Coping Methods Questionnaire (Mastery Scale)

The Structure of Coping
Author(s): Leonard I. Pearlin and Carmi Schooler

Source: Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 2-21
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2136319
Accessed: 29-04-2016 13:32 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Sage Publications, Inc., American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of Health and Social Behavior
This content downloaded from 130.37.164.140 on Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:32:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE STRUCTURE OF COPING
LEONARD I. PEARLIN CARMI SCHOOLER

National.Institute of Mental Health
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1978, Vol. 19 (March):2-21
Coping refers to behavior that protects peoplefrom being psychologically harmed by problema-
tic social experience, a behavior that importantly mediates the impact that societies have on
their members. The protective function of coping behavior can be exercised in three ways: by
eliminating or modifying conditions giving rise to problems; by perceptually controlling the
meaning of experience in a manner that neutralizes its problematic character; and by keeping
the emotional consequences of problems within manageable bounds. The efficacy of a number
of concrete coping behaviors representing these threefunctions was evaluated. Results indicate
that individuals' coping interventions are most effective when dealing with problems within the
close interpersonal role areas of marriage and child-rearing and least effective when dealing
with the more impersonal problems found in occupation. The effective coping modes are
unequally distributed in society, with men, the educated, and the affluent making greater use of
the efficacious mechanisms.
By coping we refer to the things that and actions (Stouffer, 1949), the disparities
people do to avoid being harmed by life- between different dimensions of status
strains. At the very heart of this concept is (Lenski, 1954; Jackson, 1962), and the
the fundamental assumption that people motivations toward culturally prized goals
are actively responsive to forces that im- that are frustrated by limited opportunity
pinge upon them. Since many of these im- structures (Merton, 1957). By confining its
pinging forces are social in their origins, attention largely to conditions that are
the understanding of coping is a prerequi- possibly harmful and by ignoring ways of
site for understanding the impact that avoiding harm, social science has left
societies come to exert on their members. knowledge about coping primarily to clin-
Yet we know relatively little of the nature ical workers. This has understandably re-
and substance of people's coping reper- sulted in a distinct tendency to regard cop-
toires and even less of the relative effec- ing as a highly individualized defense
tiveness of different ways of coping. This against threats aroused in highly indi-
paper deals with these issues first by vidualized situations. Since its focus is
specifying some of the life-circumstances primarily on intra-psychic phenomena, a
that people find problematic, next by iden- clinical approach to coping tends to over-
tifying an array of coping mechanisms look the presence of institutionalized solu-
people use in attempting to deal with these tions to common life-tasks (Mechanic,
problems, and then, by assessing the effi- 1974). By contrast, the present analysis
cacy of the coping mechanisms so iden- emphasizes enduring and widely experi-
tified. Finally, we shall examine some of enced life-strains that emerge from social
the linkages between the social char- roles and, moreover, it is exclusively con-
acteristics of people and their coping be- cerned with coping modes that are shared
havior. by people who also share key social char-
The limited attention social science has acteristics. Our interests, therefore, lie
given to coping stands in striking contrast with normative coping responses to nor-
to its long and abundant interest in cir- mative life-problems.
comstances that are potentially deleteri- Over the years, coping has acquired a
ous to the well-being of people. Classic variety of conceptual meanings, being
examples include such circumstances as commonly used interchangeably with such
the discontinuities between early sociali- kindred concepts as mastery, defense, and
zation and the demands confronted later adaptation (White, 1974). Because of its
in life (Benedict, 1938), the contradictions multiple meanings, it is necessary that we
among the norms that define situations specify our own working definition. Es-
TIHIE STRUCTURE OF COPING 3
sentially the concept is being used here to Second, the interview includes a number
refer to any response to external life- of questions about the coping repertoires
strains that serves to prevent, avoid, or people employ in dealing with the strains
control emotional distress. Thus, we re- they experience in these roles. And third,
gard coping as inseparable both from the it inquires into the emotional stresses that
life-strains experienced by people and people feel and the extent to which they
from the state of their inner emotional life. experience symptoms of depression and
In order to understand coping and to eval- anxiety.
uate its effectiveness, it is, therefore,
necessary to examine it in the context of
the problems with which people have to THE CONTEXT OF COPING:
contend and the potential emotional im- LIFE-STRAINS AND EMOTIONAL STRESS
pact of those problems. Following a brief

description of the background of this in- From a sociological perspective many
quiry, we shall specify in greater detail the of the difficult problems with which
strains and stresses to which coping is people cope are not unusual problems im-
linked. pinging on exceptional people in rare situ-
ations, but are persistent hardships expe-
rienced by those engaged in mainstream ac-
BACKGROUND AND METHODS tivities within major institutions. Whereas
many studies of stress have examined
The data presented here are part of a people faced with extreme and somewhat
larger investigation into the social origins unusual threats and trials, such as impend-
of personal stress. A cluster sample of ing surgery (Janis, 1958) or the grim
households was drawn, using techniques competition experienced by students
and procedures that are described in detail seeking a PhD. (Mechanic, 1962), this
elsewhere (Pearlin, 1975; Pearlin and study focuses on people engaged in very or-
Radabaugh 1976). The information was dinary-indeed, required-pursuits. Thus,
gathered through scheduled interviews we are fundamentally oriented to as-
with a sample of 2300 people representa- pects of structured social experiences
tive of the population in the Census- that adversely penetrate people's emo-
defined urbanized area of Chicago. Only tional lives.
people between ages 18-65 were inter- There is a vast array of such experi-
viewed, for it was desired to have a sam- ences arising within the boundaries of the
ple weighted in favor of those actively multiple roles that people typically play.
engaged in occupational life. Where more However, we shall confine our attentions
than one person in a household satisfied to the persistent life-strains that people
these age criteria, the older candidate was encounter as they act as parents, job hold-
systematically chosen. The sex of the per- ers and breadwinners, husbands and
son to be interviewed in each household wives. By strains we mean those enduring
was predesignated so that the final sample problems that have the potential for arous-
would have as equal a number of males ing threat, a meaning that establishes
and females as possible. This restriction strain and stressor as interchangeable
was ignored only in households where all concepts. The strains that are included for
age-qualified respondents were of the study here were identified from themes
same sex. Because females typically head that surfaced repeatedly during relatively
such households, the final sample con- unstructured interviews with over 100 sub-
tained more women than men. jects. Standardized questions about these
The interview schedule was designed to strains were gradually developed, tested,
yield several distinct types of information. and included in the final interview
First, it asks people about potential life- schedule. The role areas around which our
strains-that is, conflicts, frustrations, questions center do not by any means
and threats-that earlier exploratory in- exhaust the sources of social strain, nor
terviews had revealed to be commonly are we capturing all strains that exist
experienced in major social role areas. within each of the roles. Those life-strains
4 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
that we have succeeded in identifying, ing circumstances in the environment, and

however, do represent problems that are by being a condition that has clear bound-
frequently outstanding in the experiences aries rather than an enveloping, total state
of people in their roles as marriage of the organism. By contrast, extreme
partners, economic managers, parents, anxiety and depression, which may very
and workers. well develop from intense and enduring
Because our structured questions about stress, are more global and diffuse. These
life-strains were so closely developed disturbances may cling even in the ab-
from the progressively focused explora- sence of specific threats; they do not vary
tory interviews, we were reasonably op- as their hosts move from one situation to
timistic that our items were conceptually another, and they often dominate one's
meaningful at the outset. Some further re- entire affective life. But as we are treating
finement was achieved, however, by sub- it, stress is primarily linked to areas of life
jecting the questions about life-strains to that are problematic, with the result that
factor analysis, the items within each of one area of life may be insulated from the
the four role areas constituting separate stresses being experienced in another.
pools of information. Eleven factors were Consistent with this view, we devel-
delineated, three in marriage, three in the oped several measures of stress, one for
parental area, one in household econom- each of the role areas in which strains are
ics, and four in occupation. Because of the being assessed. The measures themselves
number of factors involved and the rela- are based on adjective check-lists. These
tively large number of items that comprise lists were presented to respondents as the
most of the factors, they are not repro- last series of questions asked about a par-
duced in their entirety. Instead the first ticular role. For example, following all
three items in each factor, together with other questions about occupation, re-
their loadings, are presented in Appendix spondents were told: "I want to know
1. This sample of items should provide now the kinds of feelings you get when
some sense of the tone and substance of you think of your day-to-day job-your
the dimensions of strain being measured in daily working conditions, your pay, and
the different roles.' other benefits, and the people you work
The second conceptual domain to which with. Adding up all the good and bad
coping behavior is inseparably bound in- points about your job, how do
volves stress. Because stress is a phe- you feel?" The interviewer would repeat
nomenon studied by representatives of the last part of the question, using a differ-
several disciplines, and because it can be ent adjective each time-bothered, wor-
manifested at different levels of organis- ried, tense, and so on. There were four
mic functioning, it is understandable that intensity categories from which subjects
there is confusion about its "real" mean- chose their response to each adjective and
ing. Our treatment of the concept is con- the responses were then factor analyzed.
strained by the fact that it is being as- The same format was employed- to con-
sessed through a household survey of a struct separate stress measures in each of
normal population, requiring that its phys- the role areas. The factor items are
iological and biochemical manifestations presented in Appendix 2.
be bypassed. Instead we rely on the re-
ported experience of emotional upset as
our indicator of stress, looking exclusively DIMENSIONS OF COPING
at the unpleasant feelings of distress of

which people are aware. Coping needs more detailed specifica-
Not all such unpleasant feelings neces- tion than either strains or stresses, both
sarily represent what we regard as stress. because it is pivotal to our analysis and
Emotional stress, as we conceive of it, is because of the bewildering richness of be-
primarily distinguished from other nega- havior relevant to it. We shall outline
tive states by its specificity. It is specific some of the broad dimensions of the con-
in two related respects: by being deter- cept and at the same time describe the
mined by particular strainful and threaten- more concrete aspects of coping that have
THE STRUCTURE OF COPING 5
been selected for study here. Following examining, each of which concerns a dis-
this the issue of coping efficacy will be tinct self-attitude, have been factor
taken up. analyzed and the items making up the fac-
At the outset a fundamental distinction tors appear in Appendix 3.
needs to be made between social re- In distinction to general psychological
sources, psychological resources, and resources are the specific coping re-
specific coping responses. Resources sponses: the behaviors, cognitions, and
refer not to what people do, but to what is perceptions in which people engage when
available to them in developing their cop- actually contending with their life-
ing repertoires. Social resources are rep- problems. The psychological resources
resented in the interpersonal networks of represent some of the things people are,
which people are a part and which are a independent of the particular roles they
potential source of crucial supports: fam- play. Coping responses represent some of
ily, friends, fellow workers, neighbors, the things that people do, their concrete
and voluntary associations. The config- efforts to deal with the life-strains they
urations of these networks in the lives of encounter in their different roles. Such re-
people, the conditions under which they sponses may indeed be influenced by the
can be drawn upon, and the obligations psychological resources of individuals,
and costs their use incur are all somewhat but they are conceptually and empirically
complex issues and are outside the scope independent.
of this paper. Questions concerning coping responses
The general psychological resources of were developed in the same manner as
people, on the other hand, are very much those dealing with role strains. That is, in
in the purview of the present analysis. the open-ended exploratory interviews
Psychological resources are the personal- people were asked not only to identify the
ity characteristics that people draw upon problems they face, but also to describe
to help them withstand threats posed by how they attempt to deal with them.
events and objects in their environment. Thematic examination of these interview
These resources, residing within the self, materials suggested a number of coping
can be formidable barriers to the stressful patterns, and questions tapping these pat-
consequences of social strain. Three have terns were gradually developed, tested,
been incorporated into this analysis: self- and standardized. Responses to these
esteem, self-denigration, and mastery. questions, thus, yielded a body of infor-
Self-esteem refers to the positiveness of mation about coping within each role area;
one's attitude toward oneself and is a fac- they were then factor analyzed and scored
tor formed from items in the Rosenberg to provide the measures of coping that we
(1%5) scale. Self-denigration, an indepen- shall be using. There is a total of 17 such
dent factor derived from the same original factors, some of the factors containing
pool of items, indicates that extent to many items. Because of their number,
which one holds negative attitudes toward only three items from each factor are
oneself. Mastery, finally, is assessed by a presented in Appendix 4.1 Although this
measure constructed for this study and sampling of items should provide a sense
concerns the extent to which one regards of the substance of the measures, further
one's life-chances as being under one's explication of their conceptualization is
own control in contrast to being fatalisti- required.
cally ruled. Other aspects of personality It needs to be recognized that the 17
that represent potential psychological re- coping responses captured by this single
sources for coping were also examined. study constitute but a portion of the full
These include measures of denial, general range of responses people undoubtedly
tendencies toward escapism, and disposi- call upon in dealing with life-exigencies.
tions to move toward or away from people But although the specific coping re-
when troubled. They will not figure into sponses under consideration here are by
our analysis of efficacy because, as meas- no means exhaustive, they can be viewed
ured here, they were found to have no as a sampling of three major types of cop-
coping functions. The three we shall be ing that are distinguished from one an-
other by the nature of their functions. reasonable this kind of coping action
These are: (1) responses that change the might appear on the surface.
situation out of which strainful experience In circumstances where coping does not
arises; (2) responses that control the succeed in changing the situation, and
meaning of the strainful experience after it thereby fails to eliminate the problem, the
occurs but before the emergence of stress; stressful impact of the problem may
and (3) responses that function more for nevertheless be buffered by responses
the control of stress itself after it has that function to control the meaning of the
emerged. We shall describe each of these problem. The way an experience is recog-
coping functions in greater deatil below, nized and the meaning that is attached to it
suggesting at the same time where among determine to a large extent the threat
these each of our 17 coping factors falls. posed by that experience. Thus, the same
It would seem that responses that mod- experience may be highly threatening to
ify the situation represent the most direct some people and innocuous to others, de-
way to cope with life-strains, for they are pending on how they perceptually and
aimed at altering or eliminating the very cognitively appraise the experience
source of strains. In fact, however, such (Lazarus, 1966). By cognitively neutraliz-
responses were not among the types of ing the threats that we experience in life-
response frequently mentioned by people situations, it is possible to avoid stresses
in the exploratory open-ended interviews. that might otherwise result.
Thus, on prima facie ground only three There are many devices that function in
out of the 17 factors have this as a primary this way. Indeed, it is by far the most
function (see Appendix 4): negotiation in common type of individual coping,
marriage, the use of punitive discipline in encompassing most of the responses iden-
parenting, and the optimistic action factor tified by this study. One such frequently
in occupation, while two other responses, used coping mechanism involves the mak-
the seeking of advice in both the marital ing of positive comparisons, a device cap-
and parental roles, may be seen as re- tured in such idioms as "count your
sponses potentially preparatory to acting blessings," "we're all in the same boat,"
on the situation. and so on. Thus conditions appearing to
Given the many conceivable ways that an outside observer as very difficult may
people may act to modify or eliminate be experienced by people as relatively be-
situations productive of strain, it is sur- nign when they judge the conditions to be
prising that it is not a more commonly less severe-or no more severe-than those
used type of coping than it apparently is. faced by their significant others. Misery
There are several possible reasons for truly loves company. Comparisons may
this. First, people must recognize the situ- entail a temporal frame of reference as
ation as the source of their problem before well as one formed by significant others.
they can mobilize action toward modify- Thus, if hardship is evaluated either as
ing it, and such recognition is not always being an improvement over the past or as
easy. Next, even when the sources are a forerunner of an easier future, its effects
recognized, people may lack the knowl- will be tempered. Measures of the use of
edge or experience necessary to eliminate comparative frames of reference can be
or modify them. Third, actions directed at found in each of the four role areas in
the modification of one situation may Appendix 4.
create another unwanted situation, result- Another perceptual device that func-
ing in an inhibition of the coping action. tions to control meaning, also measured in
Finally, some of the most persistent each of the role areas, is selective ignor-
strains originate in conditions impervious ing. Selective ignoring is typically attained
to coping interventions, thus discouraging by casting about for some positive attri-
individual ameliorative coping efforts. bute or circumstance within a troublesome.
Clearly, then, there are several condi- situation. Once found, the person is aided
tions that can deflect people from direct- in ignoring that which is noxious by an-
ing their efforts toward the modification of choring his attention to what he considers
a problematic situation, regardless of how the more worthwhile and rewarding as-
pects of experience. One's ability to ig- ness bordering on blind faith, and belief
nore selectively is helped to trivializing that the avoidance of worry and tension is
the importance of that which is noxious the same as problem solving. The actual
and magnifying the importance of that identification of concrete coping re-
which is gratifying. There are other de- sponses having stress management func-
vices similar to selective ignoring, these tions is somewhat difficult, however, for
involving the hierarchical ordering of there is often nothing intrinsic to behavior
life-priorities. The substitution of rewards that signals that this function is being
in occupation and the devaluation of served. Thus, we know that some people
money in the area of household economics watch television (Pearlin, 1959) or use
are instances of this. In both cases people alcohol (Pearlin and Radabaugh, 1976) for
are attaching a differential importance to this purpose, but we know, too-+ that
different areas of their lives. They may others engage in the same behaviors for
succeed in avoiding stress to the extent very different reasons. Consequently,
that they are able to keep the most there is a vast array of responses that have
strainful experiences within the least the potentiality of being pressed into serv-
valued areas of life. When -confined to ice for the management of stress but that
life-areas defined as of secondary impor- may have other meanings as well.
tance, strains are less likely to result in Despite the variety, coping mechanisms
stress because they are less likely to of this type have in common their attempt
threaten the self. The hierarchical order- to minimize the discomforts engendered
ing can, thus, function to shrink the by problems, but are not directed to the
significance of problems and, in this way, problems themselves. Of the 17 responses
minimize the resultant stresses. delineated in this study, four can be seen
The third type of coping functions as functioning primarily for stress man-
neither to alter the situation generating the agement. Two of them are in marriage:
stress-provoking strains nor to create emotional discharge vs. controlled reflec-
congenial perceptions of problematic tiveness, where the former refers to the
experiences within the situation. This type expressive ventilation of feelings as a
of coping -functions more for the manage- way of handling marital problems; the
ment of stress than for its vitiation. Such other is passive forebearance vs. self
coping- mechanisms essentially help assertion, the first pertaining to the con-
people to accommodate to existing stress tainment of feelings and the avoidance of
without being overwhelmed by it. The conflict, the second to a more open recog-
open-ended exploratory interviews re- nition of problems in moving toward con-
vealed a variety of sentiments, some of flict resolution. A third response of this
them quite familiar, that potentially func- type is represented in the parental potency
tion in this manner: try not to worry be- vs.* helplessness resignation factor, where
cause time itself solves problems; accept resignation in effect proclaims the child as
hardship because it is meant to be; avoid being beyond influence, thus possibly
confrontation; those who are good- exempting the parent from a sense of fail-
naturedly forebearing will be rewarded; ure and guilt. Finally, in the economic
take the bad with the good; just relax and domain is optimistic faith in one's finan-
difficulties become less important; every- cial future, a rose-colored view of one's
thing works out for the best. These kinds economic fate that perhaps helps to keep
of themes suggest that out of the beliefs financial stress within- manageable
and values in the culture people are able to bounds. There are undoubtedly 'many
create a strategy for manageable suffering, more responses that stand side by side
a strategy that can convert the endurance with these in people's repertoires, but the
of unavoidable hardships into a moral vir- four included here touch on some of the
tue. principal themes and orientations underly-
x Clearly, this strategy brings together a ing the management of stress.
number of orientations to life-problems: Coping, in sum, is certainly not a uni-
denial, passive acceptance, withdrawal, dimensional behavior. It functions at a
an element of magical thinking, a hopeful- number of levels and is attained by a
plethora of behaviors, cognitions, and regression analyses, a technique appro-

perceptions. It is useful, moreover, that priate to the multivariate nature of the
coping responses be distinguished from issues with which we are concerned, and
what we have identified as psychological well-suited also to confirming the concep-
resources for coping, those personality tual distinctions and independent effects
characteristics that minimize threat to of life-strains and the coping responses to
self. As important as psychological re- them. The analyses will be organized
sources may be in confronting life-strains, around several queries concerning coping
we cannot completely understand coping efficacy: (1) Are there some coping re-
without looking beyond the personality sponses and coping resources that are
attributes of individuals to the specific re- appreciably more effective than others?
sponses to problems in different social (2) How does the effectiveness of specific
roles. This will become evident in the coping responses compare with that of
evaluation of coping efficacy. psychological resources? (3) Does the
sheer scope and variety of a coping reper-
toire have any bearing on its effective-
COPING EFFICACY ness? Following the consideration of each
of these issues, we shall be in a position to
The fanciful ultimate in coping is where deal with a final question: What kinds of
people deal so effectively with life-strains people employ what kinds of responses
that they are permanently and completely with what kinds of advantages?
eliminated, thus obviating the necessity of
coping repertoires. Under these unlikely
What Coping Mechanisms Work Best?
circumstances one would find neither
problems nor coping responses to them. The most fundamental question to
But, of course, people do not eliminate which we can address ourselves is
completely or permanently the conflicts, whether coping merely creates within
frustrations, and other life-strains people the illusion that they are doing
engendered by societies. There may be something of consequence or if, indeed,
periods of time when there are no active coping does help to avoid or manage
demands to cope, but even during these stress. And if it does help, can we identify
interludes coping patterns are ready to be a particular mechanism or set of mech-
mobilized when the need arises. The ef- anisms that is especially efficacious. We
fectiveness of a coping behavior, there- shall observe first the efficacy of coping
fore, cannot be judged solely on how well responses and then turn our attention to
it purges problems and hardships from our the coping resources.
lives. Instead, it must be judged on how Because coping is examined separately
well it prevents these hardships from re- in each role, it is necessary to create four
sulting in emotional stress. Indeed, our regression equations. Included among the
criterion for weighting efficacy is simply independent variables are the strains
the extent to which a coping response at- within a particular role together with the
tenuates the relationship between the different coping responses used in that
life-strains people experience and the role. The measures of strain are con-
emotional stress they feel. It is because of structed by summing the scores that re-
variations in coping efficacy that people spondents have on the various strain fac-
exposed to similar life-strains may harbor tors within the role (see Appendix 1). This
quite different levels of stress. measure essentially represents the overall
Our criterion for evaluating coping effi- level of intensity with which people expe-
cacy rests on the examination of a full rience problems in the role area. Measures
array of variables: the life-strains people of coping are simply derived from respon-
experience in each of the four role areas; dents' scores on each of the various cop-
their psychological resources; the coping ing factors (Appendixes 3 & 4). The de-
responses they call upon in dealing with pendent variables in the equations, role
the strains; and emotional stresses they stresses, are measured by the scores of
feel. For the most part we shall rely on respondents on the factors presented in
Appendix 2. It needs to be noted that in while in the economic and occupational

Table 1, which presents the results of domains "low" is not used, for in these
these analyses, the coping variables are areas the same response helps to contain
labeled so as to indicate that an increase in stress.
the named response is associated with the To understand the presentation and
minimization of stress. The more one em- meaning of the findings in Table 1, atten-
ploys a particular response the more tion should first be directed at the vertical
stress decreases, except in cases of selec- column showing the regressions of stress
tive ignoring, which in the marital and on strain. In marriage, for example, the
parental areas, is preceded by the word standardized bivariate regression coeffi-
"low." This labeling is used to indicate cient of stress on strain before taking ac-
that in these two areas the exercise of count of coping is .62. One can then assess
selective ignoring exacerbates stress, the effect that each of the six coping re-
TABLE 1. STEPWISE REGRESSIONS OF STRESSES ON LIFE-STRAINS AND ON COPING

RESPONSES IN DIFFERENT ROLE AREAS (STANDARDIZED)*
Regression Coefficients of Stresses on:
Coping Responses
Role Area Strains X1 X. X8 X4 X5 Xs R2
Marriage
Low Strain .62 .38
Self-Reliance vs. Advice
Seeking (Xi) .58 .22 .43
Controlled Reflectiveness vs.
Emotional Discharge (X2) .54 .23 .20 .47
Positive Comparisons (X8) .48 .24 .21 .12 .48
Negotiation (X) .42 .25 .22 .14 .13 .50
Self-Assertion vs. Passive
Forbearance (X.) .35 .27 .24 .17 .16 .15 .52
Low Selective Ignoring (Xs) .30 .27 .25 .19 .17 .17 .14 .54
Parenting
Low Strain .48 .23
Positive Comparisons (X1) .40 .23 .28
Self-Reliance vs. Advice
Seeking (X) .37 .23 .14 .28
Low Selective Ignoring (Xs) .36 .25 .15 .12 .31
Non-punitiveness vs. Reliance
on Discipline (X.) .34 .25 .16 .13 .09 .31
Exercise of Potency vs. Helpless
Resignation (X6) .33 .24 .16 .13 .09 .05t .32
Household Economics
Low Strain .65 .43
Devaluation of Money (X1) .59 .17 .45
Selective Ignoring (X2) .58 .20 .15 .47
Positive Comparisons (Xs) .54 .22 .15 .11 .48
Optimistic Faith (X4) .51 .25 .12 .12 .10 .49
Occupation
Low Strain .47 .22
Substittition of Rewards
.23 (X1) .47 .09
Positive Comparisons (X2) .47 .09 .06 .23
Optimistic Actions (X8) .47 .09 .06 .05 .24
Selective Ignoring (X4) .47 .09 .06 .05t .01t .24
* All coefficients significant at the .05 level or better unless indicated by (t).
sponses (X1 to X6) has by observing the dependent on one unit of the first coping
reduction in the regression of stress on the variable (X1, self-reliance vs. advice seek-
role strain as the coping responses are ing), and .14 units of stress depend on the
added to the equation. It can be seen that extent to which people eschew selective
at each step the relationship between mar- ignoring, the last and least important cop-
ital strain and marital stress is reduced, ing variable in the marital area (X6). With
the final coefficient being .30. These re- regard to occupation, the comparison of
sults indicate that whether or not the the coefficients reveals that the amount of
strains experienced by people in their stress alleviated by any of the responses is
marriages lead to emotional distress de- considerably more limited than in the
pends to a substantial extent on their cop- other areas. This, of course, is consistent
ing responses to the strains. Coping has with what we earlier observed of the gen-
corresponding though smaller effects on eral resistance of occupational problems
the relationships between strain and emo- to coping interventions.
tional stress in parental and economic Except in occupation, then, there are
roles, but it makes no difference to this appreciable differences between the most
relationship in the occupational area. This effective and least effective responses. At
resistance to coping efforts in occupation the same time, the effect of any single
will appear throughout the analysis, coping mechanism is rather modest. Be-
suggesting that coping is least effective in yond these general observations, how-
areas of life, such as job, that are imper- ever, are some more specific patterns that
sonally organized and in which the forces should be pointed out. A somewhat sur-
affecting people are beyond the kinds of prising result is that self-reliance is more
personal coping controls that we have effective in reducing stress than the seek-
been examining. But within the three ing of help and advice from others in the
other roles, it is apparent that the things two areas in which it is possible to observe
people do can make a difference in avoid- its effects, marriage and parenthood. This
ing or minimizing the stressful impact of unexpected finding reminds us that help-
life-strains. seekers are not necessarily the same
Are there specific responses that are people as help-receivers, for the most ef-
especially outstanding in this regard? The fective copers may be those who have the
answer to this question can best be found capacity to gather support from others
by examining the bottom horizontal line of without having to solicit it. At any rate, it
coefficients in each role, for it is here that is evident that we do not yet know the
direct comparisons of the relative inde- conditions under which help from others
pendent efficacy of the different responses can be effective.
can be made. These coefficients are ar- Two additional observations can be
ranged, from left to right, in the order of made, one pertaining to the occupational
the magnitude of their importance to and economic areas, the other to marriage
stress. The first coefficient on the bottom and parenthood. It is interesting that in
row, in each of the four areas, shows the economic and, to a modest extent, occu-
regression of stress on strain with the cop- pational roles, the most effective types of
ing completely taken into account. The coping involve the manipulation of goals
remainder of the coefficients along the and values. In economics this entails the
bottom row reflect the independent rela- demeaning of the importance of monetary
tionships of each of the coping responses success, the devaluation of money. In lim-
(X1 through Xn) to stress after all the other iting the importance of money, the depri-
responses are entered into the equation. vations that might ordinarily be felt as a
In the first three areas it is possible to result of having limited resources are buf-
discern that some responses are more ef- fered. In occupation, the corresponding
fective than others, although differences response is the substitution of rewards,
among adjoining responses tend to be involving the devaluation of the intrinsic
quite small. Again taking the marriage rewards of work and a valuation of extrin-
area as an illustration, and looking across sic rewards, such as pay and fringe bene-
the bottom line, .27 units of stress are fits. People seek to control stress in occu-
pation, though without much success, by ily are least likely to result in stress when
keeping work itself in a place secondary in people remain committed to and involved
importance. in those relationships. The opposite is true
But the manipulation of broad values in matters of money and work; here stress
and goals is far less psychologically is less likely to result when people disen-
wieldy in the close interpersonal relations gage themselves from involvement. It is
of marriage and parenthood than it is in important to understand that the observed
the household economics and occupa- stress-reducing efficacy of the various
tional spheres. One cannot as easily de- coping mechanisms is independent of the
mean the importance of a spouse or of a intensity of the role-strains. This indepen-
child as he can devalue his work or an dence is rooted in regression analysis it-
unattainable life-style. On the contrary, self, for the Beta weights reflect the
the most effective responses in marriage changes produced by one variable after
and parenthood are those that involve the the effects of the others are controlled
eschewal of avoidance and withdrawal. In (Blalock, 1960).
marriage it is a reflective probing of prob- Using the same procedures we em-
lems, rather than the eruptive discharge ployed in Table 1, we turn now from
of feelings created by the problems, that is specific coping responses to a considera-
among the more effective responses. Simi- tion of the relative effectiveness of the
larly, the most effective type of response general psychological resources. For our
to parental strains is not resigned present purpose we enter separately the
helplessness, but the conviction that one three variables-self-denigration, self-
can exert a potent influence over one's esteem, and mastery-into a regression
children. It appears that problems arising analysis, just as we did with the specific
in the close interpersonal relations of fam- coping responses. Looking first in Table 2
TABLE 2. STEPWISE REGRESSIONS OF STRESSES ON LIFE-STRAINS AND ON

