape tendency; (7) control via information; (8) anticipation of negative events; and (9) situation control. The
nine cognitive avoidance coping strategies are: (1) minimization; (2) self-enhancement; (3) re-interpretation; (4)
attentional diversion; (5) down playing; (6) denial; (7) emphasizing one’s own efficacy; (8) accentuating positive
aspects; and (9) trust. These 18 coping strategies do not represent independent dimensions or sub-facets of vigi-
lant and avoidance coping; these merely serve as test items to generate scores for the two scales ( Schwarzer &
Schwarzer, 1996 ). Confirmatory factor analysis verified that vigilance and avoidance are distinct and distinguish-
able dimensions of the scale ( Krohne et al., 2000 ).
Participants respond on a true /C0false scale to indicate whether or not they would use each strategy. Scores can
be obtained for each coping style (i.e., vigilance and avoidance) and each type of threat, resulting in four scores328 12. MEASURES OF COPING FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
III. EMOTION REGULATION