COPING EFFECTIVENESS AS AN EXPLANATION OF THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND AFFECT IN

DAILY STRESSFUL CIRCUMSTANCES

A. Brian Grady

B.A., University of Waterloo, 1985

M.A., Simon Fraser University, 1988

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in the Department

of Psychology

(c) Andrew Brian Grady 1994

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

April, 1994

AU rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy

or other means, without permission of the author.

Approval

Name: Brian Grady

Degree: Ph.D.

Title of thesis: Coping effectiveness as an explanation of the relationship between personality and affect in daily stressful circumstances

Examining Committee:

Chair: Dr;

Dr. ~ a h l y n Bowman Senior Supervisor

Dr. William 'Xrane Professor Department of Psychology

Dr. Vito Modigliani Professor Department of Psychology

Dr. Adam Horvath Internal - External Examiner Faculty of Education

Dr. 'Bonita C. Long External Examiner Department of Counselling Psychology University of British Columbia

Date: /

PARTIAL COPYRIGf-E LICENSE

I hereby grant to Simon F m e r University the right to lend my thesis, project or - extended essay (the title of 'which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users o r . in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my

written permission.

Title of Thesis/Project/Extended Essay

.Coping Effectiveness as an Explanation of the Relationshipe

Between Personal i ty and Affect in Dai 1.1' Stressful Circumstances

Author: (signatu@

Andrew Brian Grady (name)

Abstract

A stress and coping framework was used to find mediators between Neuroticism and

Extraversion and negative and positive mood. Neurotic people's use of disengaged

coping strategies in response to daily stressors could mediate the personality - affect

relationship. Similarly, use of effective, approach coping strategies could mediate the

Extraversion and positive affect relationship. 140 female hospital and university

employees completed measures of baseline mood, personality, and life events. For 4

days, they rated their mood following a stressful event. Each evening, they rated their

mood, the stressor and their coping. Coping strategies mediated relationships between

personality, stress, and mood. The effects were stronger for Neuroticism than for

Extraversion. Few moderating effects were seen. Disengaged coping was affected by

and amplified negative mood, while engaged coping enhanced positive mood. Structural

equation modeling (LISREL) was used to test the overall model linking personality,

coping strategies and mood.

iii

Acknowledgments

Stress and coping - a good topic for someone with Doctoral Disorder of

Adulthood. Now that a full recovery is expected, I'd like to thank some of those who

helped me through this pernicious problem. A committee of three (Marilyn Bowman,

Bill Krane and Vito Modigliani) made initial diagnosis and treatment recommendations.

Marilyn in particular did valuable early diagnostic work, and Bill, the analyst, helped to

quantify the problem. Michael Maraun selflessly helped me find a useful Path [analysis].

Dr. Bonnie Long's careful and critical reading of the final text was also much

appreciated. Research Group Therapy became a useful sounding board and opportunity

to meet with fellow sufferers to swap ideas and social support. My thanks go to Susanne

Schibler in particular for her insights into the condition.

My partner Sarah Dench has been by my side throughout, and has dealt with all of

my symptoms at one time or another; particularly obsessionality and incomprehensible

speech during the most acute phases. Her support has been crucial, and she deserves the

utmost credit for her patience and stamina.

140 employees of Calgary General Hospital and S N took considerable amounts

of time to share their own struggles with me, and this dissertation is an imperfect

collection of their stories. My thanks to them for their help and interest; thanks also to

John Berendt and Clive Brewis for their support in the most active phase of the disorder.

I would also like to acknowledge the support of Calgary General Hospital (grant

92-49) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Fellowship,

which helped to finance the treatment.

Table of Contents

. . Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

... Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . .

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

... List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vui

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Neuroticism, extraversion and affect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Neuroticism and stressful events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Personality and symptomatic reactions to life events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Coping and personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Coping and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contributions to well-being 16

Efficacy of coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approach and avoidance coping 22

Negative and positive affect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Situation scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Life events and baseline mood 28

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Missing values and transformations 30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample demographics 30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data analyses 33

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Path analysis 47

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exploratory analyses 54

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion 57

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principal findings 57

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mediation and moderation 58

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effects of neuroticism and extraversion 60

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mood effects 64

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coping efforts alter mood 65

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coping responses perpetuate mood 66

. . . . . . . . . . . . . Coping behaviours are not epiphenomena of personality 70

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other findings 71

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications 72

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations 75

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future directions 76

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions 78

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References 81

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A . Univariate statistics. Data. and Correlations 92

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B . Instructions and Measures 130

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C . Sample daily stressors 148

List of Tables

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 1 . Demographic characteristics of the sample 31

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2 Occupations 32

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3 . Univariate statistics 33

Table 4 . Canonical correlations between predictors and evening mood . . . . . . . 36

. . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5 . Correlation matrix of key variables and demographics 37

Table 6 . Regressions of Evening Negative Mood on Neuroticism and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disengaged coping 38

Table 7 . Correlations between Neuroticism and Extraversion and coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . efficacy ratings 39

Table 8 . Regression of Evening Negative Mood on Stress rating. Disengaged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . coping. and interaction term 42

Table 9 . Regression of Evening Negative Mood on Situation negative mood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disengaged coping. and interaction term 45

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 10 . Paths to release to improve model fit 51

Table 1 1 . Regressions of Evening Mood on Baseline mood and coping . . . . . . . . 54

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Predicted moderating effects of Disengaged and Engaged Coping on the relationship between event severity and positive and negative affect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 2. Predicted moderating effects of Disengaged and Engaged Coping on the relationship between positive and negative affect in the situation and later affect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Figure 3. Predicted moderating effects of Disengaged and Engaged Coping on the relationship between Neuroticism and positive and negative affect and later affect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Figure 4. Ratings of coping efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Figure 5. Stress x disengaged coping interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Figure 6. Situation negative mood x engaged coping interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Figure 7. Initial path analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Figure 8. Revised model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

viii

Introduction

In recent years, conceptual and empirical links between personality, coping, and

affect have been explored as part of the ongoing scientific investigation into the related

topics of stress, coping, and their relationship to well-being (e.g., Aldwin & Revenson,

1987; Bolger, 1990; F o h n & Lazarus, 1986,1988; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984,1987;

McCrae & Costa, 1986; Orme1 & Wohlfarth, 199 1; Watson & Clark, 1984, 1992b).

Recently, neuroticism and extraversion, two important and replicable dimensions

of personality (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1992) have been defined in

terms of predispositions to experience negative and positive emotions, respectively

(Meyer & Shack, 1989; Watson & Clark, 1984, 1 992b). In addition, these p&sonality

dimensions have been found to be associated with use of avoidant and approach coping

efforts in stressful situations (Bolger, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1986; Endler & Parker,

1990). However, the overall relationship between personality, stressors, coping, and

affective outcomes remains unclear.

The central questions addressed in this study are a) can coping efforts linked to

neuroticism and extraversion account for the relationship between the personality traits

and typical emotional states? and b) as part of this, are such coping efforts differentially

effective?

A,large literature considers the relationships between personality, stressful life

events, coping, and emotional well-being or affect. In the review that follows, evidence

regarding these relationships will be examined and the general findings will be described.

Neuroticbm, extraversion and affect

There is general agreement within the field of personality that a two-dimensional

structure captures much of the variance in normal personality (Eysenck & Eysenck,

1985; McCrae & Costa, 1992; Meyer & Shack, 1989). Neuroticism and extraversion are

core features of the "Big Five" factors of normal personality (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985)

and so are key components of two popular personality scales, the NEO-PI (Neuroticism,

Extraversion and Openness Personality Inventory) (costa & McCrae, 1992) and the

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck, 1975). According to Eysenck and Eysenck

(1985), neuroticism and extraversion have also been found in factor analyses of such

well-known scales as the Sixteen Personality Factor Inventory (Cattell, Eber & Tatsouka,

1970), the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (Guilford, Zirnrnerman, &

Guilford, 1 976), and the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1957).

The two dimensions have received a variety of labels, but the labels may be

united by common constructs. For example, Watson and Clark (1984) found that the

general construct that they called "negative affectivity" unites the personality scales of

trait anxiety, neuroticism, ego strength, general maladjustment, repression-sensitization

and social desirability. Their analysis confirms the importance of neuroticism in

personality, and helps to integrate much otherwise unconnected literature. Because of the

integration made possible by their study, I will consider trait anxiety, neuroticism, and

emotionality to be synonyms, and will refer to them all as neuroticism. Parallel to this,

extraversion has been associated with traits such as dominance, gregariousness,

sociability (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and because of strong connections to experience of

positive emotions has been called "positive affectivity" (e.g., Cooper & McConville,

1989; Schaubroeck & Ganster, 1992; Watson & Clark, 1992b).

Just as a two-dimensional structure describes much of normal personality, there is

general agreement that two dimensions describe both well-being (Veit & Ware, 1983,

and self-rated affect at its most general level (Meyer & Shack, 1989). The two primary

dimensions of affect are either positive and negative affect or arousal and pleasantness-

unpleasantness, depending on the rotation of the factors used (Meyer & Shack, 198%.

Postive and negative affect are closely associated with extraversion and

neuroticism, respectively. Meyer and Shack (1989), for example, found that the affect

dimensions converged cleanly with the personality traits. Neuroticism and negative

affect together defined one dimension, while extraversion and positive affect together

defined a second dimension of a combined mood-personality space. These results were

correlational, but Larsen and Ketelaar (1991) used an experimental method to show that

neurotic subjects had hightened emotional reactivity to negative mood induction, while

extraverts were more reactive to positive mood induction than introverts. Other

empirical evidence drawing together either neuroticism and negative affect or

extraversion and positive affect has been found by Bolger (1990), Coooper and

McConville (1989), Costa and McCrae (1985), Diener and Sandvik (1992), Eysenck and

Eysenck (1985), Furnham and Brewin (1990), Orme1 and Wohlfarth, (1991), Pavot and

Diener (1990), and Watson and Clark (1984, 1992b). The association between these

personality traits and emotional states may be deeply rooted in physiology (Eysenck &

Eysenck, 1985).

Though some models emphasize individual differences in reactivity to situations,

one needs to account for people's responsibility for influential events in their lives.

Personality traits might also be linked to prevailing emotional experience through the . *

person's choice or creation of situations that evoke the affect (c.f. Emrnons, Diener &

Larsen, 1986). Even if the occurrence of a situation is not controllable, reponses to the

situation are still to some extent voluntary (Frankl, 1959) and could have consequences

for later emotional reactions. Ormel and Wohlfarth (1991), for example, suggested that

neurotic distress is a result of problematic coping.

The next sections follow a stress and coping framework in reviewing research on

the relationships between personality and reporting of events, symptomatic reactions to

events, and coping with events. These relationships are likely to be components of a

more complete explanation of the correlations between personality and affect variables.

Neuroticism and stressful events

Some people are particularly prone to experience major stressful life events

(hereon: "life events"), especially those that they can influence. This effect is partly

attributable,to socio-cultural factors such as class and ethnicity (Mirowski & Ross, 1989;

Fergusson & Horwood, 1987). However, Fergusson and Horwood found that

neuroticism is correlated with a latent factor of personal vulnerability to experience life

events. Consistent with this, Aldwin et al. (1989) found that people high in neuroticism

reported more life events and more minor and chronic daily stressors (hereon: "hassles";

cf. DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Follunan & Lazarus, 1982). Brett, Brief, Burke, George,

and Webster (1990), too, found that reporting of certain life events was correlated with

neuroticism. Of ten events that were most strongly correlated with neuroticism, six

involved relationships (e.g., "Had trouble with boss"), and so could be affected or caused

by the person involved. Furthermore, Ormel and Wohlfarth (1991) showed that

neuroticism was correlated with reporting "endogenous" events (Me events that could be

brought about by the person) but not "exogenous" events (those that were logically

independent of the person). They used problematic personal relationships as examples of

endogenous events. Supporting this, neuroticism was the best predictor of negative

interpersonal life events, and Poulton and Andrews (1 992) concluded that emotionally

sensitive people unwittingly encourage interpersonal stressors.

There are several ways in which neuroticism could relate to reporting of stressful

life events, assuming that the relationship is not a measurement artifact (c.f. Fergusson &

Horwood, 1987). Because people high in neuroticism experience frequent negative

affect, they might have selective recall for unpleasant experiences (Bower, 198 1, Bradley

& Mogg, 1993; Brett et al., 1990). Their interpretations of events (Brief & Butcher,

/* 1993) may lead them to appraise situations as stressful threats rather than manageable

challenges (Gallagher, 1990).

The evidence of Ormel & Wohlfarth (1991) above suggests that they may initiate

stressful events. Finally, and most central to this study, they may exacerbate stressful

situations by usir@characteristic and inadequate coping responses. Ormel and Wohlfarth

(1991) favoured this idea, but noted that it had not been tested. They also noted that

there had not yet been sufficient study of the relationship between neuroticism and

hassles, and suggested that neuroticism may relate to elevated distress in reaction to

minor life changes.

Although research shows that neuroticism is associated with stressful events, I

have been unable to locate any studies that explore the possible relationship between

extraversion and occurrence of life events or hassles. Extraversion might protect people

from experiencing stressful events, and it could be associated with different events than

neuroticism (Watson & Clark, 1992b).

Personality and symptomatic reactions to life events

If personality variables are not associated with differential reactions to stressful

events, there would be no need to invoke coping responses as a possible mediator in the

personality - affect relationship. This section briefly documents research that associates

neuroticism with symptomatic reactions to stress. Neuroticism is the focus, because only

one study (Zautra, Finch, Reich, & Guarnaccia, 1991) has found any relationship

between extraversion and well-being in response to stressful life events. Zautra et al.

(1991) found that among bereaved people, extraverts had fewer health symptoms than

non-extraverts. In contrast, Shaubroeck and Ganster (1992) found no attenuation by

extraversion of subjective stress outcomes. -

Watson and Clark's (1984) review of the literature concluded that neuroticism is < % ({ not linked to differential reactions to stress: neurotic people report distress even in the

i absence of stress. However, more recent studies have found the hypothesized

associations. Aldwin et al. (1989) found that in an older male sample, those who were

higher in neuroticism had slightly more symptomatic reactions to stress. Delongis,

Follunan, and Lazarus (1988) concluded that people with low self-esteem had more

increases in illness and mood disturbance following stressful events. Ormel, Sanderman

and Stewart (1988) found that the relationship between adverse events and distress

symptoms was not modified by personality (neuroticism, locus of control or self-esteem).

In contrast, Ormel, Stewart and Sanderman (1989) found that responsiveness to life

change (in terms of distress symptoms) did vary with vulnerability (neuroticism, locus of

control, self-esteem). Kohn, Lafreniere, and Gurevich (1991), considering hassles rather

than life events, found that the effects of hassles on psychiatric symptomatology rose

with neuroticism (trait anxiety). Bolger & Schilling (1991), too, concluded that neurotic

reactions in stressful events explained distress better than selection of stressful situations.

In the context of daily events and mood, Marco and Suls (1993) found that subjects with

higher neuroticism were more distressed and recovered more slowly from prior stressors.

Coping and personality

Having seen that personality and affect are closely linked and noting the possible

role of stressful events, the effects of coping can be considered. As mentioned above,

characteristic ways of coping with stressful events could help account for the personality

- affect correlation. Do neuroticism and extraversion predict use of different ways of

coping with stressful events?

Although the methods and instruments vary, and although two studies (Endler &

Parker, 1990; Houtrnan, 1990), refer more to generalized coping styles than specific

behaviours, there is considerable consistency in the research. Compared to those who are

low in neuroticism, people with high scores do less about problematic situations and

instead wish things were better and blame themselves that they are not. Interestingly,

gender differences were found in several studies, and so neuroticism may have a different

relationship to coping in men and women.

6

More specifically, correlations between neuroticism and wishful thinking and

self-blame have often been shown Bolger, 1990, McCrae & Costa 1986, Endler & Parker,

1990, Rim, 1986, 1987; Smith, Pope, Rhodewalt & Poulton, 1989). Neuroticism has also

been associated with isolation of affect (McCrae & Costa, 1986), avoidance, detachment

and distancing (Bolger, 1990; Rim, 1987; Smith et al., 1989), although this effect has at

times been seen in men only (Endler & Parker, 1990; Houtman, 1990), whereas for

women it has been linked to less avoidance (Houtman, 1990). Consistent with increased

avoidance is decreased problem focus (Rim, 1986; Smith et al., 1989), and reduced direct

coping (Parkes, 1986), although this effect has sometimes been seen in men and not

women (Houtman, 1990) or in women and not men (Endler & Parker, 1990; Rim, 1987).

Passivity, indecisiveness, and sedation have also been correlated with neuroticism

(McCrae & Costa, 1986). Social support may be sought less (Smith et al., 1989) or more

(by men only) (Rim, 1986). Finally, neuroticism has been correlated with hostile action,

escapist fantasy, (McCrae & Costa, 1986), tension reduction (Rim, 1986) and focus on

positive (women only) (Rim, 1987).

Many of the coping efforts linked with neuroticism could share a common

construct, and indeed, McCrae & Costa (1986) aggregated such scales as Hostile

reactions, Indecisiveness, Self-blame, Wishful thinking, Isolation of affect, and Passivity

into a composite measure of "neurotic coping", as opposed to "mature coping".

However, to keep the coping construct distinct from the personality trait, one might draw

on another dichotomy and think of these as "avoidant" reactions, as they avoid taking

action to improve either the problem or the emotional state.

Extraversion, too, is associated with certain forms of coping, although the

research on this is less extensive. Endler and Parker (1990) found that extraversion was

correlated at a low level with task-oriented style of coping but not with emotion- or

avoidance-focussed coping. Houtman (1990) found that extraverted women had positive

attitudes toward seeking social support, but negative attitudes toward palliation,

avoidance, becoming angry, or using comforting cognitions in response to stress.

Curiously, male extraverts had positive attitudes toward becoming angry, but no other

associations were found. McCrae and Costa (1986) showed extraversion to be associated

with rational action, and positive thinking in both of their studies, and with seeking help,

isolation of affect, distraction, restraint, finding strength in adversity, adaptation, humour,

and expressing affect in one of their two studies. These correlations were low but

significant. Rim (1986, 1987) obtained inconsistent results across two studies. However,

extraverted men and women did consistently favour problem-focussed coping, an effect

which Dorn and Matthews (1992) have also noted. Parkes (1986) noted a similar low

correlation between extraversion and direct coping but found interesting interactions

between extraversion and neuroticism: extraverted neurotics tended to use more

suppression, although for introverted neurotics the effect was the opposite.

The coping efforts that have been correlated with extraversion differ markedly

from those that were correlated with neuroticism, and most seem oriented toward finding

solutions to problems or improving emotional states. Therefore, they could be

characterized in general as "approach" strategies.

The neuroticism results should be interpreted with caution for several reasons.

They rely on self-report, and people with poor self-image could be expected to make

unfavourable self-reports. People high in neuroticism are also more aware of their

feelings and being more selfdisclosing than people low in neuroticism (Watson & Clark,

1984), and hence may report distress and problematic coping more than those low in

neuroticism. In addition, neuroticism is related to better recall of negative material when

mood is depressed (Bradley & Mogg, 1993).

Before concluding that characteristic coping styles explain the personality - affect

association, one needs to examine evidence regarding the impact these forms of coping

have on the stressful situations and on emotional outcomes. Bolger (1990) pointed out

that Fleishman (1984), Holohan and Moos (1987), Parkes (1984), and Scheier, Weintraub

and Carver (1986) assumed that coping can explain the relationship between personality

and stress outcomes, but that the assumption remained largely untested. What evidence

is there regarding the efficacy of different coping efforts'?

Coping and outcomes

Before the efficacy of coping can be assessed, it needs to be clear what is meant

by coping and what sorts of effects would be considered effective. "Coping" may refer to

a variety of different concepts, and may be evaluated in terms of direct outcomes,

mediating effects, and moderating effects. A brief discussion of these ideas will be

followed by a review of some recent literature.

"Coping" can refer to adaptive behaviour and be contrasted with unhealthy

'defenses' (Haan, 1965; Hunter & Goodstein, 1967; Vaernes, 1983; Viney, 1986).

Coping questionnaires can include both helpful and unhelpful reactions (e.g., criticizing

oneself versus problem solving). Coping can mean effortful activities, (hence, coping

'efforts'), or include automatic reactions to the stressful situation. Expressing one's

feelings, for example, could be either a deliberate strategy or an unplanned emotional

reaction. Coping inventories such the Ways of CopingChecklist - - (WCCL) (Follunan

and Lazarus, 1980) often do not reflect this distinction.

Coping can be seen as emotion- or problem-focussed (Follunan & Lazarus, 1980).

Other approaches contrast engaging/approaching and disengaging/avoiding (e.g.,

Crarnerus, 1989; Cronkite & Moos, 1984; Gibbs, 1989; Watson & Clark, 1984), a

distinction with roots in both psychoanalysis and behavioural psychology.

Coping efforts can be thought of as moderators of stress, as mediators (Baron &

Kenny, 1986; Frese, 1986), or as behaviours with independent effects. -&

the effect of a stressor. Whencoping iseffective, for example,

stressfulness of a situation and emotional distress would beless correlated (stress

'buffering'). Coping as a mediator is a pathway or mechanism for stress (or another

variable) to affect the outcome. Stress influences a coping response, which in turn

influences the outcome. The mediator links the two other variables. Coping efforts

could also have independent effects. For example, behaviours could influence mood for

better or worse, independently of other variables' effects. Relaxation could depress

arousal, even while a frightening film tends to increase it.

Effective coping should either directly benefit the individual or should temper the

harm of another variable, but evaluating coping efficacy is not simple. Situations are

complex, and outcomes too can be seen from many perspectives. Emotional, social,

physiological, or situational effects of stressors and coping efforts can be seen across the

life dimensions (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) and over several time-frames (McGrath &

Beehr, 1990). For example, seeking a job interview increases the job-seeker's short-term

anxiety and adrenal activation, but helps reduce long-term financial insecurity.

In general, the literature shows that neuroticism is correlated with decreased task-

oriented coping, and increased avoidance, wishful thinking, and self-blame, whereas

extraversion is associated with less avoidance and more task-oriented coping. A body of

recent research shows that neuroticism-related coping activities tend to be ineffective or

harmful, while extraversion-related coping efforts tend to have better effects.

Aldwin and Revenson (1987) showed that-asas-my_caping

ent of orior symptom levels or dewee of stress. Es_capism and self

ect effects, increasing distress,.&though instrumental action srved to

bufferslightly-thg s:ffects of stress, and negotiation actually enhanced stress effects.

Cronkite and Moos (1984) found that avoidance coping and to an extent also approach

coping moderated the effects of stress on symptoms. Avoidance coping exacerbated the

effects of stress on depressed mood. Use of approach coping had limited stress buffering

effects. Davis, Lehman, Thompson, Silver, and Wortman (1988) found that undoing

(thinking about how an event could have been avoided) after bereavement was associated

with prolonged and elevated negative affect. They suggest that after bereavement,

undoing may make a hypothetical and unattainable better world more salient. However

the direction of the relationship between undoing and negative affect is unclear.

Follunan and Lazarus (1988) showed that different forms of coping were

associated with a variety of emotional outcomes. For example, confrontive coping and

distancing lead to unpleasant emotions such as worry, fear, disgust and anger, whereas

planful problem solving and positive reappraisal lead to positive emotions such as

confidence and happiness. Similarly, Glyshaw and Cohen (1989) showed that problem

solving was negatively related to depression in adolescence, and Follunan, Lazarus,

Gruen, and DeLongis (1986) found that planful problem solving was negatively and

I I confrontive coping was positively related to psychological symptoms when personality

1 and appraisal of the situation were controlled. In fact, coping variables accounted for an

I additional 20% of the variance in psychological symptoms over the effects of the other

variables. Nowack (1989) found that intrusive negative thoughts (e.g., self blame) and

avoidance coping contributed to psychological distress and physical illness

Lewinsohn, Tilson, and Seely (1990) showed that ineffective escapism exacerbated the

effect of stress on later clinical depression, and solace seeking buffered the effect of

stress. Vingerhoets and Menges (1989) found that self-reported psychosomatic

symptoms were associated with self-blame, fantasizing, and wishful thinking. Coping

I did not moderate stress, but directly affected outcome. These two studies are some of the

very few that examined the role of various kinds of coping as a moderator or mediator of

stress.

Another recent study (Smith, Smoll & Ptacek, 1990) showed that poor coping

I skills moderated the relationship between life stress and sport injury in conjunction with

lack of social Passive and ruminative coping styles were associated with

distressed affect (Frone & Russell, 1991; Rodrigue & Boggs, 1993), whereas direct

action and distraction were associated with less negative mood (Wood, Salzberg, Neale,

I /

Stone, & Rachmiel 1990). Depression in college students was associated with escape-

avoidance in Bruder-Mattson and Hovantiz' (1990) study, and Folkman and Lazarus

(1 988) found that Planful problem solving and Positive reappraisal were negatively

correlated with DisgusdAnger and positively correlated with Confident and

Pleasedklappy. Confrontive coping and Distancing had the opposite effects. Their data

were retrospective and causal statements are not possible. However, a prospective study

by Smith, Patterson and Grant (1990) found that those who did more self-blame, wishful-

thinking and avoidance displayed more psychological and physical symptoms four

months later. At the level of the daily stressor, coping efforts were related differentially

to daily mood (Stone & Neale, 1993). Finally, Frese (1986) found that coping moderated

(though did not mediate) the relationship between stress and psychosomatic symptoms,

such that doing more of a variety of coping efforts caused more symptoms 16 months

later. He argued that this effect is caused by people selectively recalling and reporting

problematic and not automatic and effective coping.

Most of these studies looked at stress, coping, and outcomes but did not examine

their relationship to personality. However, two interesting studies did look at coping in

the context of the neuroticism - affect relationship. Bolger (1990) found that neuroticism

was associated with increased pre-examination anxiety and that wishful thinking and

self-blame accounted for 50% of the relationship between neuroticism and anxiety.

McCrae and Costa (1986) found that people rated hostile reactions, indecisiveness, self-

blame, wishful thinking, isolation of affect, and passivity as the least helpful of 27

reactions to stressful situations, and noted that with the exception of isolation of affect,

all were correlated with neuroticism. When most of these reactions were aggregated into

a composite measure of "neurotic coping", the composite had a slight negative partial

correlation with life-satisfaction, controlling for personality. Interestingly, forms of

coping rated as effective and made into a "mature coping" composite were correlated

with positive but not negative affect. This suggests that effective coping may affect

positive more than negative affect. However, the long delay between the life events and

the assessment of coping and affect makes this finding tentative at best. More recently,

and tangentially related, Williams and Weibe (1992) showed that problem-focussed

coping, support-seeking, and avoidant coping mediated the relationship between

hardiness and illness.

It is somewhat difficult to integrate these results, as so many coping constructs

were used: there is little agreement as to the structure of coping and which constructs are

most relevant to most situations. Taken as a whole, however, these results show that

coping efforts that neurotics often use usually diminish well-being, whereas those that

extraverts tend to to use are more beneficial. Coping efforts or styles characterized as

avoidant usually predict higher levels of distress or symptoms, whereas efforts to engage

or approach problems predict better well-being. People with high neuroticism report

more stressful events and react more poorly to them than people who are low in

neuroticism. They also tend to use avoidant coping efforts. Those who are high in

extraversion tend to have high levels of well-being and use engaged coping efforts.

The available research is suggestive, but does not make clear whether coping

efforts explain the relationships between personality dimensions and well-being.

Research has shown coping to have moderating effects and mediating effects, though

these effects have not been found consistently, and so its role is not entirely clear. It is

also hard to draw definitive conclusions when the evidence comes from studies that look

at subsets of variables without examining the overall pattern of relationships among the

predictor (personality), mediatorlmoderator (coping), and outcome (affect) variables. In

addition, methodological limitations of many studies temper possible conclusions. More

specifically, purely retrospective studies make it difficult to distinguish between cause

and effect. Even in prospective studies, if major life events are used to operationalize

stress, the magnitude and complexity of these events together with the large time-spans

involved could make it difficult to identify clearly the processes involved. Ormel and

Wohlfarth (1 99 1) suggested that relations between neuroticism and distress in their

sample could have been through factors that they did not measure, such as minor failures

and frustrations to which people high in neuroticism are particularly sensitive.

Similarly, when psychological symptoms are used to measure outcome, the more subtle

effects of coping on normal negative affect would be missed. In short, appropriate

measures might reveal subtle effects that other studies have missed.

The present study addresses some of these problems, and differs from some prior

studies as follows. First, rather than looking at urnmoderated relationships between pairs

of variables, the study examines moderating or mediating properties of coping in relation

to stressors, personality, and affect. This will reveal mechanisms that could account for

the personality - affect links.

Second, using a longitudinal design will to help us understand the links between

personality, coping, and outcomes, and make causal analysis possible. By using a

prospective study, confounding variables can be controlled by measuring them before the

stressful event occurs. This is important when factors other than coping could account

for the outcomes of the stressful situations. For example, if negative mood (e.g., anxiety

or depression) after a stressful situation is used to evaluate the effectiveness of a coping

strategy, one should account for the person's previous level of neuroticism and negative

mood.

Third, analysing the results of a prospective study with path analysis or structural

equation modeling and LISREL (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984) will allow complex

relationships to be modeled while controlling for the potential confounding effects of

other variables. LISREL analyses confer several other benefits. They show mediating

extremely clearly, they allow a model to be tested whole instead of piecemeal, and

ompeting models may be tested to find which best fits the data. Finally, the researcher

has to be explicit about the models' assumptions.

Fourth, the study of daily stressors rather than major life events offers several

theoretical and methodological advantages. There is evidence that daily stressors predict

psychopathology and illness better than major life events, perhaps because life events

affect symptoms through daily stressors (Kanner, Feldman, Weinburger & Ford, 199 1).

In addition, because they occur frequently, daily stressors are readily studied

prospectively.

The short-term approach offers several other advantages. The short lag between

event or state and measurement reduces measurement error from subjects forgetting their

emotional states or coping responses. Second, the small lag between occurrence of

cause, mediator, and outcome allows one to be more confident the predictor causes the

effects and that the mediator intevened. Finally, sampling at different points in the

process lets one see it unfolding. Example of this are Bolger's (1990) and Folkman and

Lazarus' (1985) studies of coping with examinations, and Neale, Hooley, Jandorf and

Stone's (1987) examination of daily events and mood.

Fifth, an effort is made to look at broad, replicable, and generally accepted

dimensions of personality, affect, and coping. This molar approach stands in contrast to

a molecular approach that would look at narrow traits and specific emotional states.

While the molecular approach has value, examining the relationships among overarching

constructs may help to show larger patterns.

Finally, extraversion will be examined as a co-contributor to well-being.

Extraversion may be a personal resource that alters coping and contributes to the positive

affect aspect of well-being, in contrast to neuroticism, which contributes to negative

affect.

In summary, neuroticism and extraversion, avoidant (or disengaged) and

approach (or engaged) coping efforts (typically characterized respectively as ineffective

and effective ways of responding to stress), are examined as predictors of poor and good

affective outcomes of minor stressful events. Examining personality factors and

situational factors that predict coping responses to daily stressors, and analyzing the

emotional and practical outcomes of these coping responses, will help us understand how

people contribute to their own success or distress and how coping may moderate stress-

outcome relationships.

Hypotheses

The two main questions fit two groups of hypotheses. The fust group broadly

considers the contributions of personality, situations, and coping to well-being. The

second group more specifically considers the contribution of coping in altering well-

being.

Contributions to well-being

1. Covering prediction: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Disengaged coping, Engaged coping,

and situation stressfulness will predict Positive mood and Negative mood.

Analysis: Canonical correlation. Presence of at least one significant canonical

correlation will ensure that the predictors are in general related to the outcome

variables.

2. Furthermore, Extraversion, Engaged coping, and lack of situational stress will define

one canonical variate that will be associated with positive mood. Neuroticism,

Disengaged coping, and stressfulness of the situation define a second canonical

variate associated with negative mood.

3. Disengaged Coping will mediate the effects of Neuroticism on mood at day's end.

Part of the effect of Neuroticism on mood will be through its effect on

Disengaged Coping.

Analysis: Hierarchical multiple regression.

4. Engaged Coping will mediate the effects of Extraversion on positive mood at day's

end. Part of the effect of Extraversion on mood will be through its effect on

Engaged Coping.

Analysis: Hierarchical multiple regression.

Eflcacy of coping

If coping does have causal influences on affect and hence well-being, people

ought to rate certain coping efforts as more effective than others (Hypothesis 5).

Theoretically effective sorts of coping efforts should maintain well-being in stressful

circumstances better than ineffective efforts (Hypotheses 6 and 7). Finally, if coping

behaviour is not an epiphenomenon of neuroticism, it should moderate the effect of

neuroticism on affect. High neuroticism subjects who use more effective coping efforts

should suffer no more negative mood than low neuroticism subjects in stressful

circumstances (Hypothesis 8).

5. Disengaged coping will be rated as less effective in solving problems and making the

person feel better than Engaged coping.

Analyses: Within subjects analysis of covariance can be used to evaluate the

comparative efficacy of Disengaged vs. Engaged coping. Neuroticism and

Extraversion will be covaried to control for personality fleets.

6. Engaged and Disengaged Coping are expected to have moderating effects on positive

and negative affect. Although high Disengaged coping will enhance the effect of

event severity on negative affect, high Engaged coping will maintain levels of

positive and negative affect under stress. Figure 1 depicts these predictions.

Analyses: Multiple regression. A moderator fleet will be accepted if there is a

significant change in R2 with addition of an interaction term in the regression

equation.

7. Disengaged coping and Engaged coping will moderate the relationship between affect

in the stressful situation and later affect. (This is the so-called "buffer hypothesis"

of coping). Figure 2 portrays this prediction.

Analyses: As in 6 , except that the analysis will include positive and negative afect

in the situation, and later positive and negative afect.

8. Disengaged and Engaged coping will moderate the relationships between Neuroticism

and affect in a similar manner as 6 and 7. See Figure 3.

Analyses: As in 6 and 7, except that the correlation will be between neuroticism

and later afect.

9. Finally, Engaged and Disengaged coping will moderate the relationships between

affect one evening and affect the next evening, similar to 7.

Analyses: As in 7.

Figure 1. Predicted moderating effects of Disengaged and Engaged Coping on the relationship between event severity and positive and negative affect (Hypothesis 6).

high 4 high I

= high Engaged coping + = high Disengaged

Figure 2. Predicted moderating effects of Disengaged and Engaged Coping on the relationship between positive and negative affect in the situation and later affect (Hypothesis 7).

negative af f ect

low

later negative affect

low I .*

low high low high event severity event severity

positive affect

e+ low

low high negative affect in situation

@+

9

l = high Engaged coping

later positive affect

4 = high Disengaged

W

low

Figure 3. Predicted moderating effects of Disengaged and Engaged Coping on the relationship between Neuroticism and positive and negative affect (Hypothesis 8).

4

9. high

low high positive affect in situation

positive af f ect

high

negative affect

low high Neuroticism

low

= high Engaged coping 4 = high Disengaged

e+ low

low high Neuroticism

Method

Subjects

Subjects were 127 female employees of Calgary General Hospital (Calgary,

Alberta) and 13 of Simon Fraser University (Burnaby, B.C.) for a total of 140. A prior

power analysis had showed that, using a probability level of .Ol, correlations greater than

0.25 and 0.30 could be detected at powers of .70 and .85 respectively with a sample size

in this range. Prior research has shown gender differences in coping use and its effects.

Because most hospital workers are female, female rather than male employees were

sought. Hospital volunteers were initially recruited using a poster campaign and with an

advertisement in the weekly hospital newsletter. Additional volunteers were solicited

following brief presentations in staff meetings. Some subjects also took the initiative to

recruit others. University volunteers were recruited using union and professional

association electronic mailing lists.

When they inquired about the study, all subjects were told that this was a study of

how people respond to daily stress. They were told that participation involved filling out

confidential questionnaires for 5 days, that the first day would take about 60 minutes and

the other days required about 30. The nature of the questionnaires along with the

procedure was then briefly described, and the incentive was noted. The incentive for

participation was the offer of a workshop on work-related stress and burnout. Appendix

B shows sample information sheets for subjects and consent forms used at the two sites.

Measures

Personality

Personality was measured in terms of two major, stable dimensions using the

Neuroticism and Extraversion scales of the NEO Personality Inventory, Revised (NEO-

PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This scale measures Neuroticism, Extraversion,

Openness to experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, dimensions of

personality that are increasingly recognized as the "Big Five" stable dimensions of

personality.

The NEO-PI-R Neuroticism scale assesses adjustment versus emotional

instability. People high in neuroticism are prone to experience a variety of negative

affects such as hostility, anxiety, and depression. They have a predisposition to

experience distress and are apt to have unrealistic ideas, be less able to control their

urges, and cope less well with stress, perhaps because disruptive emotions interfere with

adaptation (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-PI-R manual characterizes people with

high Neuroticism as prone to experience "fear, sadness, embarrassment, anger, guilt, and

disgust", whereas people low in Neuroticism are "usually calm, even-tempered, and they

are able to face stressful situations without becoming rattled". (Costa & McCrae, 1992,

p. 15).

The NEO-PI-R Extraversion scale measures quantity and intensity of

interpersonal interaction, activity level, need for stimulation, and capacity for joy.

Assertiveness, talkativeness, cheerfulness, optimism, energy, are all characteristic of

people with high extraversion. Introversion is defined by Costa and McCrae (1992) as

the absence of extraversion rather than its opposite. Introverts, therefore, are reserved but

not unfriendly, independent but not submissive, and lack exuberance but are not

unhappy. The NEO-PI-R manual characterizes people with high extraversion as

"sociable, active, talkative, person-oriented, optimistic, fun-loving, affectionate" whereas

those with low extraversion are "reserved, sober, unexuberant, aloof, task-oriented,

retiring, quiet" (Costa & McCrae, 1985, p. 2).

In terms of psychometric characteristics, the Neuroticism and Extraversion scales

of the NEO-PI-R have good homogeneity as noted by the following statistics for women

(Neuroticism Chronbach alphas = .93; Extraversion coefficient alphas = 35) and good

six-month test-retest reliability (.91). The scales are modestly correlated with each other

(I = -.21), and self ratings are adequately correlated with spouse ratings (Neuroticism: r =

.60; Extraversion: 1 = .73) and with the Eysenck Personality Inventory Neuroticism (I =

.75) and Extraversion (I = .69) scales (Costa & McCrae, 1985). Overall, the scales are

well constructed and validated and have good psychometric properties.

Approach and avoidance coping

Broad coping constructs of approach and avoidance were measured using the 72

item Coping Strategies Inventory (CSI) (Tobin, Holroyd, & Reynolds, 1984; Tobin,

Holroyd, Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989). The approach and avoidance coping scales (named

"Engagement" and "Disengagement" by the scale authors) include both emotion- and

problem-focussed components. Engaged coping consists of Problem Solving, Cognitive

Restructuring, Expressing Emotions, and Seeking Social Support, available as subscales.

Disengaged coping includes subscales for Problem Avoidance, Wishful Thinking, Self

Criticism, and Social Withdrawal. These coping constructs are well-documented and are

seen repeatedly in both theoretical and empirical work across a variety of populations

(Amirkhan, 1990; Carver, Sheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Endler & Parker, 1990; Krohne,

1989).

The CSI scale, although not yet widely used, has acceptable reliability and

factorial structure. The approach and avoidance scales are internally consistent

(coefficient alphas = .90 and .89 respectively; test-retest reliabilities = .78 and .79). It

has successfully discriminated neurotic from normal samples, headache from non-

headache sufferers, and depressed from non-depressed samples (Tobin et al., 1984). It is

preferable to the often used Ways of Coping Inventory (Follunan & Lazarus, 1980) from

which it is derived because it has a clearer factor structure and is easier to interpret. In

contrast, the Ways of Coping Inventory has produced a variety of factor structures, and it

is not clear how to obtain the global scores of Engaged and Disengaged coping. The

principal advantage of these global measures is that they group together the coping

efforts that have previously been seen to be problematic or beneficial (e.g., wishful

thinking and self-blame, versus problem solving and cognitive restructuring). This

reduces the number of variables into constructs that are linked with the psychophysiology

literature and reduces the number of analyses required. It also makes theorizing easier

and more meaningful because the coping concepts are less molecular. That is, approach

and avoidance can be theoretically related to a variety of other constructs outside the

stress-coping field, while specific constructs such as self-blame and cognitive

restructuring have fewer theoretical connections. Roth and Cohen (1986) note that

approach and avoidance have conceptual roots in psychoanalytic ideas and appear also in

the behavioral and phenomenological traditions, and that they are core ideas in the recent

coping and stress literature. They also have deep roots in physiological psychology

(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985).

Modifications to the scale were required for the purposes of this study. First, two

items were added to rate the efficacy of each coping behaviour ("Did using this strategy

make the external situation objectively better?", "Did using this strategy make you feel

better or improve your spirits?") (after McCrae & Costa, 1986). Second, the instructions

for the use of the ratings scales was reworded to reduce the ambiguity in the question "to

what extent did you use [each item]" because a recent study by Stone, Greenberg,

Kennedy-Moore and Newman (1991) showed that "extent" is ambiguous for subjects.

Instead subjects were asked how much of the time they used each strategy in response to

the situation (both in the situation and since).

Negative and positive affect

The 20-item PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Scales) (Watson, Clark &

Tellegen, 1988) were used to rate both baseline and situational affect. Global positive

and negative affect were each rated using two, ten-item scales. The scales can be used to

measure trait or usual affect as well as state, or situational affect, depending on the

instructions given to subjects.

The two PANAS scales are highly internally consistent (coefficient alphas = .89

and .85 for state positive and negative affect, respectively), largely uncorrelated (1: = -

.IS), stable at appropriate levels (state mood eight-week test-retest correlations about 1 =

SO; "usual" mood eight-week test-retest correlations about 1 = .70), and are brief and

easy to administer. Accepted modifications to the instructions allow measurement of

affect for varying time periods, ranging from immediate affect, to affect for longer

periods such as a the last few minutes or weeks, to usual affect. In the present study,

recent but not momentary affect (i.e., mood in the last hour) was measured because

momentary affect is poorly related to daily mood (Hedges & Jandorf, 1985). The scales'

external validity are also good. Positive and negative affect are correlated appropriately

with other affect scales, the Beck Depression Inventory, state anxiety, and with measures

of clinical symptomatology (Watson et al., 1988). The PANAS measure is preferable to

the Profile of Mood States (McNair, Lorr & Droppleman, 197 1) because it is shorter, has

a more adequate measure of positive affect, and does not include molecular affect

measures irrelevant to this study (e.g., hostility and dysphoria measured separately).

Further, the symmetry of negative and positive affect with neuroticism and extraversion

is theoretically appealing.

Lazarus (1990) recommends against using this scale in coping studies because it

measures only the most global aspects of affect and in his opinion does not allow a rich

analysis of people's emotional reactions. Diener and Emrnons (1985), however, found

that positive emotions co-vary strongly, as do negative emotions, and Diener and Iran-

Nejal (1986) noted that two-dimensional systems of affect have been found to account

for the bulk of the variance in affect, and that such two-dimensional systems have also

been the most replicable. Systems that use a wide variety of affect factors are not as

replicable. A good example of this is factor analytic work done with the Multiple Affect

Adjective Check List (Zuckerrnan & Lubin, 1965) by Gotlib and Meyer (1 986), and

Hunsley (1990), who both noted that the original three affect scales (anxiety, depression,

and hostility) are highly inter-correlated. They found that a two-dimensional

redefinition (with scales defining negative affect and positive affect plus sensation-

seeking) better accounts for the data. Watson and Clark (1992a) found that although

negative affects are different psychological constructs, they form a strong higher-order

negative affect factor in self-report data. From a practical viewpoint as well as, the broad

scales seemed appropriate. Unnecessary measures of more specific types of affect would

multiply both the analyses and the number of subjects required. Measuring a few

primary affect dimensions is therefore preferable pragmatically as well as theoretically.

Positive and negative affect are measured as two unipolar measures rather than as

a single bipolar measure because they seem to be mutually exclusive only at high levels.

Moderate or low levels of each do not permit prediction of the level of the other @iener

& Lran-Nejal, 1986). Thus, positive and negative affect are best thought of not as

opposite ends of a bipolar continuum but as roughly independent unipolar dimensions of

affect. This is consistent with two-factor emotion theory, which suggests that positive

and negative affect are distinct dimensions of affective experience (rather than opposite

ends of a bipolar continuum) and have different correlates (cf. Bradburn, 1969). Recent

empirical work (e.g., Diener & Emrnons, 1985; Diener & Iran-Nejal, 1986; Larson, 1987;

Wan & Barter, 1983) supports this idea. Because I am interested in the factors that

influence well-being, it seemed wise to consider both of its dimensions rather than

merely lack of positive affect or presence of negative affect. The PANAS scale is

appropriate to the task, because its scales are minimally correlated.