PSYCHOLOGICAL COPING RESOURCES (STANDARDIZED)*
Regression Coefflicents of Stresses on:
Psychological Resources
Role Area Strains XI X X3 R2
Marriage
Low Strain .62 .39
Low Self-denigration (X1) .57 .18 .42
Mastery (X) ..53 .20 .13 .43
Self-esteem (Xs) .52 .20 .14 .07 .44
Parenting
Low Strain .47 .22
Low Self-denigration (XK) .43 .20 .26
Mastery:(X) .41 .20 .18 .29
Self-esteem (Xs) .40 .20 .18 .09 .30
HouseholdEconomics
Low Strain .65 .43
Low Self-denigration (X1) .63 . 19 .46
Mastery (Xs) .57 .20 .17 .49
Self-esteem (Xs) .55 .20 .19 .14 .51
Occupation
Low Strain .47 .22
Low Self-denigration (X1) .43 .22 .27
Self-esteem (X.) .43 .22 . 10 .28
Mastery (Xs) .42 .22 .11 .08 .29
* All coefficients significant at the .05 level or better.
at the vertical columns showing the re- particular responses to life-strains in par-
gressions of stress on role strains, it can ticular role areas. We need not debate
be seen that these characteristics do help which is more effective-the general psy-
to reduce the relationships between strain chological resources or the specific
and stress. In what is now a familiar pat- responses-for, within the limits of our
tern, the reduction is smallest in the occu- data, we are in a position to observe the
pational realm, but even there it is evident relative contributions of the two coping
that the psychological resources em- mechanisms.
bodied in self-attitudes can help blunt the To judge which is the more
emotional impact of persistent problems. efficacious-personality characteristics
With regard to the relative importance indicative of the possession of psycholog-
of the three resources, there is a clearer ical resources (self-denigration, mastery,
order than could be discerned among the and self-esteem) or specific responses to
responses in Table 1. In part this is be- specific role strains-summary scores of
cause there are fewer variables involved, the two types of coping were created. In
partly because the effects of the same dis- the case of the specific responses, these
positions are simply being re-observed in scores were computed simply by adding
the different role areas, but mainly be- respondents' scores on the separate cop-
cause there is considerable stability in the ing factors within each role area. The
relative efficacy of the different resources same procedure was followed in forming a
from one role area to another. Thus, in all summary score for the three psychological
four role areas, stress depends more on resources; in this instance, however, there
self-denigration than on the other person- is but one measure that is being re-
ality dimensions. And, with the exception observed in the different role areas. The
of occupation, mastery is a close second relative efficacy of coping responses and
in importance, positive self-esteem a psychological resources could then be
third. There is, then, a fairly clear order in judged by placing the two summary mea-
the efficacy of people's psychological re- sures in the same regression analysis, to-
sources in vitiating stress: freedom from gether with the role strain scores. This
negative attitudes toward self, the posses- enables us to determine whether it is the
sion of a sense that one is in control of the responses or the resources that is more
forces impinging on one, and the presence important in controlling the relationship
of favorable attitudes toward one's self. between strains and stress. In Table 3
strain is entered first in each of the equa-
Which is More Efficacious: What
tions, the other variables appearing in a
stepwise fashion. Again the vertical col-
People Do or What People Are?
umns show the changes in the relationship
According to Lazarus et al. (1974), of stress and strain as the other variables
much of the research on coping has given are added to the equation. With the excep-
greater emphasis to psychological disposi- tion of occupation, where there is again
tions than to situational specific responses little reduction in this relationship, it is
to situational conditions. Traditionally, clearly better to be armed both with a
coping ability has been judged solely on repertoire of responses and a reservoir of
the possession of personality char- resources than to have either alone.
acteristics that help people defend against More to the point of the present ques-
external threats; having the "right" per- tion, however, are the regression coeffi-
sonality characteristics enables one to cients along the rows, for these show
deal with life-problems effectively, what- more directly the relative importance to
ever the nature of the problems or wher- stress of coping responses and psycholog-
ever they might spring up. According to ical resources. In marriage, coping re-
this perspective, people develop modal sponses are considerably more important
styles of dealing with life-strains, styles in blocking stress than are resources, this
that transcend role or situational bound- difference being reflected by the coeffi-
aries. By contrast, we have been under- cients of .47 and .15, respectively. In the
scoring specificity, attempting to identify parental area, the advantage of coping re-
TABLE 3. REGRESSIONS OF STRESSES ON ROLE STRAINS, COPING RESPONSES AND

