Stone and Neal (1984) constructed the Daily Coping Inv entory to reduce recall inaccuracy in coping reports.
The instrument is completed at the same time each day wi th respondents ask ed to report their reactions to the
most bothersome event of the day. This method of assessm ent correlates moderately with recall procedures /C0
between .47 and .58 ( Ptacek, Smith, Espe, & Raffety, 1994 ). Such experience sampling-type measures may
change the way people respond to stressors, alerting them to alternative functional (or dysfunctional) ways of
coping.
Daily measures of coping may also act as self-regulation interventions in addition to measuring coping.
Indeed, counselors, consulting psyc hologists, and coaches have successfully used experience sampling techni-
ques as a tool for self-tracking and guided analysis with clients (see Foster & Lloyd, 2007 ). These techniques
are useful in practice, as the method prompts the respondent to record affect, coping, or any range of prede-
fined behaviors in real time. The technique can then be us ed to track the progress or effectiveness of any inter-
ventions that are implemented. The ma jor challenges of these approaches are (1) keeping measures brief and
easy to complete; and (2) capturing the right informatio n. Because these techniques are emergent, researchers
and practitioners alike should draw on the validity evidence presented here when devising coping items for
experience sampling.
A relatively new development has been an emerging focus on future-oriented proactive coping ( Folkman &
Moskowitz, 2004 ). The majority of coping measures focus on how people coped with past stressful events. This
model considers coping as a process that occurs after the onset of a stressful event, and positions individuals as
reactive rather than proactive agents in crafting their coping response. An alternative model is to consider how
people cope in anticipation of a stressful event to avert or minimize its impact ( Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997;
Greenglass, Schwarzer, & Taubert, 1999; Schwarzer & Knoll, 2003; Sohl & Moyer, 2009 ).
This perspective overlaps with emotion regulation research more generally. Gross’s (1998, 2002) model of emo-
tion regulation views emotion as an unfolding process. Emotion regulation reflects both attempts to avoid or
lessen negative emotions as well as attempts to foster or heighten positive emotions. Stressful events or episodes
may trigger an unfolding emotional experience ( Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004 ), which people can attempt to avoid
or reduce by using antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategies (i.e., situation selection, situation modifica-
tion, attention deployment, cognitive reappraisal). Once the emotional experience is ‘full blown’ individuals can
attempt to regulate emotions via response modulation (i.e., attempts at managing physiological, affective, and
behavioral reactions). Coping research too can benefit from an understanding of the preventive steps people take
to avoid or mitigate the experience of future negative emotions associated with stress, as well as reactive coping
responses after a stressful event has occurred.
Burgeoning research on proactive coping has found that it has considerable power for cultivating and main-
taining psychological well-being. Sohl and Moyer (2009) concluded that proactive coping was particularly protec-
tive/C0resulting in enhanced positive affect and life satisfaction, and fewer stress-related physical symptoms /C0
when conceptualized as a positively-focused striving for goals ( Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997 ) rather than preven-
tion of negative outcomes ( Bode, de Ridder, Kuijer, & Bensing, 2007 ). The results demonstrated that aspiring
for a positive future is distinctly predictive of well-being and suggests that research should focus on accumu-
lating resources and goal setting in designing i nterventions to promote proactive coping. Sohl and Moyer’s
(2009) work further suggests that inter esting overlaps may exist betwee n proactive coping and promotion
regulatory focus ( Higgins, 1997 ) that could combine to predict an optima l level of positive goal engagement in
stressful situations.
Finally, integrating research into the measuremen t of coping with assessments of self-regulation and
emotion-regulation more generally would seem desirable. Just as assessing the interplay between disposi-
tional coping styles and situational coping strategies may provide a more nuanced understanding of coping
behavior, so too may including the asses sment of state or trait regulatory capacities. Specific coping strategies
d i f f e ri nt h ed e g r e et ow h i c ht h e yr e q u i re self-regulatory resources. For example, interacting directly with a
stressor via problem-focused coping strategies may take more willpower than engaging in distraction or
avoidance. People who are dispositionally low in self-regulation ability may therefore be more likely to be
unsuccessful in certain coping efforts, and consequently more predisposed toward using particular coping
strategies over others.
In summary, this chapter provides a theoretical and m ethodological outline of the assessment of coping.
Six widely-used coping measures were reviewed and c r i t i q u e d .W eh o p et oh a v ep rovided a comprehensive
reference for scholars interested in assessing success ful coping and its implications for psychological
well-being.345 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
III. EMOTION REGULATION