OVER VIEW OF THE MEASURES
The first four instruments outlined in this chapter measure dispositional coping styles, although they assess
coping in different ways. The Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS; Miller, 1987 ) and the Mainz Coping Inventory
(MCI; Krohne, 1993 ) conceptualize coping style in terms of the direction of attention toward or away from threat-
ening stimuli. Both these measures assess ways of focusing on threatening or stressful stimuli in a process akin to
‘attentional deployment’ in models of emotion regulation ( Gross, 1998 ). This basic distinction between monitoring
and blunting (MBSS) or vigilance and avoidance (MCI) is thought to direct and shape later coping efforts,
although researchers rarely combine these instruments with other measures that assess dispositional coping strat-
egies (e.g., the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations or CISS; the COPE Inventory).
The CISS ( Endler & Parker, 1990, 1994 ) and the COPE Inventory ( Carver et al., 1989 ) measure a wide range of
dispositional coping styles. Although they assess different content, both measures are psychometrically well vali-
dated and used widely in coping research. Modified versions of both the CISS and the COPE were constructed to
assess specific coping strategies in addition to dispositional coping styles. To distinguish dispositional coping
styles from situational coping strategies, researchers typically alter the frame of reference when measuring coping
responses. When adopting a dispositional perspective, researchers ask about how people respond to stressful
events in general . When adopting a situational perspective, researchers ask about how people respond to a specific
stressful event.
The final two measures, the Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI; Amirkhan, 1990 ) and the Ways of Coping
Questionnaire (WCQ; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988 ) assess situational coping strategies in response to a specific
stressful event. These measures provide a counterpoint to dispositional measures. The WCQ is the most com-
monly used situational measure in coping research, possibly because it assesses a wider range of coping strate-
gies, or because of the seminal impact of Folkman and Lazarus’ work on coping theory.
These measures represent some of the most widely used and psychometrically validated coping scales cur-
rently available. There are many other coping measures available that specifically target particular populations,
such as children and adolescents (e.g., Coping Scale for Children and Youth; Brodzinsky et al., 1992 ; Adolescent
Coping Orientation for Problem Experiences Inventory; Patterson & McCubbin, 1987 ) or employees (e.g., Career
Attitudes and Strategies Inventory; Holland & Gottfredson, 1994 ; Occupational Attributional Styles
Questionnaire; Furnham, Sadka, & Brewin, 1992 ). Similarly, there are coping measures that target particular
domains, such as health and sports (e.g., Health and Daily Living Form; Moos, Cronkite, Billings, & Finney, 1983 ;
Drinking Motives Questionnaire; Cooper, 1994 ) and academic performance (e.g., Academic Coping Strategies
Scale; Sullivan, 2009 ). We focus on measures that are not domain or sample specific, and thus have a broad appli-
cability across a wide range of research and other contexts.
TRAIT COPING MEASURES
Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS)
(Miller, 1987 ).
Variable
The MBSS assesses stable differences in attentional focus during uncontrollable threatening events.
Description
The MBSS distinguishes between two possible ways of dealing with threat: To seek out information about the
threat, or to distract oneself from the threat. The scale categorizes individuals as monitors (information seekers)
or blunters (distractors). One’s preference for seeking threat-related information and the availability of threat-
related information in the environment determines how stressed and anxious individuals become. Accordingly,
monitors prefer high information input during threatening episodes, and show a reduction in stress and arousal
when such information is available. Conversely, blunters prefer low information input during threatening epi-
sodes, and show a reduction in stress and arousal when able to distract themselves from the situation.
The MBSS consists of four hypothetical stressful sc enarios (visiting a dentist, being held hostage by
terrorists, potential job loss, and a turbulent plane ride ) that participants are asked to imagine and respond to.
There is also a brief version of the MBSS (see Steptoe, 1989 ) that uses the two most ecologically valid325 TRAIT COPING MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION