CHAPTER
12
Measures of Coping for Psychological
Well-Being
Katharine H. Greenaway1, Winnifred R. Louis1, Stacey L. Parker1,
Elise K. Kalokerinos1, Joanne R. Smith2and Deborah J. T erry1
1University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia;2University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
As individuals go through life they face adversity, encounter resistance, experience stress, and meet chal-
lenges. People deal with these threats and challenges in a variety of different ways. They might confront the
problem head on; engage in other activities to distract themselves from the problem; use substances to alter their
senses; or turn to others or religion to help them cope. Researchers have developed instruments designed to dis-
tinguish and measure specific coping strategies in stressful situations. We review six of the most prominent
instruments used in coping research (see below).
Coping can take various forms. Animal models conceptualize coping as acts that resolve aversive environmen-
tal conditions, thereby reducing psychophysiological disturbance ( Miller, 1980; Ursin, 1980 ). Cognitive theories
define coping as ‘constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or inter-
nal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person’ ( Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ,
p. 141). These theories typically conceptualize coping as a dynamic interplay of person and environment factors.
That is, people may be exposed to the same environmental stressor but cope in different ways depending on their
personal characteristics. Similarly, the same individual may cope differently from one situation to the next
depending on variation in the specific environmental demands.
This theoretical distinction between a focus on the individual as possessing static versus malleable coping ten-
dencies across situations has led to some confusion in the field. What researchers do agree on is that the process
of coping should be considered as separate from the outcome of coping ( Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Leventhal,
Suls, & Leventhal, 1993; Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996 ). That is, definitions of coping should include efforts to
manage stressful demands, regardless of whether those efforts are successful. An inclusive study of coping
should include assessment of both adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies.
Coping is generally thought of as a reactive process triggered in response to a causal event. It is this element
of an external trigger that distinguishes coping specifically from the related process of self-regulation more gener-
ally ( Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004 ). Most commonly, people encounter a stressful event with which they need to
cope. There are a number of features of the trigger, or stressful event, that influence howpeople cope with that
event. In cognitive theories, the most important factor in determining how people cope is their appraisal of the
situation. Individuals also may identify and utilize resources at their disposal to assist their coping efforts.
People differ widely in their response to stress. Some react strongly to minor stresses while others are not
fazed by even major stresses in life. An event that evokes fear and avoidance in one individual may inspire
energy and approach in another. A main determinant of a person’s coping response is the way they appraise a
stressful situation. Lazarus’ (1966) classic stress and coping theory distinguishes between two types of cognitive
appraisals: primary and secondary appraisals (for a more recent review see Lazarus, 2006 ).
322Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00012-7 ©2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.