Situation scoring

Subjects briefly wrote a protocol describing the index situation that occurred

earlier that day and rated it on 7-point Likert scales evaluating the situation's desirability,

stressfulness, and impact. These constructs were used because of their relative

importance in subjects' evaluations of the stressfulness of situations (Peacock & Wong,

1990; Gruen, F o h a n & Lazarus, 1988). Little psychometric assessment of the Likert

scales was done, as they were used primarily as criteria for comparison of observer

ratings in the rating procedure. The subjects' descriptions of the events allowed raters to

classify events after the fact. McCrae and Costa (1986) found that observer-raters

classifications of events as threats, losses, or challenges corresponded to those of

subjects. In the present study, 2 raters classified the situations on a 4- point scale

according to severity from the protocols. The 4-point scale was anchored as follows:

Overall: minimally stressful Stakes: little or nothing at stake emotionally or practically Emotion: mildly unpleasant Coping: minimal coping effort Emnple: interruption, distraction

Overall: modestly stressful; a little Coping: modest coping effort Example: routine irritant, mild disagreement

Overall: fairly stressful Coping: moderate coping effort Example: extra effort at work, doing work not trained for

Overall: very stressful for a daily event Stakes: quite a lot at stake emotionally or practically Emotion: quite upsetting Coping: concerted coping effort Example: family crisis, danger at work, very upsetting fighvinteraction

Cohen's kappa for inter-rater reliability was .46, and the Pearson correlation was

.77 (1 = 8 . 3 7 , ~ < .000 1). These inter-rater reliability coefficients are considered to be

acceptable. Observer ratings were combined, and the total correlated at .63 with rated

stressfulness by the subjects.

Self-report and observer ratings both have assets as measures of situation

characteristics. They represent different but equally valid views of the situation's

stressfulness. Although there can be consensus about the importance of some events, this

is not true of all, and so the personal evaluation of the situation needs to be considered.

A basic premise of the Lazarus and Folkman's transactional model of stress and coping

(as well as cognitive theories of behaviour such as Beck's (e.g., Beck, Rush, Shaw &

Emery, 1979) is that the idiosyncratic meaning of a situation to the person experiencing it

determines affect, coping, and the stress response. In this study, the protocols help the

observer to understand the nature of the events and their meaning to the subject. Given

many such descriptions, the observer has an advantage over the subject, in that the

observer can compare them on a consistent, theoretically based, metric. A further

advantage of observer ratings in this instance is that ratings of stressfulness were not

influenced by knowledge of how successful the subjects' coping efforts were. Ln the

subjects' retrospective ratings, one can easily imagine the ratings being confounded with

coping skills. This is why observer, rather than subjects', ratings were used in analyses

involving situation stressfulness.

The decision to classify situations for severity and not to measure situations

across other dimensions, was based on theory. The relationships between types of

situations and coping and affective reactions would have been interesting but lay outside

the scope of this study. Specific situation qualities were not predictors and so needed not

be assessed. Further, it is not yet clear theoretically which aspects of situations are

important in stress and coping.

Life events

To help control for the effects of prior stressful life events and mood on current

mood, I measured life events of the prior 6 months (Life Experiences Survey, Sarason et

al., 1985), and baseline positive and negative mood (PANAS). The Life Experiences

Survey is a life events scale that provides measures of both positive and negative life

events. The subject indicates which events occurred and rates the magnitude of impact

and the valence of each event.

Procedure

Evaluation took place over a consecutive 5 day period using repeated measures of

coping, mood, and situations after having established baseline scores on personality, life

events of the prior six months, and mood of the prior two weeks. The schedule was as

follows:

Day 1: NEO-PI-R, demographic data, baseline mood, life events.

Days 2 through 5: state mood during the day, state mood in evening, stressful

situation description and.ratings, and coping.

Subjects were asked to fill out the PANAS immediately following what they

expected would be one of the more stressful circumstances of the day. They were asked

to fill out the PANAS and other measures either at the end of their work day or in the

evening of each day. Most subjects filled out the fust state mood scale after an event

during the day, at work, and completed the other questionnaires in the evening. A phone

reminder was used to check on subjects' progress in the middle of the week and to clarify

instructions. On the basis of discussions with the first 10 subjects, the wording of certain

instructions was clarified for the rest of the sample.

A 4 day recording period was chosen because it was expected it would contain at

least one day in which mood was altered as a result of daily events. Subjects were

instructed not to complete the forms on days without a stressful situation, minimizing

inclusion of trivial events in the sample. 55% of the days recorded included events rated

as 5 or more on a 7-point Likert scale of stressfulness. 17% of records were rated as

high-, 40% as moderately high-, 28% as moderately low-, and 14% as low-stress events

by the raters. Thus, the 4 day period was adequate to include at least moderate daily

stressors.

Though instructed to fill out the questionnaires over a 5 day period, many subjects

took up to several weeks to complete them. Some did this systematically, participating

only on days with a significant stressor. Others, because of factors such as shift-work,

sickness, holidays, time-pressure, or forgetfulness filled out the measures more

sporadically. In the interests of maintaining sample size, subjects were told that this was

permissible, and the 5 day testing period was relaxed.

It should be noted that the hospital, along with the rest of the health care system

in the Province of Alberta, was facing serious cutbacks at the time of the data collection.

Layoffs, reorganization, and program and facility closures were under discussion, and

there was a great deal of uncertainty and worry among hospital employees. To what

extent this affected the data cannot be determined exactly, but it seems reasonable to

assume that this climate may have contributed to the amount of stress experienced by the

subjects.

Results

Missing values and tran.$onnations

Prior to analysis, the data were examined using a variety of BMDP programs (Dixon,

1985) to deal with missing and extreme values and skewed data. Missing data were quite

rare, as subjects completed questionnaires when they had experienced a stressful event

and were prepared to report on it. 9 of the 140 subjects' questionnaires could not be used

either because they had experienced no stressful event during the recording period or

because the forms were filled out incorrectly. For the remaining 131 subjects, the data

set consists of responses on the first of the four days that a stressful situation was

reported and had complete data. Histograms of key variables (baseline measures,

situation and evening moods, personality, and coping variables) were plotted, and

logarithmic transformations were done on disengaged and engaged coping, situation and

evening negative mood, negative and positive life events to reduce skewness and so 3

improve linearity of relationships among variables. Skews were reduced below 1.00 for

all variables. Evening negative mood remained positively skewed. For the key variables,

multivariate outliers were then identified by calculating and plotting a histogram of

Mahalanobis distances from the centroid. In extreme cases, another day's data replaced

the extreme data. The outlier analysis was repeated, and the 1 case which was still an

outlier was eliminated from the data set, leaving 130 cases. This procedure reduced the

loss of subjects, because an outlying case could be replaced with another day's data from

the same subject.

Sample demographics

The mean age of the participants was 38 years, 7 months, with a range of 20 to

58. 94% of the sample identified themselves as white, 5% as Asian, 1% as black, and

none as native or other. The modal education level was "some level of college or

university". The modal total household income category was $50,000 to $75,000,

probably reflecting two incomes in most cases. About two thirds of the participants were

married or living common-law, one sixth were single, and one sixth separated or

divorced. Table 1 shows the detailed demographic data. The sample represents many

occupations, and Table 2 shows the occupations represented in the sample. The most

common occupations were nursing, laboratory technologist, clerical, and managerial.

Overall, most women in this sample were well educated and professional, aged 30 to 50,

married, and Caucasian.

Table 1 Demoma~hic characteristics of the sam~le

Ethnicity

White Asian ,

Black Native & Other

Highest - level of education

Middle school High school Some college or university College or university degree Some graduate school Graduate / professional degree

Total household income (all sources)

Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $75,000 More than $75,000

Relationship status

Married Single (never married) Common law Divorced Widowed Separated

Table 2 cupaoons

Registered nurse Laboratory technologist Clerical Managerial Programmer / analyst Social worker Secretarial Pharmacy technician Occupational therapist Speech-language pathologist Student 1 intern Psychologist Child life specialist Departmental assistant Dietician Equipment buyer Health record technician Licensed practical nurse Pharmacist Physiotherapist Planning technologist Trainer

1111111111111111 111131 111111 11111 I111 I11 Ill I1

Table 3. Ynivariate statistics.

Variable Freauenc y Mean

race 130 education 130 income 130 job 130 relationship 130 age 130 base-neg 130 base-pos 130 negative life events 130 positive life events 130 self-rated stress 130 other-rated stress 130 situation negative mood 130 situation positive mood 130 evening negative mood 130 evening positive mood 130 engaged coping 130 disengaged coping 130 neuroticism 130 extraversion 130

Dav 2

self-rated stress 99 engaged coping 94 disengaged coping 96 situation negative mood 95 situation positive mood 95 evening negative mood 1 18 evening positive mood 1 18

St. Dev Range

Data analyses

Hypothesis 1 was an umbrella test for the presence of effects in general. It used

canonical correlation to predict evening positive and negative mood from personality

(neuroticism and extraversion), engaged and disengaged coping, and stress ratings.

Because positive and negative evening mood were the outcomes for most analyses, it was

important to ensure that they were related to situational, behavioural, and personality

predictors. The presence of significant canonical correlations would allow more specific

tests to identify the relationships.

The omnibus test for effects was significant ~2 (10) = 53.54, (p < .00005). This

indicates that there are significant relationships. The first canonical correlation was .52,

while the second was .33. The first is significant, as indicated above. The second is also

significant, because with the effects of the first correlation removed, ~2 (4) = 14.52. (p =

.006). Because both canonical correlations are significant, significant relationships

between predictor and predicted variables exist, and hypothesis 1 is supported.

Hypothesis 2 predicted a particular pattern of relationships within this canonical

correlation analysis, namely that neuroticism, disengaged coping, and stressfulness of the

situation should predict evening negative mood, whereas extraversion and engaged

coping should predict evening positive mood.

The first predictor canonical variate was defined by neuroticism, lack of

extraversion, engaged coping, and disengaged coping. The corresponding first evening

mood canonical variate was defined primarily by negative mood, with a positive but

small loading by positive mood. This can be interpreted as a mixed mood, or general

emotional arousal variate. The second predictor canonical variate was defined by lack of

neuroticism and by engaged coping. Notably, the rating of the severity of the stressful

situation was not related to evening mood. The corresponding second evening mood

variate was defined primarily by positive mood with a small and negative loading by

negative mood. This can be interpreted as a pleasant mood vs. depression variate,

matching Tellegen's model of depression as consisting of high negative and low positive

mood (Watson, et al., 1988). Examining the pairs of variates together, mixed mood was

predicted by neuroticism, and both engaged coping and disengaged coping. Pleasant

mood (positive and lack of negative mood) was predicted by lack of neuroticism and

engaged coping. One could also say that unpleasant mood was predicted by neuroticism

and failure to use engaged coping. Overall, 19% of the variance in evening positive and

negative mood was predictable. Table 4 shows the numerical results of the canonical

correlation. This pattern, although interpretable, was not quite as predicted. First, rather

than mood splitting into unequivocal positive and negative variates, a combined mood

variate was found. Though it was defined largely by negative mood as expected, it was

not anticipated that there would be a positive loading by positive mood. Second, the

weakness of extraversion as a predictor was unexpected, as it was thought that its relation

to positive mood would parallel that of neuroticism to negative mood and that it would

load on the second (pleasant mood) variate. Table 5, which shows the correlation matrix

used for this and most subsequent analyses, will provide additional detail. The

hypothesis that neuroticism and extraversion, disengaged and engaged coping would be

neatly separated into parallel sets of predictors of negative and positive mood was not

supported.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that disengaged coping mediates part of the relationship

between neuroticism and negative mood. In other words, the correlations between

neuroticism and disengaged coping, and' between disengaged coping and negative mood,

should account for some of the relationship between neuroticism and negative mood.

Three criteria must be met to support a claim of mediation.

Table 4 Canonical correlations between predictors and evening mood

Correlations between variables and canonical variates

Predictor disengaged coping engaged coping neuroticism extraversion stressfulness

% of variance redundancy

Evening mood negative positive

% of variance redundancy

Canonical correlation

1 st variate .73

2nd variate -.05

First, the predictor must affect both the mediator and the dependent variable.

Second, the mediator must affect the dependent variable. Finally, the direct effect of the

predictor on the dependent variable must be reduced when the mediator is introduced into

the analysis. This hypothesis was tested using hierarchical multiple regression. Given

the first two conditions, mediation is shown when the dependent variable is regressed on

the predictor and the mediator, and the mediator has a significant coefficient (Baron &

Kenny, 1986).

Table 5 shows correlations, significance tests, and probability levels for

neuroticism and disengaged coping taken singly and together to predict evening negative

mood. Highlighting Baron and Kenny's three conditions,

1) the correlation between neuroticism and negative mood was significant (.41), as was

that between neuroticism and disengaged coping (r=.3 1,1(13O)= 3.69, p c.000 1, Table 5).

Table 5 Correlation matrix of key variables and demographics

age educa- income base base negative positive neurot- exuav- tion - mood + mood events events icism ersion

age education income baseline negative mood baseline positive mood negative life events positive life events neuroticism extraversion self-rated stress observer-rated stress situation negative mood situation positive mood evening negative mood evening positive mood engaged coping disengaged coping

self-rated stress observer-rated stress situation negative mood situation positive mood evening negative mood evening positive mood engaged coping disengaged coping

self rated stress

observer situation situation evening evening engaged disengaged rating - mood + mood - mood + mood coping coping

Two-tailed s . .

levels of correlat' ~ ~ c a n c e ions a r t (1301 .05 .18 2.07 .025 .20 2.31 .01 .23 2.67 .005 .25 2.91 .0001 .29 3.43

2) The12 between disengaged coping and negative mood was significant (.34), as was

3) the regression coefficient for disengaged coping with neuroticism included in the

regression. Including disengaged coping in the regression equation increased the

R2 from .I68 to ..224, which is significant @(1,126) = 9.165, Q < .005).

Disengaged coping therefore accounted for some but not all of the relationship

between neuroticism and negative mood, supporting its role as a mediator as hypothesis 3

suggested. Additional evidence on this point will be seen in the path analysis.

A similar analysis was done to test hypothesis 4, regarding extraversion and

positive mood. In this case, conditions one and two for mediation could not be satisfied

because of non-significant correlations between extraversion and positive mood (r = -. 12,

f (130) = 1.37, ns.) and extraversion and engaged coping (r = .09,1(130) = 1.02, ns.)

(Table 5). There was, however, a significant correlation between engaged coping and

positive mood (r = .31,1(130) = 3.69, p < .0001). Clearly, the assumption from prior

research that extraversion is related strongly to positive mood is not supported by these

data. This may be a result of the stressful context in which mood was measured, because

baseline positive mood was significantly associated with extraversion (Table 5). On

stressful days, though, the relationship may be disrupted.

Table 6 m e s s i o n s of even in^ Negative Mood on Neuroticism and Disenga~ed copinri,

Predictors - R - R2 - R2 F a

Singly Neuroticism .352 .I24 .I17 17.89 4 0 0 0 5

Disengaged coping .343 .I17 ,110 16.72 <.00005

Combined Neuroticism + Disengaged coping .435 .I90

This post-hoc hypothesis was tested using multiple regression of evening negative

mood on extraversion, observer rated stress, and an extraversion x stress interaction

term. None of the predictors, including the interaction term, were significant predictors

of positive mood. The idea that extraversion would predict positive mood on days with

less stressful events was not supported by these data.

Hypothesis 5, comparing ratings of the effectiveness of engaged coping versus

disengaged coping, was tested using analysis of covariance with repeated measures.

Neuroticism and extraversion were used as covariates in the analyses to control for

potential effects of personality on the ratings (Table 7 shows correlations between

personality variables and coping efficacy ratings). As predicted, subjects rated engaged

coping as more effective than disengaged coping in making the situation better @ (1,124)

= 100.5, p < .000 1) and in improving the spirits of the subjects @ (1,123) = 16 1.09, p <

.oool).

Table 7 Correlations between Neuroticism and Extraversion and coping efficacv ratings

neuroticism ~xtraversion w a g e d coping:

improve situation -.07 .15 improve spirits -.23* .14

disengaged coping: improve situation -. 1 1 .05 improve spirits -.09 .08

Figu

re 4

in

g ef

fica

cy r

atin

gs

Prob

lem

Em

otio

n

n

Impr

oves

:

spir

its

34

56

78

EP

E

E

DP

DE

Cop

ing

stra

tegy

E

ngag

ed

1. P

robl

em s

olvi

ng

2. C

ogni

tive r

estr

uctu

ring

3. E

mot

iona

l exp

ress

ion

4. S

eeki

ng so

cial

supp

ort

Dis

enga

ged

5. P

robl

em a

voic

lllnc

c 6.

Wish

ful t

hink

ing

7. S

elf-

blam

e 8.

Soc

ial a

void

ance

Figure 4 shows the relative ratings of the coping strategies for improving the

situation and improving one's spirits. In the figure, the strategies are first broken down

into the 8 coping sub-scales (problem solving, cognitive restructuring, emotional

expression, seeking social support, problem avoidance, wishful thinking, self-criticism,

and social withdrawal) and then into the 4 second-order sub-scales of problem and

emotion engagement and disengagement. (labeled PE, EE, PD, and ED respectively).

The two highest rated strategies for improving the situation were problem solving and

seeking social support. The two highest rated strategies for improving one's spirits were

seeking social support and cognitive restructuring. This points to the joint importance of

both supportive others as well as one's own appraisal in maintaining emotional

equilibrium. Of course, supportive others can also help one to see things differently.

Overall, problem engagement was rated as most effective for improving the situation,

whereas emotion engagement was rated as most effective for improving one's spirits as

could be expected. The strategies that were rated as least effective both with respect to

the problem at hand and one's spirits were wishful thinking and self-criticism. Self-

criticism was, incidentally, used by the minority of subjects (40%).

The figure also shows that the main differences in efficacy ratings are between

engagement and disengagement, rather than problem- and emotion-focussed coping.

This may be important, given the weight that the focus of coping has in much of the

literature..

Hypotheses 6,7, and 8 address the roles of engaged coping and disengaged

coping as moderators of the relationships between various predictors (personality, mood

in the situation, and ratings of situation stressfulness) and evening mood. If coping

efforts moderate these relationships, then the relationships between the predictor and

dependent variables change as a function of the coping used. Moderator effects were

tested using hierarchical multiple regression with the predicted moderated variable,

coping (either engage or disengage), and a cross-product representing an interaction term.

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), moderator effects are seen when the product term

has a significant coefficient when its two constituent terms are controlled.

Table 8 Remession of Evenine Negative Mood on Stress rating. Disengaged coping. and interaction term.

Predictors - R - R2 - R2 F a adi

Stress rating + .353 .I25 .I11 9.07 <.0001 Disengaged coping

Stress rating + .396 .I57 .137 7.82 <.0001 Disengaged coping + Interaction

Remession of Evening Positive Mood on Stress rating. Disengaped coping. and interaction term.

Predictors - R - R2 - R2 F a adi

Stress rating + .138 .O 19 .003 1.23 ns. Disengaged coping

Stress rating + .I41 .020 .OW 0.86 ns. Disengaged coping + Interaction

The test of hypothesis 6 showed that the effects of rated stress on negative but not

positive mood are moderated by disengaged coping, as seen in Table 8. The stress x

disengaged coping interaction term accounted for an additional 3% of variance in

evening negative mood, increasing the R2 from .I25 to .157, which is significant

(E(1,126) = 4.78, Q < .05). This is smaller than would be expected from the bivariate

correlation of .335, probably because of high correlations between the product and its

constituents.

The effect of the significant interaction is shown graphically in Figure 5. This

figure shows the mean levels of negative affect in four groups created by median splits of

disengaged coping and the stress rating. It shows that negative mood is unrelated to

disengaged coping when stress is low. However, negative mood does change as a

function of disengaged coping when stress is high. Negative mood is worst when a high

stress rating is combined with high disengaged coping efforts. When stress is low;

though, negative mood does not react to changes in coping. The interaction was

expected, and is consistent with the idea that disengaged coping is harmful only when

there is a situation that creates stress and demands attention.

A similar analysis was done for engaged coping on mood. Although engaged

coping predicted positive mood, (Table 3 , it did not moderate the relationship between

stress and mood. The same results were obtained regarding negative mood. Therefore,

although disengaged coping seems to exacerbate the effects of situational stress on

negative mood, engaged coping was not found to have any protective, or buffering,

effects.

Ratings of stress in the situation are one index of how serious an event has

occurred; another is the emotional impact, indicated by mood at the time of the event.

Tests of Hypothesis 7, assessing moderation of the relationship between mood in the

situation and later mood, should yield comparable results to those of Hypothesis 6.

Because previous research shows that positive and negative situation mood are

uncorrelated (as the case in this study = -.06, = -0.68, ns.), situation negative mood is

used to predict evening negative mood, while situation positive mood is used to predict

evening positive mood.

As is shown in Table 9, engaged coping but not disengaged coping had a

moderating influence on the maintenance of negative mood from the situation into the

evening (&2 increased from .I67 to .195, F(1,126) = 4.38, ]Z < .05). Figure 6 shows the

pattern of the interaction. Situation negative mood was positively correlated with

evening negative mood at high levels of engaged coping, but uncorrelated at low levels

of engaged coping. This means that high levels of situation negative mood persisted

most when engaged coping was used most.

Figure 5 Stress x disengaged coping

, 0 High / disengaged

/ /

disengaged

I I

Low stress High stress

Stress rating (observer)

Figure 6 Situation negative mood x engaged coping

/ / Low

/ 0 / engaged

I 2.4 I

Low High

Situation negative mood

Neither form of coping moderated the relationship between positive affect in the

situation and later in the day, as addition of the interaction term into the regression

equation explained no further variance in either positive or negative evening mood.

These results provide little support for the buffer hypothesis.

This is initially counter-intuitive, and can be explained most easily referring to

one of the coping sub-scales that contributes to overall engaged coping. Emotional

expression can easily be seen as a reaction to a stressor, and to the extent that a subject's

situation negative mood was high, she could be expected to express her feelings. This is

supported by the correlation of .32 between emotional expression and situation negative

mood (t(130) = 3.82, E c .0001).

Table 9 Remession of Evening Negative Mood on Situation negative mood. Diseneaped copinq, and interaction term.

Predictors - R - R2 - R2 F a adj

Sit'n neg mood + -437 .I91 .I79 14.99 c.0001 Disengaged coping

Sit'n neg mood + 447 .200 .180 10.50 c.0001 Disengaged coping + Interaction

Remession - of Evening - Negative Mood on Situation negative mood, Engaged co~ing, and interaction term,

Predictors - R - R2 - R2 F a adj

Sit'n neg mood + .409 .I67 .I53 12.73 <.0001 Engaged coping

Sit'n neg mood + .44 1 .I95 .I75 10.17 <.0001 Engaged coping + Interaction

Similar analyses were done to test for a moderating influence of both forms of

coping on the relationship between neuroticism and evening negative mood as predicted

by hypothesis 8. In neither case was the coefficient for the interaction term significantly

greater than zero, and so moderating influences were not detected. Neuroticism was, as

expected, uncorrelated with evening positive mood, (r = -0.05, t(130) = S66, ns.), and

moderating effects of coping were not sought for this relationship. Therefore, the

relationship between neuroticism and evening negative mood was not altered by the

coping efforts used.

Hypothesis 9, similar to hypothesis 7, predicted that mood from one evening to

the next would be moderated by the coping efforts used. A hierarchical multiple

regression, like that in hypothesis 7, was used to regress evening mood on day 2 on day 1

evening mood, day 2 coping strategies, and an interaction term. Moderating effects were

not seen for the effects of engaged coping on day 2 evening negative mood. The R2 of

day 2 evening mood when regressed on day 1 evening mood and engaged coping was

.137, and when the interaction term was added, it increased to .165, a change of .028,

which is not significant @ (1,73) = 2.414, ns.).

No other interactions were found. In addition, disengaged coping did not mediate

negative mood from evening 1 to evening 2 because evening mood was not significantly

correlated with disengaged coping the next day. Engaged coping did not mediate

positive mood from evening 1 to evening 2 because coping did not add significantly to

the prediction of evening mood when the previous evening's mood was controlled.

The analyses for hypotheses 6 to 9 provide no support for the buffer hypothesis of

coping. Where significant interactions were found within a given day, they either

exacerbated or expressed negative mood reactions. Although people's coping efforts did

have direct impacts on mood (disengaged coping causing negative mood and engaged

coping causing positive mood), their coping responses did not mitigate relationships

between initial stressors (or stress reactions) and later unpleasant affect. Similarly,

coping on day 2 was not found to moderate the relationship between negative mood from

the previous evening to evening 2.

Path analysis

The prior analyses address different parts of what is clearly a larger system of

relations between personality, baseline mood and life event measures, later mood, and

coping efforts. The next section of the analysis addresses the model as a whole using

path analytic procedures. The analyses were performed using LISREL VI (Joreskog &

Sorbom, 1984). There are three principal advantages of using this method of analysis.

First, it reveals mediating effects very clearly. Second, it allows estimation of direct and

indirect effects that are not influenced by other measured variables. In this way, the

effects of the potentially confounding baseline variables are readily dealt with. Third, it

allows the model as a whole to be assessed. Although the regression procedures used

above can support or refute individual hypotheses, they can not show whether the overall

set of posited relations is consistent with the data.

A manifest variable model, or path analysis, (Francis, 1988) was chosen in favour

of a structural model with latent variables. The former approach assumes that the

variables are perfectly measured by the instruments, and it therefore operates at the level

of observed scores. In contrast, the latent variable approach estimates scores of latent

and hence unobserved variables that are only approximated by the measured scores. It

determines the relationships between the measured and the latent variables, as well as

those between latent variables. The latent variable approach adds a level of complexity

that was considered unnecessary in the present context. In requiring a measurement

model be specified, it would in essence require a reliability study of all of the

instruments. This would lie outside the scope of the present study.

The strategy used was to start with a model generated from two sources: the

mediation hypotheses and efforts to control for baseline mood and life events. The fit of

this conservative model was tested, and then path coefficients were released (i.e.,

included in the model and estimated) one or two at a time to improve the model's fit.

New paths were released only if there was theoretical justification and if the modification

index provided by LISREL showed that the model fit would be significantly improved by

including the path.

Figure 7 shows hypotheses 3 and 4 and control for baseline mood and life events

translated into a path diagram. Paths 1,2, and 3 address hypothesis 3, that disengaged

coping mediates between neuroticism and mood after a stressor. Paths 4,5, and 6

address hypothesis 4, that engaged coping mediates between extraversion and positive

mood after a stressor. Paths 7 and 8 are added because the relationship between

personality and mood should not be restricted to evening mood.

Paths between baseline measures and other dependent variables (primarily mood)

are explicitly shown in the remaining paths. Previous life events were expected to

influence general mood of the prior two weeks (baseline positive and negative mood)

(paths 9 and 10) (e.g., Lefcourt, Miller, Ware & Sherk, 1981; Eckenrode, 1984)). Paths

1 1 and 12 between personality measures and baseline mood are included because of the

evidence that personality predicts trait mood (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Watson & Clark,

1984). Personality was linked to previous life events (paths 13 and 14) because of the

long standing clinical assumption that personality traits predict the occurrence of certain

life events, an assumption supported by evidence that neuroticism causes negative life

events (Fergusson & Horwood, 1987). I am not aware of similar evidence regarding

extraversion and positive events, but the links are plausible and parallel to neuroticism.

Figure 7. Initial path analysis mod$

[stress]

Correlations between measures of mood at different times were expected.

Baseline mood was expected to influence situation and evening mood (paths 15 to 18);

fluctuations in mood during the study should be in the context of longer standing mood

levels (Eckenrode, 1984). Similarly, mood in the stressful situation was held partly

responsible for evening mood (paths 19 and 20) in that it was expected that mood would

persist. Stress should cause situation negative mood, as path 2 1 shows (Neale, et al.,

1987).

Additional paths 22 and 23 allow testing of the hypotheses that coping mediates

the persistence in mood. That is, mood in the stressful situation persists to the evening in

part because it enables concordant coping strategies. When one is feeling upset, coping

can be disrupted, which exacerbates one's negative mood. Similarly, when one is in a

good mood, one feels capable and energetic, and this should enable the effective coping

that enhances the good mood (Follunan and Lazarus, 1986).

Model identification refers to the ability of the model to calculate unique

estimates of each coefficient. When the model is not identified, certain paths cannot be

assigned a unique coefficient and their value is indeterminate. Though model

identification is complex and never certain (Hayduk, 1987), the model in Figure 7

appeared to have been identified. There were fewer parameters to be estimated than

variances and covariances in the data matrix, which is a necessary (though not sufficient)

condition for model identification. Empirical evidence for identification was also

provided by the LISREL program. If the model is unidentified, one key matrix cannot be

inverted, and LISREL reports on this. In addition, inspection of error variances and

standardized coefficients revealed none of the impossible values (e.g., negative estimates

of variances or squared multiple correlations) that frequently result from analyzing an

unidentified model.

The first model (Figure 7) fit the data poorly. The ~2 was significant (105.09, p <

.0005 with 52 degrees of freedom), the fit index was 90, and the mean square

standardized residual was 2.8. Several normalized residuals were larger than 2 standard

deviations, and the slope of the Q plot of normalized residuals was less than 45 degrees,

which indicates poor fit. The modification indices as well as the matrix of residuals

suggested that fit would be improved if some of the following paths in Table 10 were

released. The modification index is the estimated decrease in ~2 from releasing the path

and estimating an effect.

Table 10 Paths to release to improve model fit

Predictor Dependent Modification i b

1. disengaged coping --> engaged coping 29.2 released 2. engaged coping --> disengaged coping 14.7 3. baseline negative mood --> baseline positive mood 13.6 released 4. baseline positive mood --> baseline negative mood 1 1.4 5. negative situation mood --> engaged coping 11.3 6. neuroticism --> baseline positive mood 6.4 7. ~ositive life events --> baseline negative mood 6.3 released

Non-meaningful paths 8. engaged coping --> negative situation mood 8.5 9. negative evening mood --> engaged coping 7.7 10. negative life events --> engaged coping 6.6 1 1. stressfulness --> baseline negative mood 6.1

Statements 1 and 2 indicate that engaged and disengaged coping are correlated.

Statements 3 to 7 suggest unexpected correlations between baseline measures. Statement

5 probably relates to the finding that negative situation mood leads to emotional

expression. The last two statements are not meaningful and need not be considered.

Paths for statements 1,3 and 7 were released one by one (2 and 4 are reflections

of 1 and 3 and were ignored). After each path was released, the modification indices for

the other statements were re-examined to see if including the other paths would still

improve the model's fit significantly. Modification indices for paths 5 and 6 dropped to

near zero, and so these paths were not released.

With paths 1,3, and 7 released, the fit of the model improved considerably X * =

49.62, E = .448, df = 49; goodness of fit index = .945, root mean square residual = 1.13.).

All of these measures indicate good fit, and as well, the Q-plot of normalized residuals

was greater than 45 degrees. At this point the model fitting was stopped. Figure 8

shows the modified path diagram and standardized path coefficients. Paths that were

non-significant according to a 1 test were removed. This affected paths 4,7, 8, 12 shown

in Figure 7. Paths with coefficients significantly greater than zero remain in Figure 8.

When the model was re-estimated without the 8 non-significant paths, the fit was not

appreciably changed (x2 = 54.7 1 , p = .41 with 53 degrees of freedom; goodness of fit =

.94, and root mean square residual = 1.44). Ultimately, just 3 additional paths were

added to create a good fit, while 4 non-essential paths were removed. The added paths

joined the two halves of the model initially thought to be independent. The paths

removed pertained most to extraversion, showing the importance of mediators and the

lesser direct effects of the traits.

Interestingly, the model shows that the effects of personality variables on evening

mood were either mediated or were absent. Neuroticism had a total effect of .40 on

negative evening mood, 45% of which was indirect, being mediated through baseline

negative mood and, to a smaller degree, through disengaged coping. This indicates that

although neuroticism predicts negative mood at the daily level, the effect is partly direct,

partly mediated through recent prevailing negative mood, and slightly mediated by

disengaged coping efforts.

Because of concerns that coping efforts could have affected situation mood

(instead of the other way around), an alternative model was tested in which disengaged

coping and engaged coping predicted situation negative and situation positive mood

respectively. The alternative model was a poorer fit to the data than the model

Figure 8. Revised model.

shown in Figure 8 ( ~ 2 (53) = 68.78, p = .07 1, fit index = .923 and mean square

standardized residual = 1.5 10). Therefore, coping use perpetuated mood.

Because baseline mood was measured at least a day prior to the day coping

strategies were used, another unconfounded test was possible to show the direction of the

coping-mood effect. Evening negative mood was regressed on disengaged coping and

baseline negative mood to assess whether disengaged coping mediated the transmission

of negative mood. A similar analysis was done regarding positive mood and engaged

coping. As Table 11 shows, coping efforts were mediators, helping to sustain both

negative mood, (F (1,126) = 12.241, p < .0001) and positive mood, (F (1,126) = 8,374, Q

< .005) as shown in Figure 8. Coping efforts were affected by prior mood and altered

later mood.

Table 11 Reaessions of Evening Mood on Baseline mood and coping.

Negative mood and Positive mood and Disengqpi coping Enpaged coping

Predictors - R - R2 - R - R2

Singly Baseline mood .425 .181

Coping ,350 .I22

Combined Baseline mood + Coping .502 .253

Exploratory andyses

An exploratory analysis determined the specific coping efforts and personality

qualities that predicted positive and negative evening mood. Because subjects had

completed the whole NEO-PI-R, data were available on all facets of Openness,

Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness as well as Neuroticism and Extraversion. Because

many variables are involved, evening mood variables were regressed on families of

predictors first. Each of the five NEO personality traits has facet scales, and the CSI has

8 coping subscales, allowing six families of variables to be created. Variables in each

family that were selected as good predictors by the all-subset regression BMDP program

formed a smaller pool of predictors. Evening mood variables were then regressed on this

smaller pool, and the all-subset regression procedure selected a good final subset of

predictors.

Four coping variables and 4 personality facet scales were good predictors of

negative evening mood (R2 = .38). Not avoiding the problem, wishful thinking, social

withdrawal, and emotional expression were the coping variable predictors selected. Self-

consciousness, Anxiety, and Deliberation were the personality variables most predictive

of evening negative mood. This describes a person who is prone to feel anxious,

embarrassed, ashamed, and acts cautiously. She coped by wishful thinking, letting her

feelings out, and by backing away from others but not the problem.

A person with the opposite scores on these traits (and who therefore was not

vulnerable to negative mood) would be described as someone who is calm and relaxed

(not dwelling on things that might go wrong), undisturbed by awkward social situations,

and often speaks or acts without considering the consequences. She coped by avoiding

the problem, but not by wishful thinking, expressing emotions, or withdrawing socially.

Positive evening mood was less well predicted (R2 = .26). Two coping variables

and 5 personality traits were selected as a good subset of predictors. Positive mood was

predicted by coping strategies of problem solving and cognitive restructuring. The

personality traits of Self-discipline, low Openness to Fantasy, Openness to Aesthetics,

low Order, and low Excitement Seeking were chosen. These qualities seem to fall into

two conceptual sub-sets. A person embodying the first of these qualities is a problem

solver and is able to find positive ways of viewing the stressor. She is prosaic, likes to

keep her mind on the task at hand, has no need for thrills, and is able to motivate herself

to do tasks desipite boredom. The other two traits describe someone who is

unmethodical and unable to get organized, and from high Openness to Aesthetics, has a

deep appreciation for art and poetry.

Considered the other way, low positive mood was predicted by lack of both

problem solving and finding new ways to look at the situation. One sub-set of these

personality traits describe someone lacking self-discipline and motivation, who is prone

to daydream and craves excitement. The other two traits describe someone who is neat,

tidy, well organized, and relatively insensitive to art and beauty. At the extreme, these

would point toward compulsive personality traits.

Discussion

As a great many analyses were done, a synopsis of the key points will orient the

reader to the main findings. Each of these will be discussed, and comparisons to

previous research findings will show convergence and divergence of the current results.

Relevant clinical, theoretical and methodological implications of the findings will be

noted for each finding. After the limitations of the study are outlined, directions for

further research will be noted.

Principal findings

The principal findings are as follows: 1. Coping variables in general had much

stronger mediation, rather then moderating, roles. There was no evidence of stress-

buffering. Where interactions were found, they were to exacerbate stress reactions rather

than mitigate them. 2. Although relationships between neuroticism and other variables

were largely as predicted (e.g., increased negative mood, disengaged coping mediating

neuroticism effects), effects of extraversion were weak. Processes involving

extraversion, engaged coping, and positive mood did not parallel those of neuroticism,

disengaged coping and negative mood. 3. Baseline positive and negative mood had

greater effects than anticipated. Prior mood was substantially correlated with daily mood

outcomes, as expected. However, negative mood mediated effects of neuroticism on

other variables, which was not anticipated. 4. Disengaged coping had a negative impact

on mood, whereas engaged coping had a positive impact on mood. Subjects rated

engaged coping as more effective than disengaged coping for improving both the

stressful situation and their spirits. 5. Coping efforts were affected by prior mood and

helped to perpetuate positive and negative mood. 6. The effects of coping efforts were

not epiphenomena of personality. They had independent effects, controlling for

personality.

Mediation and moderation

Most often, coping is thought of as a moderator and valued for this. If good

coping effectively buffers stress, when it is used, the correlation between a situation's

stressfulness and emotional distress is reduced. If poor coping potentiates stress, then the

correlation between stressfulness of a situation and later distress is increased.

Engaged and disengaged coping were examined as a moderators and mediators of

the effects of three classes of predictors (personality, mood following the situation, and

rated seriousness of the event) on positive and negative evening mood. As predicted,

disengaged coping mediated the relationship between neuroticism and negative mood. In

contrast, most of the hypotheses that coping would moderate relationships between

stress, stress-related mood, or neuroticism and emotional outcomes were not supported.

As expected, disengaged coping exacerbated the effects of situation stress on negative

mood. Contrary to expectations, engaged coping seemed to enhance negative mood

between the time of the event and later in the evening. Perhaps this reflects one of the

disadvantages of opting for engagement rather than denial or non-engagement. If one

decides that a situation need not be responded to and that it is out of one's hands, then it is

possible to relax and disregard it. However, if one grapples with a difficult situation,

then one's efforts put one in contact with the problem, increasing the chances of feeling

frustrated or anxious. Aldwin and Revenson (1987) obtained findings consistent with

this.

Three possible explanations for the failure to find buffering effects are: a) they are

weak or absent, b) they are hard to demonstrate, and c) they operate on a longer time-

scale. Where an effect is not seen, the methodology may be inadequate or inappropriate

for the task, or there may be insufficient statistical power to detect effects. Where

repeated efforts from different researchers fail to find effects, though, there are stronger

grounds to believe that they are absent. The present results replicate those of Cronkite

and Moos (1984) and Billings and Moos (1984), who found that avoidance coping

exacerbated effects of stress on physical symptoms and alcohol use, whereas approach

coping had limited stress-buffering effects. They suggested that approach coping may be

inappropriate when the situation is uncontrollable, and that although the idea that

approach coping is appealing, we may be overselling its importance. Others have also

found more evidence for direct, rather than buffering effects, of coping. For example,

Andrews, Tennant, Hewson, and Vaillant (1978) found that "mature" and "immature"

coping were independently related to psychological symptoms and that they did not

detoxify stress. Aldwin and Revenson (1987) also found more evidence for main effects

than for buffering.

If engaged coping has buffering effects, they may take time to develop. It has

often been suggested that avoidance and denial have short-term advantages but long-term

liabilities. The short-term advantages were not evident in the present data. In contrast, it

might be said instead that engaged coping has short-term costs but may have long-term

benefits. This would be consistent with the psychodynamic tenet that effective coping

requires ego-strength, frustration tolerance, and ability to delay gratification.

Although buffering effects were absent or weak, there was unequivocal evidence

for the role of coping as a mediator. This was found both in regression analyses and,

more significantly, in the path analysis. There was further evidence for beneficial or

harmful main effects, which will be addressed later. Given this, do we need to think of

helpful coping efforts as moderators (buffers) of stress, or is it as useful to think of them

as independent counteracting forces? In other words, perhaps it does not matter that

effective coping is not a moderator as long as it has a beneficial impact independent of

other factors.

Finding stress-mediating rather than strong stress-buffering effects suggests that

coping efforts have an impact of their own, but do not alter the process by which stressful

events affect outcomes. This will have implications for how coping is thought of, and the

mechanisms whereby coping efforts are effective or ineffective. For example, if engaged

and disengaged behaviours act independently of a stressor, they need not necessarily be

thought of as "coping" efforts, because "coping" usually implies reaction to a stressor.

Instead, we might think of these in terms such as approach and avoidance, which are

more neutral regarding the presence of stress.

Effects of neuroticism and extraversion

The effects of neuroticism were largely as expected, both in regression and path

analyses. Examination of the path analysis suggests the following process: Neurotic

people have more negative life events, which affects their general level of negative

mood. They also have more negative mood independent of life events. When they

encounter daily stressors, they react with increased negative mood, to which in turn they

respond with disengaged coping. Doing this does not make the situation better and

makes them feel worse, perpetuating the cycle.

The results regarding neuroticism and disengaged coping replicate prior research.

Disengaged coping is, admittedly, a broad category of behaviours, but it includes many

of the 'avoidant' strategies associated with neuroticism. The current study showed that

neuroticism was linked particularly with the social withdrawal and wishful thinking

subscales of disengaged coping, but also with expressing emotions. This replicates

previous findings regarding neuroticism's effects on wishful thinking and social support

seeking noted in the introduction. The finding regarding problem solving vs. problem

avoidance agree with Houtman's (1 990) results, which showed gender differences such

that neuroticism in women was correlated with less avoidance, while in men it was

correlated with more. It is not surprising that emotional expression (an aspect of engaged

coping) would be correlated with neuroticism, given that neuroticism is defined in part by

experience of such feelings as anxiety, depression, and hostility.

Extraversion had very few important effects compared to neuroticism, and

overall, they were not parallel to those of neuroticism. As the introduction indicated, the

effects of extraversion on coping have typically been smaller and less consistent than

those of neuroticism on coping. The current weak results can be considered a useful

replication of these findings. The current study was not as vulnerable to certain

methodological weaknesses, such as forgetting or retrospective bias, that could have

affected retrospective studies and those examining major, infrequent life events. Subjects

described specific coping responses to events that remained vivid to them, instead of

noting their general coping reactions or style of reacting to events that happened weeks or

months earlier.

In the path analysis, extraversion was associated with positive life events and with

low evening positive mood. It was not, however, positively and directly associated with

positive mood at any of the three measurement points, or with engaged coping efforts.

The failure to find strong associations between extraversion and positive mood is

puzzling. Extraverts are described by Costa and McCrae (1992) as cheerful, optimistic,

upbeat, and energetic. Yet even the Extraversion subscale named "Positive Emotions"

was uncorrelated with daily positive mood, even though it was correlated with baseline

positive mood. This evidence counters the apparent parallel between extraversion and

neuroticism (for example, in calling them respectively "positive affectivity" and

"negative affectivity").

There are at least four possible explanations for the failure to find expected

extraversion effects. First, the PANAS may have been an inappropriate instrument. This

is unlikely, given that the measure was well validated and that the associations were seen

at the baseline level in this study. Also, similar correlations between NEO Extraversion

and averaged PANAS Positive Mood (in the .30 range) were reported by Marshall,

Wortrnan, Kusulas, Hervig and Vickers (1992).

Second, the extraversion scale may have been affected by cultural differences.

Let us consider this briefly. The NEO scale was developed and normed in the USA, but

Canadian and American concepts of extraversion may differ, with Canadian extraverts

being rather more British than American in their extraversion, reflecting a more recent

British heritage and influence. The assumption behind this idea is that Americans value

extraversion and regard the extravert's ebullience and sociability as signs of social and

emotional well-being. However, in the British world, the introvert may be valued for

quietness, self-reliance, and stability. The differing American regard for introversion

may also be reflected in the fact the NEO extraversion scale does not even measure

introversion; rather, a low E score reflects lack of extraversion.

The main difficulty with this argument is the fact that this study used the

American-designed extraversion scale. This means that the constructs that define

American extraversion (however they may differ from elsewhere) were measured, and

the relationships between these constructs and others should not be altered. Whatever

Americans mean by extraversion, it was measured in this sample. The mean and

standard deviation in the current sample differed very little from the standardization

sample, showing that the sample was not unusual (or that the scale behaved oddly in this

sample). Further, the correlations between the NEO extraversion scale and the Eysenck

Personality Inventory extraversion scale (Costa & McCrae, 1992) support i t .

generalizability across the Atlantic and by extension, north of the 49th parallel also.

The third explanation has to the do with the context of the current study. Subjects

were responding to questions about coping and mood on days specifically selected to

contain a stressful event. Here the parallel between the 'positive set' of variables and the

'negative set' breaks down. Extraversion was, as expected, correlated with positive mood

prior to the study. However, on days that were stressful, the association broke down.

Larsen and Ketelaar (1991) noted that neurotics are susceptible to negative mood

induction, whereas extraverts are susceptible to positive mood induction (though

Williams (1993) disputes this). The stressful event seemed to induce negative mood in

the neurotic subjects, but there was no equivalent positive event for the extraverts.

Perhaps the association between extraversion and positive mood breaks down under

stressful circumstances, and extraverts are no more ebullient than introverts in difficult

encounters. This is consistent with change in correlation bewteen extraversion and

positive mood from baseline to evening ratings.

The final possible explanation involves the controversial relationship between

variability in positive mood and extraversion. Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) described a

model of neuroticism and extraversion in which people high in those traits would show

wider swings in negative and positive affect, respectively. Although there is little dispute

about increased negative mood variability in neurotic people, there have been

contradictory findings regarding positive mood reactivity in extraverts (e.g., Hepburn &

Eysenck, 1993; McConville & Cooper, 1992; Williams, 1989). Williams (1993) argues

that extraverts have rather stable positive mood, and do not react with frequent and

positive mood changes.

Williams' model could account for the present data. If positive mood is relatively

stable, then baseline positive mood would be an excellent predictor of daily positive

mood, and there would be relatively little extra variance for extraversion to predict. In

addition, situation positive mood would persist into the evening without mediation by

engaged coping, as it did. The weak but significant relationship between extraversion

and baseline positive mood was mediated by positive life events.

To summarize, extraversion was probably not a good predictor of daily positive

mood in this study because of the stability of positive mood and because of the selection

of stressful days for the measurement.

The weak effects of extraversion suggest that future research into stress, coping,

and mood need not focus on it. The much stronger effects of positive mood suggest that

it will be more useful to understand the factors responsible for it and its effects.

Mood effects

The thud principal finding concerned the importance of mood measures as

predictors. Baseline mood was strongly associated with all key variables, as seen in

Table 5 and in the path diagram Figure 8, and situation mood predicted coping efforts.

The association of baseline mood to daily mood was expected, because one's general

affective level is reflected even in momentary mood (Watson et al., 1988). It was not

expected that neuroticism would have its strongest effects through baseline mood, as

shown in the path diagram. Further, it was not expected that coping efforts would be as

reactive to mood as they appeared to be.

In the path analysis, why did baseline negative mood mediate neuroticism effects?

Two explanations come to mind. First, if neuroticism truly is best conceived of as a

disposition to experience negative affect (Watson & Clark, 1984), then the key

component of neuroticism is in fact negative mood. Baseline negative mood would be

the manifestation of neurotic processes: If neuroticism is a disposition, then baseline

negative mood shows how much this potential is currently being realized. It would be

very useful to examine processes related to neuroticism, including cognitive processes

(such as negative appraisal) and pessimistic beliefs (Smith, et al., 1989). This would help

to show how neuroticism (as potential) is translated into negative mood (as actual).

The second possible explanation why baseline negative mood appears as a

mediator is psychometric. Negative affect was measured at three points with the same

instrument. Some shared variance could be due to properties of the instrument. Even if

neuroticism were directly related to situation and evening negative mood, the path

analysis would not show it because of the strong association between neuroticism and

baseline mood combined with shared method variance between mood measures. There is

no data to support one explanation over the other in the current study. Both are plausible,

and mutually compatible.

The effects of negative mood suggest that it may be an important proximal

variable, while neuroticism is more distal. It may be worthwhile to consider it in

processes where neuroticism is of interest. It would be important in this to examine the

mechanisms linking neuroticism and negative mood. Use of disengaged coping is one

likely mechanism, but others, such as appraisals and thoughts, should also be considered.

Finally, it would be useful to look at the separate components of negative affect in the

processes being described, to know which aspects are important. Anxiety, hostility, and

depression should have different correlates and effects.

Coping efforts alter mood

The coping strategies people used had a direct effect on their mood, even when

prior mood was accounted for. This effect was seen for both positive and negative mood:

engaged coping led to more positive mood, but using disengaged coping led to more

negative mood. Subjects' ratings of the efficacy of coping strategies supported the idea

that engaged coping helps one feel better and that disengaged coping does not (with the

exception of problem avoidance, which had mixed reviews). Though it was not possible

to determine objectively how useful the strategies were, subjects' rated engaged coping as

helpful overall, and disengaged coping as less helpful overall. These ratings are quite

similar to those found by McCrae and Costa (1986) and by Chan (1992). Wishful

thinking, self-criticism, and social withdrawal in particular were rated a> ineffective.

Problem avoidance, though, was rated well at times, perhaps reflecting economical

coping efforts in unchangeable situations. Emotional expression, one aspect of engaged

coping, was rated well by some subjects, but was related to negative mood both in the

situation and later in the day.

The findings of the regression and path analyses on disengaged coping extend the

subjects' evaluations: disengaged coping strategies were not only not helpful, they were

harmful, leading to increased negative mood. This replicates previous results described

to in the introduction under "Effects of Coping". For example, in the long-term

prospective study of Aspinwall and Taylor (1992), avoidant coping predicted poorer

adjustment and well being and more perceived stress. Effects of engaged coping

replicate those of McCrae and Costa (1986), who found that 'mature coping' correlated

with positive, not negative affect, and that it functioned to maintain good spirits despite

adversity, rather than to relieve distress. Similarly, Holohan and Moos (1985) found that

it was non-use of avoidant coping, rather than use of approach coping, that was correlated

with low levels of psychological and physical strain.

The present results also show that abstaining from disengaged responses relieved

distress, but that using helpful coping strategies brought about increased positive mood,

not decreased negative mood.

This has implications for the mechanism of effective coping. It is often supposed

that active, engaged, or problem-focussed coping will relieve distress. The data suggest

that such coping helps instead to maintain spirits. Effective coping is not just active

problem solving: being careful not to disengage despite one's negative mood seems to

reduce or prevent later negative mood, whereas engaged coping supports positive mood

(though through main effects, rather than interactions (cf. Aldwin & Revenson, 1987)).

The results also uphold an observation that some strategies that are included on

coping inventories do not work and increase distress, whereas others function primarily

to maintain positive mood (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987). It is worth asking why

destructive reactions are referred to as "coping" responses and so measured.

Coping responses perpetuate mood

As expected, coping effects altered mood. The effect of mood on coping, and the

role of coping efforts in maintaining mood, was as interesting. It appears that situation

mood brings about certain coping reactions which evoke the same mood state later on. In

particular, disengaged coping is influenced by prior negative mood and as has been

shown, induces later negative mood as well. This affect - coping - affect cycle could be

one way in which negative or positive mood is self-perpetuating and accounts for why it

can be so difficult to shake a negative mood by one's own efforts.

The mood - coping effect helps to show why less adaptive coping strategies are

used both by those under stress and by those in poorer mental health (e.g., Aldwin &

Revenson, 1987): mood is a common factor. In the present study, the negative mood

caused by the stressor predicted more disengaged coping; hence, stress indirectly

influenced disengaged coping as Aldwin and Revenson found. Negative mood also

mediated the relationship between mental health (measured approximately by the

neuroticism scale) and coping.

Similar to the relation between negative mood and disengaged coping, engaged

coping was also predicted by and predictive of positive mood, even though the expected

association with extraversion was not found. Here too, it seemed as though being in a

positive mood led to the sorts of coping behaviours that led in turn to positive mood and

that were rated as more effective in improving the situation. Appraisal surely has a role

in the initial positive mood formation, though it is harder to explain this as a personality

effect given the lack of significant correlations between personality traits and positive

mood in this sample. However, once again, the ability to create and maintain positive

mood in the early stages of a daily stressor has consequences on behaviour, and it should

not be thought that the association between engaged coping and positive mood is all one

way. Feeling good leads to effective coping, perhaps, as much as effective coping leads

to feeling good.

Aspinwall and Taylor (1992) reported very similar results regarding the effects of

mood on coping. In their structural equation model, positive mood predicted coping

constructs parallel to engaged coping ("active coping" and "seeking support"), although

negative mood predicted both disengaged ("avoidant") coping and engaged coping. This

is precisely what was found in the present study. Aspinwall and Taylor reported that

personality traits predicted mood (rather than vice versa), and that mood predicted

coping, but did not test the full mediation model in which personality alters coping

efforts through positive and negative mood as mediators.

The effort it takes to keep going despite feeling upset should be acknowledged,

yet coping inventories rarely reflect it. Items such as "I med hard not to withdraw from

others" or "I managed not to give up and wish it was over" may be useful. Coping

inventories usually record subjects in action, rather than making an effort not to act. Yet

negative mood states seem to lead to withdrawal, escape responses (e.g., Follunan and

Lazarus, 1986).

Interestingly, Folkman and Lazarus (1986) found that compared to subjects with

few depression symptoms, subjects with more symptoms (hence more negative mood)

believed stressful situations required them had to hold back from doing what they

wanted. Follunan and Lazarus suggested that they were holding back from hostile

responding, but they might also have been holding back from withdrawal.

The present results are similar, on a smaller scale, to Aldwin and Revenson's

(1987), and Felton, Revenson and Hinrichsen's (1984) discussion of a self-perpetuating

causal cycle of mental health and maladaptive coping efforts. They suggest that greater

levels of emotional distress and more severe problems lead to maladaptive coping, which

further increases emotional distress and the likelihood of future problems. This is just

what is seen in the present data. The difference is that the prior studies looked at

psychological symptoms over a month, and coping with the most severe stressor of the

prior month. A replication of this at the daily level shows that the cycle may operate

every day, not just in response to major life events.

To the extent that neuroticism or depression are linked to initial negative

appraisals of situations as cognitively-oriented clinicians claim (e.g., Beck et al., 1979),

the links between neuroticism, coping, and mood are more clearly defined. An initial

negative appraisal of a stressful situation leads to negative mood and disrupted coping.

This contributes to later negative mood as well as prolonging the consequences of the

stressful situation, possibly confirming a counter-productive belief in being unable to

manage everyday difficulties. When the next stressful situation occurs, the initial

appraisal is likely to be more negative, and the cycle continues. If this is a mechanism, it

will be a useful place to intervene. New strategies will be needed to prevent mood from

interfering with effective behaviour. At the least, it could be helpful for people to know

that one's unpleasant mood means that one should resist automatically withdrawing,

wishing things were better, and so on. But interventions should be directed even earlier,

at the level of the initial emotional reaction. The emotion - coping link suggests that it

may be important to help people appraise situations in ways that are helpful and that lead

to feeling good, or at the least, not feeling bad.

The path analysis shows situation-mood altering coping. The direction of this

relationship should be interpreted cautiously because of the sequence of measurements.

Situation mood was measured soon after a stressful situation. The coping measurement

was made hours afterward, but the subjects' instructions were to indicate how much each

strategy was used both in and since the situation. Situation mood could have been

affected by coping efforts earlier, in the situation. The size of this possible effect is not

clear.

Fortunately, baseline mood was measured before coping, and post hoc analyses

showed that disengaged coping was a significant mediator of the relationship between

baseline and evening negative mood, while engaged coping played the same role for

positive mood. Further, the alternate path analysis model, with paths leading from

coping to situation mood variables, was a poorer fit to the data than the original model.

Finally, much of the coping reported was done in the time between the situation mood

measurement and evening mood measurement. Given these factors, the model

suggesting that mood alters coping which in turn alters mood can stand until replicated

with a more powerful design. A clearer design would have subjects fill out one coping

scale and a mood measure right after the stressful situation occurred, and later in the day

do another coping and mood rating. The second coping rating would refer specifically to

the time since the first mood rating. Whether subjects could comply with this design is

another matter.

In short, coping efforts are both affected by and affect mood. Both negative and

to an extent positive mood perpetuate themselves via the coping responses they evoke.

Two places for intervention would therefore be at the level of the initial mood formation,

and at the choice of coping responses. People may find it helpful to find ways of viewing

situations that reduce their initial negative emotional reaction, and they could benefit

from strategies that help them manage negative mood so that it does not disrupt effective

behaviour.

Coping behaviours are not epiphenomena of personality

McCrae and Costa (1986) speculated that in the relation between neuroticism,

coping and distress, coping is epiphenomenal and so distress is not a result of

problematic coping (as h e 1 and Wohlfarth (1991) suggest). The present results show

that although neuroticism affects coping both directly and through mood, coping efforts

played an independent role. Coping efforts were even uncorrelated with the extraversion

dimension of personality. In the case of neuroticism, disengaged coping seemed to

maintain negative mood even after accounting for the effects of personality. Further,

although highly neurotic people are likely to feel distress regardless of their coping

efforts, they can exacerbate their negative mood by disengaged coping. Bolger (1990)

found a similar effect, in that neurotic college students used more disengaged coping

strategies before an exam and that doing so increased their anxiety. The current study

extends Bolger's findings to a larger, more representative sample in the context of a much

wider range of stressful situations, and shows the effect within a single day.

Disengaged coping reactions appear to be part of the mechanism that promotes

negative affect in neurotic people. It is not just that they feel unhappy and also happen to

use certain strategies. Their coping reactions are part of the problem and can perhaps be

amended.

Interventions should, therefore, help to prevent maladaptive disengaged reactions,

rather than to promote engaged coping. Engaged coping was not significantly correlated

to neuroticism, so it does not seem that neurotic people suffer a deficit of problem

solving and other adaptive strategies.

Neurotic people seem to have two problems when under stress: managing the

situation and regulating their emotional reaction. In the terms used by Folkman et al.,

(1986), more neurotic people may have more at stake in a stressful encounter. If neurotic

people are prone to react with increased negative emotion as has been suggested

(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Larsen and Ketelaar, 1991), then emotional regulation

becomes an additional, perhaps conflicting, task in a stressful encounter. Another goal

for intervention should therefore be to help them to prevent or manage negative mood, so

that their coping efforts are not disrupted.

Other findings

It was interesting that engaged and disengaged coping were so highly correlated.

This differs from Tobin et al. (1989), in which engaged and disengaged coping subscales

were essentially unconelated. It does lend support to the assertion that people use a

variety of coping modes in stressful encounters ( F o h a n and Lazarus, 1988), even if

they seem incompatible. An easy explanation for the correlation is that the subjects had

hours in which to use several strategies in sequence that would be incompatible if used

together. For example, if a crisis developed with a patient at work, there could be

immediate problem engagement coping to deal with the situation. When control was

reestablished, those involved could express their feelings about the event and support one

another. As other work demands became pressing, the next effective strategy would be

to carry on for the rest of the day trying not to think about the event, a disengaged

strategy. This illustrates the complex demands of, and coping responses to, a stressful

event and its consequences.

The correlation of the two coping scales also suggests that one could look at

subjects' total coping effort. From this standpoint, less total effort would indicate that the

subject spent little time using the scale's strategies in response to the situation. A low

score might indicate 'true avoidance', in that the subject did not even make the effort to

disengage. The scale was not constructed to evaluate this, however. One would need to

ensure that the correlation is not merely a product of response style or of the time elapsed

since the stressful event.

Another interesting feature of the coping scale has to do with the classification of

coping efforts as emotion vs. problem focussed, rather than engaged vs. disengaged.

Beginning with the Ways of Coping Scale (Follunan and Lazarus, 1980), researchers

have often contrasted effects of problem and emotion focussed coping. This is based on

the premise that in a stressful encounter, one can alter either the situation or one's

reaction to it. The Coping Strategies Inventory neatly crosses coping focus with

engagement and disengagement, such that there is problem engagement, emotion

engagement, and so on. The center of Figure 4 illustrates subjects' evaluations of the

effectiveness of engaged and disengaged coping with a problem or emotion focus.

Although engaged coping was rated as more effective than disengaged coping, no

differences are apparent between emotion- and problem-focussed coping. This suggests

that coping strategies be evaluated across several dimensions, instead of just their focus.

Implications

If preexisting mood sets one on a path which is likely to be less effective in

solving problems (as the subjects indicated was true of disengaged coping), it becomes

more important to understand the initial emotional reaction to the stressful situation.

Further, if the coping efforts used reflect earlier mood more than they mediate the effects

of the stressor on later mood, then intervention efforts should be focussed on the initial

reaction. In the transactional coping model proposed by Lazarus and Follunan (1984),

this would be the initial appraisal. From a therapeutic perspective, it would be the

meaning of the event to the person in light of his or her personal constructs, beliefs, and

prior experiences.

The replication of results at the daily level that have previously been seen over

longer periods suggests that the mechanisms linking personality, stress, affect, and

coping, operate day-to-day on strains, and not just in response to major life events. This

has research implications. It suggests that research into stress and coping can usefully be

done on a small scale, and that one need not wait for dramatic and infrequent events.

This supports the idea that has been growing over the past decade that small events are of

interest to researchers (see for example work on daily events by Stone, Neale and

colleagues, and a burgeoning research program involving daily hassles).

The further finding that personal coping responses were responsible for

maintaining distress, even if the person was not responsible for the stressor, has practical

importance. Therapy clients often say that they are upset because of some event external

to them. This frames the client as an unhappy victim of circumstances, doomed to

distress because of events beyond her control. The present results would reframe this,

saying that one becomes upset in response to some event, but that one remains so partly

because of one's own reaction to it. This can be empowering. Even a victim of events

has the power to protect her later emotional well-being. This idea is consistent with

Viktor Frankl's (1959) insistence that "what matters above all is the attitude we take

toward suffering, the attitude in which we take our suffering upon ourselves" (pg 178).

The present high rating received by cognitive restructuring underlines his point that

"suffering in some way ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning" (pg 179).

This brings back a point raised earlier, that people's appraisals in the stress-coping

process are important. Lazarus and Follunan (1984) emphasize the importance of the

appraisal of the situation. However, I would wonder also about people's appraisals of

their own coping response. Does it seem adequate to them? Do they feel effective?

What is the meaning of their own reaction to them? If the meaning of a situation

provokes situational distress, is it the direct effects of the coping efforts, or the personal

meaning of them, that carries distress over into the evening? For example, does an

unhappy person with negative attitudes about herself disengage under stress and feel sad

later because of perceived failure? The present results only show a coping effect; they

do not explain it.

Another effect that is shown but not explained it the effect of mood on coping

efforts. Why does distress promote disengaged coping, and positive mood enhance

engaged efforts? Competing models could be tested for fit to the appropriate data-set.

Does anxiety disrupt effective cognitive functioning and hence adaptive behaviour?

(Folkrnan and Lazarus, 1988). Do negative emotions alter appraisals such that people

assume that there is no effective response? Or do dysfunctional attitudes drive both

negative mood and coping efforts?

Two points lie beneath these questions. First, the present study modeled

processes that are themselves mediated, and second, very broad constructs were

measured. Extension of this research should differentiate negative emotions. For

example, it has been suggested that anxiety is prevalent early in a stressful encounter,

whereas depression sets in later, when coping efforts are seen as unsuccessful (Kuiper,

Olinger & Martin, 1988). Although negative affects are correlated, there is a difference

between disengaging out of anxiety and disengaging out of depression.

Limitations

The findings of this study have several limitations. The first is that the study is

correlational. Some of the problems of correlational studies have been reduced or

eliminated by using a prospective design, measuring potential confounding variables,

explicit model testing, and basing statistical analyses on a priori, theoretically based

hypotheses. Nonetheless, it is impossible to know to what extent important but

unmeasured variables could explain the pattern of the current results. It would be fruitful

to explore the role of other mediators in the process. For example, it would be useful to

study the role of cognitions that accompany mood states, because they might help to

explain the links between mood and subsequent coping efforts.

Second, the data are all derived from self-report questionnaires. Although self-

report is the only way to measure subjective phenomena such as mood states, it would be

useful to have corroborative observer and physiological data. For example, persons close

to the subjects could provide personality ratings. Measures of heart rate, cortisol and

adrenalin would give physiological indices of stress reactions that would complement

mood self-reports. Houtrnan and Bakker (1 99 1) have used this approach. One problem

of self-report is that the effects tested could be inflated because of similarity in the

instruments. For example, it is not known to what extent the mood and coping

questionnaires are correlated because of similar styles of responding to questionnaires.

Third, measurements were taken over a short time-span. The long-term effects of

prolonged use of certain coping efforts are not addressed, and the effects of coping could

be expected to differ over different time periods.

Fourth, mood is just one aspect of the outcome of stressful situations. It says

nothing about other outcomes such as changes to social relationships, what was learned

from the experience, physiological strain, or even outcome of the situation. Although

emotional regulation is one goal of coping efforts, mood should not be used as the sole

index of coping efficacy. Short-term emotional regulation could conflict with effective

problem-solving in the long-term. For instance, handling some situations requires one to

do difficult things that are temporarily distressing but necessary. One subject had to fire

an employee, for example. If one used negative mood as an index of outcome, one might

mistakenly conclude that the situation was handled poorly.

Fifth, having people self-monitor could have altered the processes studied. Some

subjects noted afterward that they found it helpful to use the coping checklist for a week,

and this indicates that self-awareness could have affected their behaviour. Knowing that

they would later rate how they coped with the stressor, they might have been more

deliberate in their reactions.

Sixth, the instructions for the coping scale were modified, and as noted above, its

psychometric properties were different from those published previously. To what extent

this affected the results is not known. Other coping scales, such as the Ways of Coping

Checklist (Follunan & Lazarus, 1980) also seem to have different properties from study

to study, so the changed instructions may not have been a factor.

Finally, the sample used limits generalizability. The subjects overall were well

educated, held positions of responsibility, had a household income that was above

average, were all employed (hence had relatively good physical and mental health and

were not of retirement age), were all women, and mostly white. Self-selection was

probably not a problem however. Although it was thought that self-selected volunteers

might differ from the rest of the population, none of the personality scores for the sample

was significantly different from the average in the normative sample.

Fuure directions

The present study is necessarily incomplete and raises questions to spur further

research. Three particular areas seem worth pursuing. First, coping represented

behaviour, and mood represented affect, but this research did not addresss cognition.

Cognition is probably an important meditator throughout the process illustrated. The

appraisal and meaning of the stressor should affect both mood and coping efforts

according to the Follunan and Lazarus' transactional model and other cognitive theories

(Lazarus & Follunan, 1984; Forsyth & Compas, 1987; Litt, 1988). Dysfunctional,

pessimistic self-appraisals and beliefs should explain the links from neuroticism to usual

mood and coping (e.g., Bruch, Meyer, & Chesser, 1987; Epstein, 1992; Gillis & Lanning,

1989; Kuiper et al., 1988; Lakey, 1988; Snell & Hawkins, 1985; Uhlemann & Plater,

1990).

Moving to cognition and the effects of coping, I suggested earlier that the

meaning of the coping efforts may help to explain their relative efficacy. To my

knowledge, this has not yet been investigated. Subjects rated cognitive restructuring as

the most effective individual strategy, yet to be believable, a new way of thinking about a

stressful situation should be consistent with one's basic beliefs. These basic beliefs and

values could be explored. The relationship between new ways of seeing the problem and

social support merits exploration also. Supportive others often help one to refrarne

situations and make them more bearable.

It would also be interesting to look at in the interplay of negative mood and

cognitive functioning. It has been shown that arousal beyond a certain optimum level

interferes with problem-solving, and this could help to explain how stress-induced

negative mood leads to disengaged coping.

In short, most of the associations mapped in the path analysis are probably

themselves mediated by cognitive processes. These need to be shown to explain effects

that are sometimes merely demonstrated.

A second way to expand the present research is to vary the time dimension. One

way in which the present study diverged from others is that it looked at very short-term

emotional outcomes. As suggested by the contrasting moderating effects of engaged

coping over two intervals, it matters when you evaluate effects. The present results

confm that it can be useful to look at daily events and coping (cf. Stone & Neale, 1984;

Tennen, Suls & Affleck, 1991). There are many possible variations of the method within

this framework. Repeated measurements of mood and coping efforts can be aggregated

over days. The impact of particular events can be assessed over time. Changes in coping

strategies could be assessed if coping were evaluated at several points. Even shorter

intervals could be used: mood and coping efforts could be evaluated hourly, for example,

to show the interplay more clearly. The short- and long-term advantages and liabilities of

different coping strategies can only be assessed with repeated measurements at different

points.

A third extension has already been noted, and this has to do with looking at other

criteria or effects than mood. Particularly relevant to health psychology are measurement

of physiological correlates of arousal and tension, and assessment of effects of

personality, events, mood and coping on health and health complaints. Though difficult,

it is also necessary to develop a way to assess the impact of coping strategies on the

actual stressful situations. Without this, it will be impossible to evaluate the practical

outcomes of different coping efforts.

A fourth extension would look at the phemonena at a different level of analysis.

The present study for the most part used broad constructs. Further work could look at

finer-grained scales, paying more heed to particular emotions and specific coping efforts

for example.

Conclusions

This study examined relationships between personality, coping, and mood, most

of which have been noted separately in prior research. The methodology used, however,

differs from much prior research first in that it is very short-term and prospective, and

second, in the combination of variables studied. Effects were seen on a daily scale that

replicate those previously seen on a monthly or yearly scale. This suggests that the same

processes that mediate relationships between such variables as major life events, coping

styles, and long-term psychological well-being also operate daily. There would be

theoretical and practical payoffs to studying such processes as they unfold.

Because of its prospective design, the study was able to address certain questions

that have arisen in prior research. Personality was not confounded with stressors, with

coping efforts, or mood outcomes, as has sometimes previously been the case. As some

have speculated, coping and mood seem to act on each other reciprocally. Coping efforts

do not appear to be epiphenomena of personality, but have their own effects. In the case

of neuroticism, disengaged coping mediates negative mood, one product of neuroticism.

Coping efforts were unrelated to extraversion, but helped to reinforce positive mood. On

the question of whether coping is a moderator or a mediator, no evidence was found for

moderation in the short term. It was clear that some coping reactions can exacerbate

stressful situations, and it is particularly clear that disengaged coping is more than

ineffective, it can be harmful.

The idea that extraversion would have parallel but opposite effects to neuroticism

was not supported. The link between extraversion and positive mood (at least in the

context of stressful situations) seems weaker than that between neuroticism and negative

mood. Extraversion does not appear to be a personal resource that substantially alters

coping and contributes to well-being. Finally, mood measures helped to bridge the gap

between enduring and trait constructs, and more ephemeral and state variables.

Questions remain regarding the role of cognitive processes in the above relationships, the

change in effects over time, and their relationship to physiological processes.

The research was based on two questions regarding the relative efficacy of

different coping strategies, and individual differences in responding to everyday

stressors. Although long-term outcomes remain to be examined in further research, in

the short-term, using engaged coping strategies to deal with daily stressors helps to

maintain good spirits, and making a simultaneous effort not to disengage minimizes

distress. Women already inclined by personality to negative moods exacerbate their

distress by using disengaged coping strategies. Women in a positive mood maintain it

under stress by using engaged strategies. This suggests that assisting people both to

manage their mood and to resist retreating under stress will help them manage the

everyday stresses of their lives.

References

Aldwin, C.M., & Revenson, T.A. (1987). Does coping help'? A reexamination of the relation between coping and mental health. Journal of Personalitv and Social P S V C ~ O ~ O E ~ , 2,337-348.

Aldwin, C.M., Levenson, M.R., Spiro, A., & Bossk, R. (1989). Does emotionality predict stress? Findings from the Normative Aging Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 5_6,618-624.

Arnirkhan, J.H. (1990). A factor analytically derived measure of coping: The Coping Strategy Indicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 59, 1066- 1074.

Andrews, G., Tennant, C., & Hewson, D.M (1978). Life event stress, social support, coping style, and risk of psychological involvement. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 166,307-3 16.

Aspinwall, L.G., & Taylor, S.E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college adjustment and performance. J i a , Q, 989- 1003.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator - mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J ~ B , a, 1 173- 1 182.

Beck, A.T., Rush, A.J., Shaw, B.F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive Thera~v of De~ression. New York: Guilford Press.

Billings, A.G., & Moos R.H. (1984). Coping, stress, and social resources among adults with unipolar depression. J J v f 46,877- 89.

Billings, A.G., & Moos R.H.! (1984). Coping, stress, and social resources among adults with unipolar depression. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvchology, 46,877- 89.

Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvcholo~v, 2 ,535537.

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R.C., & Schilling, E.A. (1989). Effects of daily stress on negative mood. @ 1 , Z, 808-8 18.

Bolger, N., & Schilling, E.A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, s, 355-386.

Bower, G.H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psycholoeist, 36, 129-148.

Bradburn, N.M. (1969). The Structure Of Well-Being. Chicago: Aldine.

Bradley B., & Mogg, K. (1993). Negative recall bias and neuroticism: State vs trait effects. Behavior Research and Therapy, 31, 125- 127.

Brief, A.P., & Butcher, A.H. (1993). tntegrating bottom-up and top-down theories of subjective well being: The case of health. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvcholog~, 64,646-653

Brett, J.F., Brief, A.P., Burke, M.J., George, J.M., & Webster, J. (1990). Negative affectivity and the reporting of stressful life events. Health Psvchology, 9,57-68.

Bruch, M., Meyer, V., & Chesser, E.S. (1987). The role of evaluative self-schemata in self-talk: Some predictions and explorations. Scandinavian Journal of Behaviour Thera~y, 16, 149- 166.

Bruder-Mattson, S.F., & Hovanitz, C.A. (1990). Coping and attributional styles as predictors of depression. Journal of Clinical Psvcholoey, a, 557-565.

Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 56, 267-283.

Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W., & Tatsouka, M.M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personalitv Factor Ouestionnaire (16PF). Champaign, Ill.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Chan, D.W. (1992). Coping with depressed mood among Chinese medical students in Hong Kong. Journal of Affective Disorders, 24, 109- 1 16.

Cohen, S., Karnarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 24,385-396.

Cooper, C., & McConville, C. (1989). The factorial equivalence of state anxiety: Negative affect and . state extraversion-positive affect. Personalitv & Individual Differences, 14,9 19-920

Costa P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P,T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personalitv Inventom Manual. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1988). NEO PVFFI Manual Su~plement. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crarnerus, M. (1989). Self-derogation: Inner conflict and anxious vigilance. Journal of Contem~orarv Psvchotherapy, 1 9 , 5 6 9 .

Cronkite, R.C., & Moos, R.H. (1984). The role of predisposing and moderating factors in the stress-illness relationship. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 2 , 3 7 2 - 393.

Davis, C.G., Lehman, D.R., Thompson, S.C, Silver, R.C., & Wortrnan, C. (1988). The undoing of traumatic life events. Unpublished paper.

DeLongis, A., Coyne, J.C., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1982). Relationship of daily hassles, uplifts, and major life events to health status. Health Psychology, 1, 1 19- 136.

DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). The impact of daily stress on health and mood: Psychological and social resources as mediators. Journal of personal it^ and Social Psvchology, 54,486-495.

Deutsch, F. (1986). Calling a freeze on "Stress Wars": There is hope for adaptational outcomes. American Psvchologist, 41.7 13-7 14.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R.A. (1985). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 47, 1105-1 117.

Diener, E., & Iran-Nejal, A. (1986). The relationship in experience between various types of affect. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvcholoe~, jQ, 103 1 - 1038.

Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1992). Extraversion and subjective well-being in a U.S. national probability sample. Journal of Research in Personality, 2,205-215

Dixon, W.J. (1985). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dohrenwend, B.P., Shout, P.E. (1986). Reply to Green and Deutsch. American Psvchologist, 41,7 16.

Dohrenwend, B.S., Krasnoff, L., Askenasy, A.R., & Dohrenwend, B.P. (1978). Exemplification of a method: the PER1 life events scale. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19,205-229.

Dom, L., & Matthews, G. (1992). Two further studies of personality correlates of driver stress. Personality and Individual Differences, u, 949-951

Eckenrode, J. (1984). Impact of chronic and acute stressors on daily reports of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholoev, a, 907-9 18.

Emrnons, R.A., Diener, E., & Larsen, R.J. (1986). Choice and avoidance of everyday situations and affect congruence: Two models of reciprocal interactionism.' -oc ial PersonalitvandSQc P svcho logv, 51.8 15-826.

Endler, N.S., & Edwards, J. (1982). Stress and personality. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical As~ects (pp. 36- 48). New York: Free Press.

Endler, N.S., & Parker, J.D. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3,844-854.

Epstein, S. (1992). Coping ability, negative self-evaluation, and overgeneralization: Experiment and theory. JJof, a, 826- 836.

Eysenck, H.J. (1975). Evsenck Personality Ouestionnaire Manual. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, M.W. (1985). Personalitv and individual differences: a natural science a~proach. New York: Plenum Press.

Felton, B.J., Revenson, T.A., & Hinrichsen, G.A. (1984). Stress and coping in the explanations of psychological adjustment among chronically ill adults. Social Science and Medicine, 18, 889-898.

Fergusson, D.M., & and Horwood, L.J. (1987). Vulnerability to life events exposure. Psvchological Medicine, 17,739-749.

Fleishman, J.A. (1984). Personality characteristics and coping patterns. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25,229-244.

Follunan, S, Lazarus, R.S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvchologv, 50,992- 1003.

Follunan, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21,219-239

Follunan, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1986). Stress process and depressive symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Psvcholo~y, 95, 107- 1 13.

Follunan, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchologv, 54,466-475.

Follunan, S., Lazarus, R.S., Gruen, R.J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social P s v c ~ o ~ o ~ ~ , S, 57 1-579.

Forsyth, C.J., & Compas, B.E. (1987). Interaction of cognitive appraisals of stressful events and coping: testing the goodness of fit hypothesis. Co~nitive Therapv and Research, u, 473-485.

Francis, D.J. (1988). An introduction to structural equation models. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuro~svchology, M, 623-639.

Frankl, V.E. (1959). Man's search for meaning. New York: Washington Square Press.

Frese, M. (1986). Coping as a moderator and mediator between stress at work an psychosomatic complaints. In M.H. Appley & R. Trumbull (Eds.), stress: Phvsiolopical, - ~svcholoeical, and social pers~ectives (pp. 183-205). New York: Plenum.

Frone, M.R., & Russell, M. (1991). Relationship of work and family stressors to psychological distress: The independent moderating influence of social support, mastery, active coping, and self-focused attention. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4,227-250

Furnham, A., & Brewin, C.R. (1990). Personality and happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1093- 1096

Gallagher, D.J. (1990). Extraversion, neuroticism and appraisal of stressful academic events. Personalitv and Individual Differences, 11, 1053- 1057

Gibbs, M.S. (1989). Factors in the victim that mediate between disaster and psychopathology: A review. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2,489-5 14.

Gillis, J.S., & Lanning, K. (1 989). Cognitive mediation of responses to life stress. Behavioral Medicine, u, 18-22.

Glyshaw K., & Cohen, L.H. (1989). Coping strategies and psychological distress: Prospective analyses of early and middle adolescents. American Journal of Community Psvcholo~~, 17,607-623.

Gotlib, I.H., & Meyer J.P. (1986). Factor analysis of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List: A separation of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvcholo~v, 50, 1 16 1- 1 165.

Gough, H.G. (1957). Manual for the California Psvchological Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Green, B.L. (1986). On the confounding of "hassles" stress and outcome. American Psvchologist, 41,714-7 15.

Gruen, R., Follunan, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). Centrality and individual differences in the meaning of daily hassles. Journal of Personality, s, 743-762.

Gruen, R., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). Centrality and individual differences in the meaning of daily hassles. Journal of Personality, 56,743-762.

Guilford, J.S ., Zimrnerman, W.S., & Guilford, J.P. (1 976). The Guilford-Zimmerman Tem~erament Survev Handbook. San Diego: Edits.

Ham, N. (1965). Coping and defense mechanisms related to personality inventories. Journal of Consulting Psvchology, 29,373-378.

Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Hedges, S.M. & Jandorf, L. (1985). Meaning of daily mood assessments. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvchology, 48.428-434.

Hepburn, L., & Eysenck, M. (1989). Personality, average mood and mood variability.. Personality and Individual Difference$, 14,975-983.

Holohan, C.J., & Moos, R.H. (1985). Life stress and health: Personality, coping, and family support in stress resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psvcholoev, 49 739-747. -9

Holohan, C.J., & Moos, R.H. (1987). Personal and contextual determinants of coping strategies. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvcholoey, 52,946-955.

Horowitz, M., Schaefer, C., Hiroto, D., Wilner, N., & Levin, B. (1977). Life event questionnaires for measuring presumptive stress. Psvchosomatic Medicine, 39, 413-43 1.

Houtman, I.L.D., & Bakker, F.C. (1991). Individual differences in reactivity to and coping with the stress of lecturing. Journal of Psvchosomatic Research, 3, 1 1 - 24.

Houtman, I.L.D. (1990). Personal coping resources and sex differences. Personality and Individual Differences, fi, 53-63.

Hunsley, J. (1990). Dimensionality of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-- Revised: A comparison of factor analytic procedures. Journal of Psvcho~athologv and Behavioral Assessment, 12,8 1-9 1.

Hunter, C., & Goodstein, L.G. (1967). Ego strength and types of defensive and coping behavior. Journal of Consulting Psvchology, 3 ,432 .

Joreskog, K.G., Sorbom, D. (1 984). LISREL VI: Analvsis Of Linear Structural Relationships bv Maximum Likelihood. Instrumental Variables. And Least Squares Methods. Uppsala: University of Uppsala, Dept. of Statistics.

Kanner, A.D., Coyne, J.C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R.S. (198 1). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. J ournal of Behavioural Medicine, 4, 1-39.

Kanner, A.D., Feldman S.S., Weinberger, D.A., & Ford, M.E. (1987). Uplifts, hassles, and adaptational outcomes in early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 1,37 1- 394.

Kaplan, H.B. (1990). Measurement and the stress process: Retrospect and prospect. Stress Medicine, 6,249-255.

Kohn, P.M., Lafreniere, K., & Gurevich, M. (1991). Hassles, health, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 61,478-482.

Krause, N. (1990). Stress measurement. Stress Medicine, 6,201-208.

Krohne, H.W. (1989). The concept of coping modes: relating cognitive person variables to actual coping behavior. Advances in Behavioral Research and Therapv, 11, 235-248.

Kuiper, N.A., Olinger, L.G., & Martin, R.A. (1988). Dysfunctional attitudes, stress, and negative emotions. Cognitive Therapv and Research, 12,533-547.

Lakey, B. (1988). Self-esteem, control beliefs, and cognitive problem-solving skill as risk factors in the development of subsequent dysphoria. Cognitive Research and Therapy, 12,409-420.

Larsen, R.J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional status. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvchology, 61, 132- 140.

Larson, R.W. (1987). On the independence of positive and negative affect within hour to-hour experience. Motivation & Emotion, 11, 145-156

Lazarus, R.S. (1 990). Theory- based stress measurement. Psvcholo~ical Inauiry,J, 3- 1 3.

Lazarus, R.S., & Follunan, S. (1986). Reply to Cohen. American Psvchologist, 4l, 7 18- 7 19.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1986). Reply to Deutsch and Green. American Psvchologist, 4l, 7 15-7 16.

Lazarus, R.S., & Fokman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 14 1 - 169.

Lazarus, R.S., and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, A~~raisal . and Coping. New York: Springer.

Lefcourt, H.M., Miller, R.S., Ware, E.E., & Sherk, D. (1 98 1). Locus of control as.a modifier of the relationship between stressors and moods. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvchol~gy, 41,357-369.

Litt, M.D. (1 988). Cognitive mediators of stressful experience: Self-efficacy and perceived control. Cognitive Thera~v and Research, 1,242-260.

Marco, C.A., Suls, J. (1993). Daily stress and the trajectory of mood: Spillover, response assimilation, contrast, and chronic negative affectivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 6fl, 1053- 1063

Marshall, G.N., Wortman, C.B., Kusulas, J. W., & Hervig L.K. Vickers, R.R. Jr. (1 992). Distinguishing optimism from pessimism: Relations to fundamental dimensions of mood and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 62,1067- 1074.

McConville, C., & Cooper, C. (1992). Mood variability and personality. Personalitv and Individual Differences, 0, 12 13- 122 1.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54,385-404.

McGrath, J.E., & Beehr, T.A. (1990). Time and the stress process: some temporal issues in the conceptualization and measurement of stress. Stress Medicine, 6,93- 104.

McNair, D.M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L.F. (1971). Manual: Profile of Mood States. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service

Meyer, G.J., & Shack, J.R. (1989). Structural convergence of mood and personality: Evidence for old and new directions. Journal of Personalie and Social Ps~cholo~v, 2,691-706.

Mirowski, J., & Ross, C.E. (1989). Social causes of ~svchological distress New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Monroe, S.M. (1983). Major and minor life events as predictors of psychological distress: Further issues and findings. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 189-205.

Monroe, S.M., & Roberts, J.E. (1990). Conceptualizing and measuring life stress: problems, principles, procedures, progress. Stress Medicine, 6,209-2 16.

Mueller, D.P., Edwards, D.W., & Yarvis, R.M. (1977). Stressful life events and psychiatric symptomatology: Change or undesirability? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 18,307-3 17.

Murray, A.H. (1938). Ex~lorations in personalitv. New York: Oxford University Press.

Neale, J.M., Hooley J.M., Jandorf L., & Stone A.A. (1987). Daily life events and mood. In C.R. Snyder, & C.E. Ford, (Eds.), Coping with Negative Life Events, (pp. 161- 187). New York: Plenum

Nowack, K.M. (1989). Coping style, cognitive hardiness, and health status. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, U, 145-158.

Ormel, J., Sanderman, R., & Stewart, R. (1988). Personality as a modifier of the life event-distress relationship: A longitudinal structural equation model. Personalitv and Individual Differences, 9,973-982.

Ormel, J., Stewart, R., & Sanderman, R. (1989). Personality as a modifier of the life change-distress relationship: A longitudinal modelling approach. Social Psvchiatry and Psvchiatric Epidemiologv, 24, 187- 185.

Ormel, J., & Wohlfarth, T. (1991). How neuroticism, long-term difficulties, and life situation change influence psychological distress: A longitudinal model. Journal gf Personality and Social Psvcholo~v, m, 744-755.

Parkes, K.R. (1984). Locus of control, cognitive appraisal, and coping in stressful episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 4,655-668.

Parkes, K.R. (1986). Coping in stressful episodes: The role of individual differences, environmental factors, and situational characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psvcholoev, 5, 1277-1292.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1990): Extraversion and happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1299- 1306

Peacock, E.J., & Wong, P.T.P. (1990). The stress appraisal measure (SAM): a multidimensional approach to cognitive appraisal. Stress Medicine, 6,227-236.

Peacock, E.J., & Wong, P.T.P. (1990). The stress apprisal measure (SAM): A multidimensional approach to cognitive appraisal. Stress Medicine, 6,227-236.

Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The strucure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19.2-2 1.

Poulton, R.S., & Andrews, G. (1992). Personality as a cause of adverse life events. Acts Psvchiatrica Scandanavica, a,35-38.

Redfield, J., & Stone A. (1979). Individual viewpoints of stressful life events. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psvchologv, 47, 147- 154.

Rim, Y. (1986). Ways of coping, personality, age, sex, and family structural variables. Personalitv and Individual Differences, 2, 1 13- 1 16.

Rim, Y. (1987). A comparative study of two taxonomies of coping styles, personality, and sex. Personalitv and Individual Differences, 8,521-526.

Rohde, P., Lewinsohn, P.M., Tilson, M., & Seely, J.R. (1990). Dimensionality of coping and its relation to depression. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvchology, 58, 499-5 1 1.

Roth, S., & Cohen, L.J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psvchologist, 41, 8 13-8 19.

Rodrigue, J.R., & Boggs, S.R. (1993). Mood, coping style, and personality functioning among adult bone marrow transplant candidates. Psvchosomatics, 3, 159- 165

Sarason, I.G., Sarason, B.R., & Johnson, J.H (1985). Stressful life events: Measurement, moderators, and adaptation. In S. Burchfield (Ed.), Stressful life events: psvchological and phvsiological interactions (pp. 241-261). New York: Hemisphere.

Schaubroeck, J. & Ganster, D.C. (1992). Dispositional affect and work-related stress. Journal of A~plied Psycholoq, 22,322-335

Scheier, M.F., Weintraub, J.K., & Carver, C.S. (1986). Coping with stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, !,, 1257- 1264.

Smith, L.W., Patterson, T.L., & Grant, I. (1990). Avoidant coping predicts psychological disturbance in the elderly. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 178,525-530.

Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L. & Ptacek, J.T. (1990). Conjunctive moderator variables in vulnerability and resiliency research: Life stress, social support and coping skills, an adolescent sport injuries. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psychology, 51(, 360-370.