COPING RESOURCES (STANDARDIZED)*
Regression Coefficients of Stresses on:
Role Areas Strains Responses Resources R2
Marriage
Strains .62 .39
Coping Responses .29 .50 .53
Coping Resources .26 .46 .15 .54
Parenting
Strains .47 .22
Coping Responses .36 .27 .29
Coping Resources .32 .22 .21 .33
Household Economics
Strains .65 .22
Coping Resources .55 .30 .36
Coping Responses .46 .21 .26 .41
Occupation
Strains .46 .21
Coping Resources .42 .22 .26
Coping Responses .42 .05 .21 .26
* All coefficients significant at the .01 level or better.
sponses almost disappears (.21 vs. .20). In is one or the other likely to be the more
dealing with problems of household fi- effective. The evidence indicates that it is
nances, there is a turnabout, the regres- the psychological characteristics that are
sion of stress on resources now being the more helpful in sustaining people fac-
somewhat greater (.26) than it is on re- ing strains arising out of conditions over
sponses (.21). In occupation, finally, which they may have little direct
stress hinges much more closely on psy- control-finances and job. But where one
chological resources than on specific re- is dealing with problems residing in close
sponses, although, as we earlier noted, interpersonal relations, it is the things one
neither has an appreciable part in buffer- does that make the most difference.
ing the stressful effects of job strains.
From these results it is again evident
Does a Varied Repertoire Help?
that the problems arising in the relatively
impersonal milieu of occupation are less It is apparent from the foregoing
amenable to coping-either by the weight analyses that the kinds of responses and
of one's personality or by the weight of his resources people are able to bring to bear
response patterns-than are problems in coping with life-strains make a dif-
occurring elsewhere. In the close inter- ference to their emotional well-being. And
personal context of marriage, and to a les- it is equally apparent that there is no single
ser extent in parenting, it is the specific coping mechanism so outstandingly effec-
things that people do in dealing with life- tive that its possession alone would insure
strains that determine most closely our ability to fend off the stressful conse-
whether or not they will experience emo- quences of strains. The magical wand
tional stress, while possessing the "right" does not appear in our results, and this
personality characteristics is somewhat suggests that having a particular weapon
more effective in dealing with economic in one's arsenal is less important than hav-
and job problems. In the light of these ing a variety of weapons. The single cop-
differences, it would be better to rephrase ing response, regardless of its efficacy,
our question to ask not which is the more may be less effective than bringing to bear
effective, response or resource, but where a range of responses to life-strains.
Perhaps, effective coping depends not employ increases, stress becomes de-
only on what we do, but also on how much creasingly likely to be associated with
we do. marital strains. Indeed, stress as a conse-
Probably the most direct way to assess quence of strain is virtually eliminated
the variety of one's coping repertoire is by when people use as many as five or six of
simply counting the number of responses these responses. (Only four respondents
that one actively invokes among those are active users of all six responses, and
being measured in the four role areas. We they are combined with those using five.)
have done this by, on each of the seven- In the parental area there is also a substan-
teen coping factors, identifying respon- tial difference between those with the
dents whose scores are above the mean most limited repertoire and those with the
or, in the case of coping responses that most varied, but between these extremes
exacerbate stress, respondents whose there is no clear linear relationship. Eco-
scores are below the mean. We then as- nomic strains, however, like those in mar-
signed scores to each respondent based on riage, are decreasingly apt to result in
the number of coping responses within a stress as the number of coping responses
role on which the respondent fell into the people actively employ increases. And,
active half. Because the number of re- consistent with what has now been ob-
sponses being observed differs among the served with unbroken regularity, the vari-
four roles, so does the maximum score. ety of one's repertoire in dealing with oc-
Thus, in marriage it ranges from 0 to 6, in cupational problems has no clear or con-
parenting to 5, and in the economic and sistent part in preventing stress from aris-
occupational areas the maximum score is ing.
4. The important feature of this index to It can be noted in passing that the same
be kept in mind is that it disregards the kind of analysis of the psychological re-
substance of the responses and sources reveals a similar set of findings. In
encompasses only the number of re- each of the four roles the relationship be-
sponses on which people actively call in tween strain and stress is greatest among
coping with role strains. respondents having scores that exceed the
To ascertain whether the variety of mean on none of the three resources and
one's repertoire by itself is related to cop- least among those who are above the
ing effectiveness, we have computed a mean on all of them. This decrease is not
series of zero-order correlations. Taking completely linear in the marital area, nor
marriage to describe the meaning of these is it either linear or sizeable in occupation.
correlations, it can be seen in Table 4 that Overall, however, these results, together
the correlation between strain and emo- with what we observed above, indicate
tional stress in this role is .78 among that the sheer richness and variety of re-
people who actively use none of the cop- sponses and resources that one can bring
ing responses being observed in this area. to bear in coping with life-strains may be
As the number of responses that people more important in shielding one's self
TABLE 4. CORRELATIONS OF ROLE STRAINS AND STRESSES AMONG PEOPLE WHOSE

COPING REPERTOIRES DIFFER IN SCOPE AND VARIETY
Number of Coping Responses Actively Invoked
(Limited Repertoire) (Extended Repertoire)

RoleAreas 0 1 2 3 4 Sand 6
Marriage .78 ( 63) .63 (207) .49 (466) .43 (514) .33 (222) .01 (24)
Parenting .59 ( 40) .29 ( 52) .36 (126) .47 (148) .36 (102) .15 (33)
Household
Economics .79 (112) .71 (263) .64 (817) .51 (637) .37 (332)
Occupation .60 (131) .49 (309) .44 (411) .46 (277) .51 ( 71)
Note: The parenthetical N's represent the number of people on which each of the correlations is
based.
- THE STRUCTURE OF COPING 15
from emotional stress than the nature and acteristics is indicated in the column head-
content of any single coping element. Of ings,
one thing we can be quite certain: except We begin our overview of the relation-
in occupation, using fewer coping re- ships in Table 5 with sex, where it is evi-
sponses and possessing fewer resources dent that there is a rather compelling pat-
maximizes the probability that role strains tern of differences. This pattern can be
will result in emotional stress, and being identified by pointing out, first, that there
able to call on more of these mechanisms are 11 correlations of a magnitude greater
minimizes the chances. than .05 associated with sex. Second, of
the 11 correlations of this magnitude,
three involve coping mechanisms found
Who Uses What Mechanisms With
most commonly among women, the re-
What Advantage?
mainder being used more by men (a posi-
As we emphasized at the outset, we are tive correlation indicates the mechanism is
more interested in identifying coping re- associated with women). Finally, of the
sponses and resources that are shared by three responses more often found in the
collectivities than in clinical portraits of repertoires of women, each entails selec-
individuals' psychological defenses. Some tive ignoring, a response which in mar-
idea of this sharing can be obtained by riage and parenting, it will be recalled,
simply observing whether coping prac- actually exacerbates stress. Thus, there is
tices vary among people possessing a pronounced imbalance between the
different social characteristics. These sexes in their possession and use of effec-
kinds of variations would indicate whether tive mechanisms. Men more often possess
different types of coping, like other be- psychological attributes or employ re-
havior, are normative for different groups in sponses that inhibit stressful outcomes of
the society. But perhaps more impor- life-problems; and in two of the three in-
tantly, with what we have learned of cop- stances where women more often employ
ing efficacy it is now possible to ascertain a response it is likely to result not in less
if coping differences among groups may stress, but in more. Although these results
also signal coping inequalities. Variations cannot provide a complete picture of sex
in the use of coping mechanisms, in other differences, they are sufficient to stimu-
words, may be inextricably intertwined late the question of whether the greater
with a corresponding inequality of coping inclination of women to psychological dis-
efficacy. As we consider the question of turbance, repeatedly established in re-
"who uses what mechanisms?", we shall search (Gove and Tudor, 1973; Pearlin,
consequently be drawing upon the an- 1974; Radloff, 1975), is a consequence not
swers we now have to a kindred question: only of their having to bear more severe
"with what efficacy?" hardships, but also of their being
To look at all the coping measures in socialized in a way that less adequately
relationship to all the social background equips them with effective coping pat-
characteristics about which there is in- terns.
formation would produce a vast web of The imbalance that exists between the
data. Instead, we shall confine ourselves sexes in the distribution of efficacious
to the more outstanding of these relation- coping is completely absent with regard to
ships by considering only those char- age. Thus, the younger are more likely
acteristics most frequently having close than the older to be self-denigrating, but
statistical associations with coping. There they are also more apt than the older to
are four of these, two ascribed and two entertain a sense of mastery. In coping
achieved: sex and age, education and in- with marital problems, the older are more
come. In order to understand the direction disposed to self-reliance (less often seek-
and meaning of the correlations in Table 5, ing advice) and more likely also to engage
it needs to be recognized that, with regard in a controlled reflection of marital prob-
to the coping variables, a high score al- lems, both of which help to limit stress;
ways represents more of the named qual- but the older,, too, more often practice
ity, while the scoring of the social char- selective ignoring, which is counter-
TABLE 5. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS WITH