Smith, T.W., Pope, M.K., Rhodewalt, F., & Poulton, J.L. (1989). Optimism, neuroticism, coping, and symptom reports: An alternative interpretation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvchologv, 56,640-648.

Snell, W.E., & Hawkins R.C., II. (1985). Life satisfaction and "irrational" beliefs: The mediating influence of negative and positive life change. Journal of Rational Emotive Therapy, 4,4454.

Stone, A.A., & Neale, J.M. (1984). Effects of severe daily events on mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psvcholoq, a, 137-144.

Stone, A.A., & Neale, J.M. (1993). Daily assessments of stress and coping and their association with mood. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, u ,8 -16

Stone, A.A., Greenberg, M.A., Kennedy-Moore, E., & Newman, M.G. (1991). Self report, situation-specific coping questionnaires: What are they measuring?. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvchologv, 61,648-658.

Stone, A.A., Kessler, R.C., & Haythornthwaite, J.A. (1991). Measuring daily events and experiences: Decisions for the researcher. Journal of Personality, 59,575-607.

Tennen, H., Suls, J., & Affleck, G. (1991). Personality and daily experience: The promise and the challenge. Journal of Personalitv, 3 , 3 13-337.

Tobin, D.L., Holroyd K.A., Reynolds R.V.C. (1984). User's manual for the Coping Strategies Inventory.

Tobin, D.L., Holroyd, K.A., Reynolds, R.V., & Wigal, J.K. (1989). The hierarchical factor structure of the Coping Strategies Inventory. Comitive Therapv and Research, u, 343-36 1.

Uhlemann, M.R., & Plater, S.A. (1990). Effects of self-statements and coping strategies on adaptational outcomes of stress. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 24, 3- 16.

Vaernes, R. (1983). Defensive reactions in dangerous occupations. In H. Ursin and R. Murison (Eds.), Biolopical and psvchological bases of psvchosomatic disease. pp. 149 - 162. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Veit, C.T., & Ware, J.E. (1983). The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general populations. Journal of Consultine and Clinical Psvchology, 51,730- 741.

Viney, L.L. (1986). Expression of positive emotion by people who are physically ill: Is it evidence of defending or coping?. Journal of Psvchosomatic Research, 3 , 2 7 - 34.

Vingerhoets, A.J.J.M., & Menges, L.J. (1989). Psychosocial load and symptoms: an inquiry into their relationship with coping styles. Stress Medicine, 5, 189- 194.

Warr, P.B., & Barter, J. (1983). On the independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality & Social Psvchology, 44,644-651

Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psvcholoeical Bulletin, x, 465-49.

Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1992a). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchologv, 62,489-505.

Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1992b). Affect, personality, and social activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, a, 10 1 1 - 1025

Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1992~). On traits and temperament: General and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model. Special Issue: The five-factor model: Issues and applications. Journal of Personalitv, 60, 44 1-476

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psvcholo~v, s, 1063- 1070.

Williams, D.G. (1989). Personality effects in current mood: Pervasive or reactive?. Personality and Individual Differenc~, 14,94 1-948.

Williams, D.G. (1993). Are personality effects upon average mood due to personality effects upon mood variation?. Personalitv and Individual Differences, 14, 199- 208.

Williams, P.G., & Weibe, D.J. (1992). Coping processes as mediators of the relationship between hardiness and health. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15,237-255.

Wood, J.V., Salzberg, J.A., Neale, J.M., Stone, A.A., & Rachrniel, T.B. (1 990). Self- focused attention, coping resources, and distressed mood in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 58, 1027- 1036.

Zautra, A.J., Finch, J.F., Reich, J.W., & Guarnaccia, C.A. (1 99 1). Predicting the everyday life events of older adults. Journal of Personalitv, 2.507-538.

Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1965). The Multi~le Affect Adjective Check List. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Appendix A Univariate statistics, Data, and Correlations

Baseline and demographic variables

. . . . . race. racial background

. . . . . educ. level of education income . . . . income level relat. . . . . . relationship status job. . . . . . . occupation

. . . . . . age age . . . base-neg baseline negative mood

base-pos . . . baseline positive mood . . . neg-evnt sum of negative life

events . . . pos-evnt sum of positive life

events

Day 1 variables

stresl-s. . . . self-rated stress . . . . stress-o .observer-rated stress

sitl-neg. . . . situation negative mood sitl-pos. . . . situation positive mood eve 1 -neg . . . evening negative mood eve 1 -pos . . . evening positive mood copel. . . . . problem solving cope2. . . . . cognitive restructuring

. . . . cope3. emotional expression

. . . . cope4. seek social support

. . . . cope5. problem avoidance cope6. . . . . wishful thinking

. . . . cope7. self-blame cope8. . . . . social avoidance

. . . eng-pro. problem engagement

. . . eng-emo emotional engagement engage 1. . . . engaged coping

. . . . dis-pro problem disengagement dis-emo. . . . emotional disengagement

. . . disengl. disengaged coping

Day 2 variables

Personality variables

n . . . . . . . .Neuroticism . . . . . . . e. .Extraversion

o . . . . . . . .Openness a . . . . . . . .Agreeableness c. . . . . . . . .Conscientiousness

. . . . . . n I . .anxiety

. . . . . . n2. .angry hostility n3. . . . . . . .depression

. . . . . . n4. .self-consciousness n5. . . . . . . .impulsiveness n6. . . . . . . .vulnerability e 1 . . . . . . . .warmth e2. . . . . . . .gregariousness

. . . . . . e3. .assertiveness

. . . . . . e4. .activity . . . . . . . e5 .excitement seeking . . . . . . e6. .positive emotions

o 1 . . . . . . . .fantasy . . . . . . . 02. aesthetics . . . . . . 03. .feelings . . . . . . 04. .actions . . . . . . 05. .ideas . . . . . . 06. .values

. . . . . . . a1 .trust . . . . . . a2. .straightforwardness . . . . . . a3. .altruism . . . . . . a4. .compliance . . . . . . a5. .modesty . . . . . . . a6. tender-mindedmess

. . . . . . . c 1 .competence c2. . . . . . . .order c3. . . . . . . .dutifulness

. . . . . . c4. .achievement striving . . . . . . . . c5 self-discipline

. . . . . . c6. .deliberation

stres2-s. . . . self-rated stress engage2 . . . engaged coping diseng2. . . . disengaged coping sit2-neg. . . . situation negative mood sit2-pos. . . . situation positive mood eve2-neg . . . evening negative mood eve2-pos . . . evening positive mood

VARIABLE

TOTAL

NAM

E

race

educ

income

job

relat

age

bane-neg

bane-poe

neg-evnt

poe -evnt

etreel-e

etreee-o

eitl-neg

eitl-poe

eve1 -neg

evel-poa

cope1

cope2

cope3

cope4

cope5

cope6

cope7

cope8

eng-pro

eng - e

mo

engagal

die-pro

die-emo

dieengl

FRE

QU

EN

CY

130

13 0

130

130

130

13 0

13 0

130

13 0

130

130

130

130

130

13 0

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

13 0

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

miv

aria

te a

tu

tic

a

STANDARD

ST.ERR

COEPP. OF

S M

A L L E

S T

LA

RG

ES

T

OF MEAN VARIATION

VALUE

1.0000

2.0000

0 .o

ooo

101.00

1.0000

20.816

10 .o

oo

11.000

0.0000

0.0000

3.0000

2.0000

2.3026

10.000

2.3026

10.000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.3863

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

Z-SCORE

- -2.74

-4.39

- - -2.17

-1 .72

-2.58

-2.15

-1 .l9

-2.45

-1.61

-1 .YO

-1.96

-1.05

-1.68

-1.29

-1.19

-0.96

-0.93

-0.97

-0.84

-0.54

-0 -84

-1.42

-1.08

-2.57

-1.06

-0.85

-2.47

VALUE

3.0000

7.0000

8.0000

123.00

6.0000

58.370

39 .OOO

47 .OOO

3.4965

2.8904

21 .oo

o 8.0000

3.6889

47 .OOO

3.5553

40 .oo

o 40.000

41 .oo

o 41 .o

oo

39 -000

32 .OOO

40 .OOO

34 .OOO

36 .OOO

77 .OOO

74 .OOO

4.9972

63.000

60 .OOO

4.6250

Z- SCORE

- 1.89

0.96 - -

2.40

2.66

2.47

1.78

1.90

1.58

1.77

2.09

2.69

2.71

2.40

2.44

2.68

3.15

2.93

3.81

3.91

3.97

3.86

2.72

3.13

1.77

3.87

4.01

1.74

RANGE

2.0000

5.0000

8.0000

22.000

5 .OOOO

37.553

29.000

35.000

3.4965

2 .a904

18.000

6.0000

1.3863

37.000

1.2528

30.000

40.000

41.000

41.000

39.000

32.000

40.000

34.000

36.000

77.000

74.000

3.6109

63.000

60.000

4.6218

NA

ME

etr

ee

2-e

e

ng

ag

e2

d

iee

ng

2

e it

2 -n

eg

ei

t2-p

orn

e

ve

2 -n

eg

ev

e2

-po

e n

e

0

a

C

nl

n

2

n3

n

4

n 5

n 6

e

1

e 2

e 3

0

4

05

8

6

0 1

02

0

3

04

o

5

o 6

a

1

a2

a

3

STANDARD

MEAN

DEVIATION

ST. ERR

OF MEAN

.42

56

9

.09

74

9

.I1

04

5

.03

57

3

.a7

61

4

.03

01

8

.72

67

7

1.0

11

6

.93

83

9

.92

94

9

.8r

i6s

.9

58

14

.a

72

76

.9

45

67

1

.02

71

1

.08

86

.a

67

26

1

.01

72

.9

41

44

1

.04

89

.9

75

66

.a

77

27

.0

33

61

.9

88

80

.9

18

40

.a

79

26

.7

74

63

1

.06

18

.g

o4

06

.a

17

50

.9

74

52

. 8

46

84

.8

19

18

COEFF. OF

VARIATION

.30

87

7

.27

48

3

.39

28

3

.I1

95

9

.36

75

9

.I2

75

9

.35

24

7

.21

13

1

.20

96

4

.I9

70

5

.20

19

2

.22

24

6

.I8

33

5

.20

05

4

,21

29

3

.23

82

3

.I8

12

8

.22

16

4

.21

73

2

.24

22

7

.21

32

6

.I9

01

4

.I8

24

4

,22

98

8

.I9

21

1

.20

00

8

.I6

08

3

.23

15

5

.20

57

1

.I6

52

8

.23

58

3

.I9

67

3

.I9

12

1

SMALLEST

VALUE

3.0

00

0

0.0

00

0

0.0

00

0

2.3

02

6

10

.00

0

2.3

02

6

10

.00

0

29

.43

1

20

.00

0

23

.I9

3

20

.16

0

16

.83

4

27

.03

7

32

.08

3

30

.53

6

27

.77

8

29

.78

3

25

.25

0

16

.84

2

15

.95

7

22

.08

3

25

.45

5

29

.02

0

12

.66

7

29

.60

0

19

.60

8

23

.65

9

22

.77

8

23

.60

0

27

.63

2

3.2

50

0

16

.97

7

17

.81

3

LARGEST

VA

LU

E

21

.00

0

5.0

23

9

0.6

72

8

3.6

88

9

44

.00

0

3.7

61

2

45

.OO

O

90

.98

5

77

.51

2

78

.88

7

68

.92

0

82

7

7 .O

37

82

.08

3

82

.32

1

85

.55

6

84

.13

0

90

.25

0

69

.47

4

75

.53

2

74

.I6

7

75

-4

55

7

4 .

I18

6

8.2

22

7

5.6

00

74

.51

0

77

.31

7

83

.88

9

69

.60

0

80

.26

3

73

.25

0

70

.46

5

74

.06

3

Z- SCORE

1.7

2

1.6

8

1.7

7

2.2

3

2.4

3

3.6

4

2.8

6

3.1

6

2.4

7

2.3

9

2.2

0

3.0

5

2.2

9

2.6

3

2.3

3

2.7

0

2.9

9

3.2

7

1.8

7

2.1

9

1.9

8

2.2

8

2.3

2

1.7

0

2.0

1

2 -

43

2

.54

2

.61

1

.89

2

..5

6

2.3

5

2.2

0

2 .T

O

RANGE

18

.00

0

5.0

23

9

4.6

72

8

1.3

86

3

34

.00

0

1.4

58

6

35

.00

0

61

.55

4

57

.51

2

55

.69

4

48

.76

0

65

.61

1

50

. 00

0

SO

. 00

0

51

.78

6

57

.77

8

54

.34

8

65

.OO

O

52

.63

2

59

.57

4

52

.08

3

50

.00

0

45

.09

8

55

.55

6

46

.00

0

51

.90

2

53

.65

9

61

.11

1

46

.00

0

52

.63

2

70

.00

0

53

.48

8

56

.25

0

NAME

a4

a 5

a6

c 1

c2

c3

c 4

c 5

c6

TOTAL

FREQUENCY

130

130

13 0

130

130

130

13 0

130

13 0

STANDARD

MEAN DEVIATION

ST. ERR

COEPF. OF

OP M

EAN

VARIATION

SM

AL

LE

ST

VALUE

Z-SCORE

LARGEST

VALUE

2-SCORE

RANGE

51.220

55.263

51.613

77.143

61.905

52.632

61.538

52.273

55.814

educ

1 nc m

e

age

base-neg

baee-poe

neg-evnt

poe-evnt

etrael-e

etroer-o

eitl-neg

eitl-poe

evel-neg

evel-poe

cope1

cope2

cope3

cope4

cop05

cope6

cope7

cop08

eng-pro

eng-emo

engagel

educ

income

1.0000

-0 .I204

-0.1366

-0.0234

-0.2439

-0.0757

0.0787

0.0107

-0.1197

0.0821

-0.0265

-0.0822

0.0232

-0.0708

-0.0999

-0.0501

-0.1188

-0.0420

-0.1261

-0.0746

-0.0269

-0.0855

-0.0471

Corr

ela

tions

bare-neg

baee-poe

neg-evnt

poe-evnt

etreal-s

die-pro

die-emo

dieengl

etre.2-e

engage2

diseng2

eit2-neg

eit2-poa

eve2-neg

eve2-poe

n e

0

a

C

n 1

n2

n3

n4

n 5

n 6

el

e2

e 3

e 4

e 5

e 6

0 1

0 2

03

educ

-0 .I863

-0.0985

-0.0972

-0.0712

0.0352

-0.0529

-0.0562

0.0267

-0.1143

-0 .lo46

-0.2115

0.0079

0.3672

-0.0920

0.0715

-0.1807

-0.0332

-0.1994

-0.2198

-0.1277

-0 .I929

-0.0337

0 .Id86

0.2272

0.1071

0.0782

0.0846

0.1962

0.1876

0.1110

income

-0.0099

-0.1235

-0.1213

0.0589

-0.0394

-0.0970

-0.0476

-0.0656

-0.0779

-0.2297

-0.1935

0.0620

0.0609

-0.1592

-0.0938

-0.24 97

0.0774

-0.1286

-0.0976

-0.1330

-0.1193

-0.0241

0.2214

0.1010

0.0388

0.1636

0.0410

0.0207

-0.0745

0.0465

baee-neg

0.1372

0.2747

0.2101

0.1322

-0.0472

0.1957

0.3908

-0.0504

0.4200

-0.1249

0.4803

-0.2453

-0.0202

-0.0308

0.2020

0.4463

0.3407

0.4562

0.3378

0.1282

0.2703

-0.2227

-0.3406

-0.0776

-0.0530

-0.0998

-0.2130

-0.1139

0.0553

-0.0413

baee-poe

-0.0345

-0.0262

-0.0340

0.0408

0.3049

0.0216

-0.1886

0.2528

-0.1264

0.2409

-0.2416

0.2119

0.2752

-0.0426

0.0219

-0,1225

-0.1839

-0,2785

-0.1860

0.0859

-0.3505

0.2780

0.1262

0.2576

0.0970

0.0428

0.3288

0.2607

0.1340

0.1663

neg-evnt

0.2278

0.1762

0.2563

0.2804

0.1263

0.2808

0.1781

0.0743

0.1926

-0.0345

0.2870

-0.0290

0.0098

-0.0544

0.1203

0.2530

0.1247

0.3053

0.1852

0.2213

0.1037

-0.0944

-0.1633

0.0543

0.0658

0.0240

-0.0357

0.0377

0.1101

-0.0417

poe-evnt

0.0690

0.0170

0.1058

0.0667

0.1674

0.1055

-0.0382

0.0099

-0.0340

0.0600

0.0527

0.3176

0.0056

-0.0611

-0.0029

0.0795

0.0760

0.0160

-0.0255

0.1542

-0.0637

0.2096

0.1710

0.1266

0.0910

0.3158

0.2566

0.0921

0.0245

0.1422

educ

0.3193

0.2024

0.3313

0.0867

0.0366

-0.1112

0.0066

-0 .I221

0.0197

0.1241

-0.0128

0.0454

0 .2696

0 .O767

0.1044

income

0.1696

0.0387

0.1715

0.0235

-0.0004

-0.1718

-0.1429

-0.0116

- 0.1424

0.0240

-0.0563

-0.0551

-0.0125

-0.0492

-0.0255

bane-poe

neg-evnt

poe-evnt

0.0382

0.0173

0.0925

-0 .I396

-0.0951

0.1751

-0.0046

-0 .I259

0.1735

0.0332

0 .O693

-0.0973

0 .OOl9

0.0551

-0.0735

etreel-e

0.0522

0.0490

0.1416

-0.0215

-0.0379

0.0739

-0.0468

0.0740

0.0464

0.1012

0.0237

-0.0086

-0.0037

0.0356

-0.0038

t a m t r m o o ? ? ? (Y PI (Y U c l Q 4 4 5

~ ~ m m o o q m ~ w w w n o ~ w m ~ ~ m m n m w m o m m ~ ~ a d m m O d d m w n m m e ~ P m d P m d N * m m w O m ~ O a m * m 0 0 m 0 0 m m m m O m m m w m P N d N O d w m w m m w P P m

d d d 0 d d d d d 0 d d 0 d 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 d O O O d d O O d d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 I I I I I I 1 1 1

m m e m o a m * m u a * m * e d d m P r l m * r l r l m ~ . I m * Q I W P

r l m d m ~ 0 d d d m d d m 0 0 0 d 0 d 0 0 0 0 C Y d O O O O O 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d m o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

W F W Q Q Q

i? !? i?

m m m m m m o o d m o o o m o m n o n e ~ n I m m m w m d a m d o m d m m n m m p m m d

P4 m m w o m d n + o m d d w r o + n m m + w m o ~ o ~ o o ~ o ~ o o ~ o o o ~ ~ ~ m o ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q & 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I I I I I I I I I I I

NO

. r

ac

e

edu

c in

com

e job

re

lat

ag

e

barn

s-n

ag ba

rna-

porn

n

ag

-av

nt

po

s-ev

nt

rntr

arn

l-s

rntr

ornr

n-o

rn

itl-

na

g

rn

itl-

po

s --

---

----

----

---

----

- --

----

-- -

----

---

----

----

---

----

- --

----

-- -

----

---

----

----

---

----

- --

----

-- -

----

---

----

----

---

----

-

l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :

~ ~ w m ~ o m d n d d d o m w a o w w ~ n o w p r l m n o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ u ) ~ I 1 4 d d n m r n r( d d n n n d m n d I I

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o ~ O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ m m m 0 0 G m m n e ~ 0 m ~ ~ m m m 0 n ~ d O I m O I o ~ m O n e m

d r ( r ( r l r ( m FI . - I - m - 4 7 ~ 1 d m 4 n

0 I n m w m m

0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . m m m

7 7

0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . m o m n

0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . n o - r(

- U I

1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 1 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o o O O O O O O O O O O O

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ o o w m ~ w n m o o m m r ( m ~ o ~ ~ m d ~ m ~ ~ w d ~ o w ~ m ~ 0 I n d m m

d n d d d r i m n

8 I

I

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I r l d ~ w o ~ m r ( n m m ~ n m e ~ d ~ ~ m d ~ o r ( o ~ r ( n ~ ~ ~ r ( n m w ~ ~ m n n d n d n

n m d m m n m n r t m I

I

1 0 0 0 O O O o O O O O o O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I O ~ O ~ Q ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ) ~ ~ Q

~ q n n d d m d d n d r ( d n n n n m m d d p ( n ~ d r ( n m r ( n f l n d d I

m l n W m V 0 0 d 0 0 0 1 ~ ~ 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 W ~ ~ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 a 1 n + y w * m a ~ m m * ~ e * m * e n * ~ m e * m ? m w e m n * . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . ? : A A n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n I

58

.43

60

.39

66

.27

41

.75

50

.59

56

.47

44

.71

50

.59

58

.43

50

. 59

46

.67

74

.12

60

.39

68

.24

58

.43

34

.90

48

.63

60

.39

56

.47

30

.98

42

.75

00

.78

52

.55

48

.63

50

.59

40

.78

54

.51

08

.63

SO

. 5

9

54

.51

58

.43

66

.27

52

.55

~ d w m ~ w d ~ d m m ~ w w m w m m w d ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ w w w w w m d d ~ l m d O d d q d m m m ? d m N d m O Q P I 1 ~ W L n ~ ? f l y ~ ? y y y ~ I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I W d O 1 d ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ d P I O d ~ 1 d e O O ~ ~ ~ d d P I ~ ~ ~ W ~ + l m w m m w w w 1 9 9 9 w 1 9 w d d m 9 ~ e n d d m w ~ ~ m 9 m m m 1

~ + d ~ o o m n ~ o o d ~ o d e e ~ ~ m n m m w w m ~ ~ ~ m w e d ~ d d l ~ d 1 q 0 m m 0 0 0 d ~ 0 d w w ~ 1 m n m m m m m ~ ~ ~ m w d 1 ~ 1 I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ w d m o m m e m m m w c m w d w e e n m ( ~ ~ ~ m d w e ~ w ~ ~ w ~ ~ m m m e ~ m w m ~ ~ m ~ ~ m w m w w ~ m ~ ) m ~ ~ m m m ~ m m m w ~ ) w I

Occu~ation codes:

101 . . . . Programmer / analyst 102 . . . . Social worker 103 . . . . Registered nurse 104 . . . .Trainer 105 . . . .Managerial 106 . . . .Clerical 107 . . . . Laboratory technologist 108 . . . . Licensed practical nurse 109 . . . . Child life specialist 110 . . . . Occupational therapist 11 1 . . . .Equipment buyer 1 12 . . . . Pharmacy technician 1 13 . . . . Speech-language pathologist 114 . . . .Pharmacist 115 . . . .Secretarial 116 . . . .Dietician 117 . . . .Studentlintern 1 18 . . . . Planning technologist 120 . . . . Physiotherapist 12 1 . . . . Psychologist 122 . . . . Health record technician 123 . . . . Departmental assistant

Appendix B. Instructions and Measures

Thank you for heiping with this research. I hope that research like this will help us understand berter the everyday stress ir: people's lives, how w e cope ~ ~ 4 1 t h it, and feel about it.

The personal information you provide will be confidential, and will not be made available to the Hospital. Your participation is voluntary and you may drop out of the study at any point without penalty.

Your participation will be over 5 days (see checklist on other side) Dav 1: fill out the Day 1 booklet at a time and place you choose (10-20 minutes)

- General information - Mood scale - Life Experiences Survey

(basic information) (how you have been feeling lately) (events of the last 6 months)

I f you have already been given the NEO Personality questionnaire, do i t as well (20- 40 minutes). I f you did not get i t yet, it will be sent shortly - please do i t as soon as convenient and send the booklet back right away (I need i t for someone else!)

Davs 2, 3. 4, and 5:

Once durina vour d u : After some stressful situation at home or at work, fill out the Situation Mood Scale. You should fill i t out right then, before your mood changes. If you can, fill out the mood scale after one of the more stressful situations likely to happen that day.

In the evenina or the end of vour work day, at a time and place o f your choosing, fill out the following forms in the booklet for that day:

- Evening Mood scale (how you feel now) - Situation form (description of what happened earlier) - Coping Strategies (how you have been coping wi th it) - and put everything in the envelope provided.

If nothing stressful happens that day, just fill out the Evening Mood scale and skip the rest of the booklet. I f for any other reason you can't fill out forms the same day, leave them blank and continue the next day wi th a new booklet.

At the end of the week, put the envelope, with all the booklets (including blanks) into departmental mail. Keep a copy of the Consent form for yourself. Please make sure that the forms were dated, and that you didn't write your name on them.

If you have any questions, please call me at 268-91 25, or local 71 25.

Thanks! Brian Grady, M.A., Psychology, CGH. M 8 (please turn over)

Checkl ist

Dav 1 When to do Mark " x " when c o r n ~ l e

1 Consent form (when convenient) 2. General lnformat~on (when convenient) 3. Mood scale (when convenient) 4. Life experiences (when convenient)

5. NEO Personality questionnaire (if you already have i t )

Dav 2

1. Situation Mood scale 2 . Evening Mood scale 3. Situation 4. Coping strategies

Dav 3

1. Situation Mood scale 2. Evening Mood scale 3. Situation 4. Coping strategies

Dav 4

1. Situation Mood scale 2. Evening Mood scale 3. Situation 4. Coping strategies

D a v 5

1. Situation Mood scale 2. Evening Mood scale 3. Situation 4. Coping strategies

(after stressful situation) (evening or end of work) (evening or end of work) (evening or end of work)

(after stressful situation) (evening or end of work) (evening or end of work) (evening or end of work)

(after stressful situation) (evening or end of work) (evening or end of work) (evening or end o f work]

(after stressful situation) (evening or end of work) (evening or end of work) (evening or end of work)

5. Put everything in the envelope and mail back

Consent Form

Rerarch project: A week in the life: Coping, personality, and affect in daily stressful circumstances

Investigators: Brian Grady, Psychology Department. Calgary General Hospital Dr. Marilyn Bowman. Psychology Department, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC

This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. It should givz you the basic idea of what the research project is about and what your participation will involve. If you would like more detail about something mentioned here, you should feel free to ask. P l w e take the time to read this carefully and understand any accompanying information.

This research is intended to help us understand better the relationships between personality, daily experiences, how people cope with them, and how they feel. This son of research n needed to help us know how best to help people experiencing stress. It is being done as pan of the first researcher's Ph.D. research. Specific details about the study will be given once the collection of information is completed, and results will be made available to participants upon request by mail.

The information you provide will be confidential, is anonymous, and will not be made available to the employer. You put a code, not your name, on the forms. Summaries may be published, but your individual reports will not.

Your participation will be over 5 days. On the first day, you fill out questionnaires (60-90 minutes) regarding general information, personality, mood, and recent life events. On the following days, you will fiII out a mood scale once during the day and once at night, will describe a stressful event for that day and fill out a coping questionnaire. The mood scale takes about 2 minutes and the coping and situation scales take about 15. You will be phoned once during the week to see if things are going well with the survey and to give you a chance to ask questions.

The questionnaires ask personal questions, and most people do not become upset. However, if you need to talk about anything that disturbs you, please contact your family doctor. Although the questions do highlight parts of your life, no direct benefit to you is expected from answering the questions. A workshop will be offered to volunteers at the end of the study to discuss stress and stress management.

Your signature on this form indicates that you have understood to your satisfaction the information regarding your participation in the research project and agree to pmicipate as a subject. In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardizing your health care. Your continued participation should be as informed as your initial consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout your participation. If you have further questions concerning matters related to this research, please contact

Brian Grady, 268-9125 / (within hospital, 7125)

If you have any questions concerning your rights as a participant in this research, please contact the Office of Medical Bioethics. Faculty of Medicine. The University of Calgary, at 220-7990

(signature)

-- ~ -- -

(signature of witness)

A copy of this consent form will be given to you. Please keep it for your records and future reference.

ISFORSIED CONSENT BY SUBJECTS TO

PARTICIPATE JN X RESEARCH PROJECT

Note: The University and those conducting this project subscribe to the ethical conduct of research and to the protection at all times of the interests, comfort, and safety of subjects. This form and the information it contains are given to you for your own protection and full understanding of the procedures, risks, and benefits involved. Your signature on this form will signify that you have received the document described below regarding the project, that you have received a n adequate opportunity to consider the information in the document, and that you voluntarily agree to participate in the project.

The questionnaires ask personal questions, and most people do not become upset. However, if you need to talk about anything that disturbs you, please contact your family doctor. Although the questions do highlight parts of your life, no direct benefit to you is expected from answering the questions.

Having been asked by Brian Grady of the Psychology Department of Simon Fraser University to participate in a research project, I have read the procedures specified in the document entitled Instructions: A Week in the Life.

I understand tha t the procedures t o be used in this project and the personal risks to me in taking part.

I understand that I may withdraw my participation in this project a t any time.

I also understand that I may register any complaint I might have about the project with the chief researcher named above or with Dr. Chris Webster, Chair of the Psychology Department, Simon Fraser University.

Copies of the results of the study, u on its completion, may be obtained by R contacting Brian Grady a t the Psyc ology Department, SFU.

I agree to participate by filling out the surveys described in the document referred to above, during the period , a t SFU and a t home.

NAME (Please print):

SIGNATURE: WITNESS:

DATE:

Once signed, a copy of this consent form and a subject feedback form should be provided t o you.

Daily Stress Project

General Information

1. What is your birth date? -- 19- day mon year

2. What is your race? Would you say you are: 1 [ I White 2 [ 1 Asian 3 [ I Black 4 [ 1 Native 5 [ I Other:

3. What is the highest grade level of school you have completed? 1 [ 1 Elementary 2 [ ] Middle school 3 [ ] High school 4 [ ] Some college or university 5 [ ] College or university degree 6 [ I Some graduate school 7 [ I Graduate or professional degree

4. Which of these categories best describes your total annual household income from all sources?

1 [ I less than $10,000 1 2

2 [ 1 $10,000 to $1 4,999 3 [ I $15,000 t o $1 9,999 4 [ I $20,000 t o $24,999 5 [ I $25,000 t o $34,999 6 [ I $35,000 t o $49,999 7 [ I $50,000 t o $75,000 8 [ I more than $75,000

5. Are you currently: 1 [ 1 single (never married) 2 [ ] married 3 [ ] divorced 4 [ ] widowed 5 [ I separated 6 [ 1 common law 7 I other

6. What is your current job t i t le? leg, nurse, secretary, physiotherapist, etc)

Mood scale

This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and reactions. Read each i tem and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next t o that word. Indicate to what extent you have been feeling this way over the last t w o weeks. Use the following scale t o record your answers.

1 2 3 4 5 very slightly a little moderately quite a bit extremely or not at all

interested

distressed

excited

upset

- strong

guilty

- scared

hostile

enthusiastic

- proud

irritable

alert

ashamed

- inspired

nervous

- determined

attentive

- jittery

- active

- afraid

Life experience survey

Listed b e l o w are a number o f events wh ich somet imes br ing about change in the l ives o f those w h o experience t h e m and wh ich necessitate social readjustment. Please check those. events which you have experienced in the last six months. Be sure t h a t all check marks are direct ly across f r o m t h e i tems they correspond to. Also, f o r each i tem checked below, please indicate the extent to which you viewed the evenr as having either a positive or negative impact on your life a t t h e t ime the event occurred. Tha t is, indicate the type and extent of impact that the event had. A rat ing o f -3 wou ld indicate a n extremely negative impact . A rat ing o f 0 suggests n o impact either posit ive o r negative. A ra t ing o f 3 w o u l d indicate an extremely posi t ive impact.

Event

Happened in last 6 mos.?

1. Marriage 2. Detention in jail or comparable

institution 3. Death of spouse 4. Major change in sleeping habits

(much more or much less sleep 5. Death of close family member:

a. Mother b. Father c. Brother d. Sister e. Grandmother f. Grandfather g. Other

6. Major change in eating habits (much more or much less food intake)

7. Foreclosure on mortgage or loan

8. Death of close friend 9. Outstanding personal

achievement 10. Minor law violations (traffic

tickets, disturbing the peace, etc.)

11. Male: W ~ f e / g ~ r l friend's pregnancy

12. Female: Pregnancy 13. Changed work s~tuat ion

different work responsibility, major change in working conditions, working hours, etc)

14. New job 1 5 . Serious illness or injury of

close family member: a. Mother b. Father c. Brother d. Sister e. Grandmother f. Grandfather g. Spouse h. Other

16. Sexual difficulties 17. Trouble w i th employer (in

danger of losing job, being suspended, demoted, etc)

18. Trouble w i th in-laws 19. Major change in financial

status (a lot better off, or a lo t worse off)

20. Major change in closeness of family members (increased or decreased closeness)

21. Gaining a new family member (through birth, adoption)

22. Change of residence 23. Marital separation from mate

(due t o conflict) 24. Major change in church

activities (increased or decreased attendance)

25 Marital reconciliation w i th mate

26. Major change in number of arguments wi th spouse (a lot more or a lot less arguments)

27. Married male: Change in wife's work outside the home (beginning work, ceasing work)

28. Married female: Change in husband's work (loss of job, beginning new job, retirement, etc.)

29, Major change in usual type and/or amount of recreation

30. Borrowing more than $1 0, 0 0 0 (buying home, business, etc) ( 1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

31. Borrowing less rhan $1 0, 0 0 0 (buying car, TV, getting school loan, etc) 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

32. Being fired from job ( 1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 3 3 . ale: wifelgirl friend having

abortion ) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 34. Female: Having abortion ) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 35. Major personal illness or

injury ) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 36. Major change in social activities

e.g., parties, movies, visiting increased or decreased 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

37. Major change in living conditions of family (building new home, remodeling, deterioration of home, neighbourhood, etc) 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

38. Divorce ) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 39. Serious injury or illness of

close friend 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 40. Retirement from work 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 41. Son or daughter leaving home

(due t o marriage, college etc) 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 42. Ending of formal schooling 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 43. Separation from spouse (due

t o work, travel, etc) 0 - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 44. Engagement ) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 45. Breaking up w i th boy friend/

girl friend ) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 46. Leaving home for first time ) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 47. Reconciliation w i th boy friend1

girl friend ) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Other recent experiences which have had an impact on your life. List here and rate. 48. ) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 49. ) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 50. ) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Your ID: Situation Mood scale

(fi l l out during your day, after a stressful situation)

I I What is the date? I I 1.6

(dd) (mm) ( Y Y )

What is the t ime?

This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and reactions. Read each i tem and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next t o that word. Indicate t o wha t extent you have been feeling this way over the last hour. Use the fol lowing scale t o record your answers.

1 2 3 very slightly a l i t t le moderately or no t a t all

interested

distressed

excited

upset

strong

guilty

scared

hostile

enthusiastic

proud

4 5 quite a bi t extremely

irritable 17

alert 28

ashamed 1 9

inspired 2 I

nervous 21

determined 22

attentive 23

jittery 24

active 25

afraid 26

Your ID: Evenina Mood scale

What is the date? I I -1-1-

(dd) (mm) (yy)

What is the time?

This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and reactions. Read each i tem and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next t o that word. Indicate to what extent you have been feeling this way over the last hour. Use the following scale to record your answers.

1 2 3 4 5 very slightly a little moderately quite a bi t extremely or not a t all

interested

distressed

excited

upset

strong

guilty

scared

hostile

- enthusiastic

proud

irritable

alert

ashamed

inspired

nervous

determined

attentive

jittery

active

afraid

Situation Your ID:

Please think back on the event today that you considered the most annoying or bothersome or made you upset or angry. This was the one you picked before when you rated your mood at the time.

Where and when did this happen?

What happened?

Who was involved?

What made it important t o you?

How undesirable or threatening was the sit-?

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely 47

How stressful was it?

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely 48

How important were the consequences or implications?

Not a t all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely 49

Below are 72 strategies For each strategy there situation better? 3) Did

you could have used in response to the stresshl siruation y u u experienced darlictr. are 3 questions. 1) How much time did you use it? 2) Did this strategy make the externd it made you feel hener or improve your spirits?

1 ) Circle the numher (0-5) that matches how much time you uszd each strategy in response to the situation ( h o ~ ? in the siruation and since then)

Use the "Time used" scale heside each strategy like this:

0 1 2 3 4 5 nanz a linle moderate most of

time time the time

I F YOU CIRCLED 0, GO TO THE NEXT STRATEGY. If you circled 1 to 5, circle the "y" o r the "n" to answer:

2) did using this strategy make the external situation ohjectively better? (circle Y for Yes or N for No)

3) did using this strategy make you feel better or improve your spirits? (circle Y for Yes or N for No)

Time used (0 - 5 )

Made situation

better?

Improved your spirits?

Strategy

1 I just concentrated on what I had to do next; the next step

2 I tried to get a new angle on the situation

3 I found ways to blow off steam

4 I accepted sympathy and understanding from someone

5 I slept more than usual

6 I hoped the problem would take care of itself

7 I told myself that if I wasn't so careless, things like this wouldn't happen

8 I tried to keep my feelings to myself

9 I changed something s o things would turn out alright

10 I looked for the silver lining, so to speak; tried to look on the bright side of things

1 1 I did some things to get it out of my system

.12 I found somehody who was a good listener

13 I went along as if nothing were happening

13 I hoped a miracle would happen

15 I realized that I brought the problem on myself

16 I spent more time alone

17 I stood my ground and fought for what 1 wantzd

18 I told myself things that helped me reel better

19 I let my emotions go

20 I talked to someone about how I was feeling

21 I tried to forget about the whole thing

22 I wished that I had never let myself get involved with that situation

23 I blamed myself

24 I avoided my family and friends

25 I made a plan of action and followed it

26 I looked at things in a different light and tried to make the best of what was available

27 I let out my feelings to reduce the stress

28 I just spent more time with people I like

29 I didn't let it get to me; I refused to think about it too much

30 I wished that the situation would go away or somehow be over with

31 I criticized myself for what happened

32 I avoided being with people

33 I tackled the problem head on

33 I asked myself what was really imponant, and discovered that things weren't so bad after all

35 1 let my feelings out somehclw

l l x i e Improved situ3t1i)n your

better? spirits?

Time used

10 - 5 ) Sfr3tegy

36 I talked to someone that I was very close to

37 I decided that i t was really someone else's problem and not mine

38 I wished that the situation had never s t a n d

39 Since what happened was my fault, I really chewed myself out

40 I didn't talk to other people about the problem

41 1 knew what had to be done, so I doubled my efforts and tried harder to make things work

42 I convinced myself that things aren't quite as bad as they seem

43 I let my emotions out

41 1 let my friends help out

45 I avoided the person who was causing the trouble

46 I had fantasies o r wishes about how things might turn out

47 I realized that I was personally responsible for my difficulties and really lectured myself

48 I spent some time by myself

49 It was a tricky problem, s o I had to work around the edges to make things come out OK

50 I stepped back from the situation and put things into perspective

51 My feelings were overwhelming and they just exploded

52 I asked a friend or relative I respect for advice

53 I made light of the situation and refused to gzt too serious about it

53 I hoped that if I w a i t d long enough, things would turn out OK

55 1 kicked myszlt for lening this happcn 0 1 2 3 4 5

56 I kept my fielicgs and thoughts to myself 0 1 2 3 4 5

57 I work& on solving the problems in the situation 0 1 2 3 4 5

58 I reorganized the way I l o o k 4 a: t:e situxior. 0 1 2 3 4 5 so things didn't look so had

59 I got in touch with my feelings and just let them go 0 1 2 3 4 5

60 I spent some time with my friends

61 Every time I thought about it I got upset; so I 0 1 2 3 4 5 just stopped thinking about it

62 I wished I could have changed what happened 0 1 2 3 4 5

63 It was my mistake and I needed to suffer the 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequences

64 I didn't let m y family and friends know what 0 1 2 3 4 5 was going in

65 I struggled to resolve the problem 0 1 2 3 4 5

66 I wenr over the probiem again and again in my 0 1 2 3 4 5 mind and finally saw things in a different light

67 I was angry and really blew up

68 I talked to someone who was in a similar situation 0 1 2 3 4 5

69 I avoided thinking o r doing anything about the 0 1 2 3 4 5 situation

70 I though: about fantastic or unreal things 0 1 2 3 4 5 that made me feel better

71 I told myself how stupid I was

72 I did no: let ot!e:s know how 1 was fee!ing 0 1 2 3 4 5

Appendix C: Sample daily stressors

Three sample daily events are provided for each of the four rating categories. Some details of the protocols have been altered slightly to prevent identification of the situations and to increase readability.

Rated 3:.

Where & when ? This early evening at home. h'ka t !xi>pened? I was expecting [my parents] to visit overnight, and they were

several hours overdue. who was i n v o l ved? My parents. What made i t i m p o r t a n t ? If someone isn't where they should be when they

should be there, something bad has probably happened.

Where & when ? At work at approx 1600. What happened? I made an error [...I giving wrong medication to the patient. who was i n v o l v e d ? Patient, myself, coordinator, doctor, and pharmacy. What made i t i m p o r t a n t ? I was concerned about the effects it may have on the

patient.

h;here & when ? In my boss's office [in the afternoon]. Wnac happened? My boss ragged on me about my being the cause of a humiliating

incident. [Hisher] actions ... caused this. In simple terms, my boss made an ass of [hirn/her]self ... and [hisher] boss "called" h i d e r on it, so helshe felt I should pay the price.

Who was i n v o l ved? My boss and myself. Nha t mzde i t i m p o r t a n t ? I was wrongly accused of something that I had no

control over.

Rated 3:

Where & when ? Shopping mall What happened? 2 year old child would not follow directions to stay close to family

and was wandering off. I was very tired also. Who was i n v o l v e d ? Self, 4 yr old, 2 yr old, 6 month old, husband briefly gone to

store; back in a few minutes. What made i t i m p o r t a n t ? fear of losing child in crowd, lack of control over

child.

Where & when ? At work, around noon. What happened? Our unit was very slow, only 6 [patients] were on the ward and

(except for day surgury) we let 4 of them go home, so we had only 2 inpatients and no admissions.

Who was i n v o l v e d ? What made i t i m p o r t a n t ? It made for a very stressful day because we really

want our census up, to be busy, feel we are accomplishing our work, earned (sic) our money and to feel secure about the future of our unit with all the talk of saving more money, more. closures, etc.

Where & when ? At my [aged] mother-in-law's this afternoon. >,-.;'- .. a , b happened? She has been like this all her life. Bossy, snappy, complainins, etc.

Depending on my own frame of mind. 1 usually rise above the situation and can handle it well. Today she was not a nice person to deal with.

Who was i n v o l v e d ? Just her and myself. What made i t i m p o r t a n t ? Don't know how to answer that question.

Rated 2:

Where & when ? In afternoon-teaching [class] needed for certitication and employment.

What happened? Attempting to teach [student] who had difficulty following requirements. Spent extra time with person after rest of group left going over [material].

Who was i n v o l ved? Myself, individual and [several] others. What made i t i m p o r t a n t ? I wanted to do a good job. I would feel responsible if

this person had to perform [task] and did it incorrectly.

Where & when ? At home, between 5 and 6. What happened? Didn't know how late husband will be home from work. The three

kids were all hungry, waiting for supper. who was i n v o l v e d ? Just me. But probably affected the whole family. Wha c made i t i m p o r t a n t ? There was so much to do tonight that I was bothered

that we wouldn't have a chance to do it.

Where & when? At my house at 6:20. What hagpened? I worked [all day] then went over to the hospital to see my dad. He

has been a patient there for the past 3 weeks. I came home at about 530 and took both of my children for a bike ride. We returned at about 6: 10 only to find my husband watching TV adn drinking a beer. This is all fine except that no dinner was made or even started.

Who was i n v o l ved? Mainly me and my husband. What made i t i m p o r t a n t ? It was important because I was gone all day, came

home to a messy house and everyone was hungry. Worse yet is I knew I would yet again have to make dinner.

Rated 1 :

Where & when ? At work, an appointment was a no-show. What happened? Patient had been contacted several times for a booked appointment

but did not keep this one. Waiting list and time to come is long and this impacts others.

Who was i n v o l v e d ? What made i t i m p o r t a n t ? Several contacts want to come for appointments as

soon as possible and are eager clients but it's frustrating when they wait but others cancel or are no-shows.

Where & when ? At work. What happened ? [Instrument] started flagging values for a couple of patients in a

row. I suspected instrument problems. Who was i n v o l v e d ? Just me and the machine. What made i t i m p o r t a n t ? Lnstrument problems (even though there is a backup)

can cause a dely in getting ... reports out.

Where & when ? [an intersection of two corridors] What happened? A doctor was not looking where he was going and I could not see

him heading my way ... he almost ended up in patients lap on wheelchair - very sternly (out loud) implied "he'll forgive me this time".

who was invol ved! Myself, patient, doctor. What made i t import ant ? It matters waht people think of me. I got the

impression I should be more careful next time. I was looking where I was going, yet ended up feeling responsible.