COPING RESOURCES AND COPING RESPONSES*
Coping Resources and Responses Sex a Age b Education Income'
Psychological Rescurces
Self-denigration -.05 -.23 .06 - .05
Mastery -. 11 -.17 .28 .27
Self-esteem -.05 .011t .21 .15
Marriage Coping Responses

Self-reliance vs. Advice Seeking -.08 . 17 -.08 .00t
Controlled reflectiveness vs.
Emotional Discharge -. 16 .23 -. 11 -.09
Positive Comparisons .01 t .07 - .06' -.13
Negotiations .04 -.06 . 11 .05
Self-assertion vs. Passive
Forbearance .04 -.01lt .05 -.011t
Selective Ignoring .12 .15 -.14 -.09
Parental Coping Responses

Exercise of parental potency -.05 -. 19 . 16 . 12
Self-reliance vs. Advice Seeking -.23 -.20 -. 12 -.04t
Non-punitiveness vs. Reliance
on Discipline -.10 .09t .05t .03t
Positive Comparisons .02t .05t .06 .03t
Selective Ignoring .13 .03t -.08 -.Olt
Household Economic Coping Responses

Devaluation of Money .05 .29 . 13 .21
Optimistic Faith -.07 -.34 . 18 .10
Positive Comparisons -. 11 -.05 . 18 .53
Selective Ignoring .05 -.24 .02t -.031t
Occupational Coping Responses

Substitution of rewards -.01lt . 15 -.36 -.22
Positive Comparisons -.031t -.24 .10 .05t
Optimistic Action -.07 -.02t .07 . 11
Selective Ignoring .22 .05 -.20 -.14
* All correlations significant at the .05 level or higher except where indicated by (t).
a Female=high score.
b Older=high score.
More extensive=high score.
d Greater=high score.
productive in the marital and parental with life-strains. Although there are sub-
areas. As parents, breadwinners, and stantial relationships between age and
job-holders, the young and the old are coping, neither the younger nor the older
each likely to employ mechanisms that appear to have any overall advantage in
support emotional well-being. Unlike the coping effectiveness.
sharp differences observed between men Education and income are both indi-
and women, then, there seems to be a cators of socioeconomic status, of course,
balance in the coping efficacy of younger and for this reason there are similarities in
and older people, each being about their relationships to coping, with educa-
equally well-equipped with effective ele- tion having the closer overall association.
ments. These results certainly do not sup- Whereas sex and age represent ascribed
port views of aging as a process in which statuses, these are achieved, and it is in
people inexorably become increasingly the framework of this conceptual dif-
vulnerable, unable to cope effectively ference that some of the relationships are
most interesting. Thus, we find that the SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
self-attitudes of mastery and self-esteem

are both closely associated with the In order to highlight what this paper
achieved statuses. There are some sub- may have succeeded in accomplishing, it
stantial correlations in the marital and is necessary to recognize what it could not
parental areas as well, but the most im- do. Foremost in this regard is the abbre-
pressive associations are in economic and viated range of coping responses and psy-
occupational roles. Understandably, for chological resources with which we deal,
example, the better educated and the limitations imposed both by the state of
more affluent are able to rely on positive our present knowledge and the constrain-
comparisons in dealing with money and ing boundaries of a single study. A similar
job problems; they are able to maintain limitation concerns the range of sources of
optimistic outlooks; and on the job they stress with which we deal. Our interests
do not have to foresake intrinsic rewards. purposely centered on continuous and
They have the further luxury of being able often undramatic strains built into daily
to attribute less value to monetary suc- roles. There are other sources of stress
cess. Some of these relationships raise the not included within this focus, such as the
question of whether people have better role and status transitions that occur in the
access to the more effective coping tech- normal life-cycle and the problems
niques because of their privileged posi- presented by unusual and unexpected
tions, as we have been implying, or if they crises. These kinds of events not only
were able to achieve the privileged posi- present people with problems different
tions because of their coping effective- from those we considered, but they may
ness. There is some indication that it is the also evoke different types of responses
former, for when we substitute the occu- and produce a different outline of coping
pational status of respondents' fathers for effectiveness. Our analysis, therefore,
their own educational and economic could only encompass a sample of coping
achievements, essentially the same set of responses and resources used in dealing
relationships appears. with some commonly experienced life-
The patterns of coping usage, then, strains; it is not an exhaustive treatment of
suggest some concomitant patterns of dif- either coping or stress-provoking condi-
ferential coping advantage. Only with re- tions.
gard to age do the findings indicate a gen- Another limiting problem concerns the
eral equality. Between the sexes, men criterion used to judge coping efficacy.
clearly appear to have an advantage, for Our evaluation of efficacy is based on the
the personality characteristics and re- extent to which coping mechanisms re-
sponse repertoires shown to have some duce the relationship between role-strains
potency in controlling stress are predomi- and emotional stresses. By this criterion
nantly found among men. There is simi- the effective coper is one who is under
larly no question where the coping advan- severe strains but feels no stress. The
tages lie among people of different socio- more efficient the coping, the more tenu-
economic status. There is some mix in the ous the statistical associations of strain
marital and parental areas, but elsewhere and stress. As we noted in our discussion
a resource or response that has been of coping functions, however, some suc-
demonstrated to have some efficacy is cessful coping may reduce stress by first
likely to be in possession of the better diminishing the role-strain itself, a mode
placed. The less educated and the poorer of coping we were not able to capture.
are more exposed to hardships and, at the Such coping, curiously, would lead to a
same time, less likely to have the means to statistical underestimation of efficacy. If
fend off the stresses resulting from the coping diminishes the strains, and this
hardships. Not only are life-problems dis- then leads to diminished stress, the net
tributed unequally among social groups effect of the coping would be to create a
and collectivities, but it is apparent that closer rather than a weaker statistical rela-
the ability to deal with the problems is tionship between role-strains and emo-
similarly unequal. tional stress. Within the framework we
employed, therefore, such coping would in placing more strain on some groups of
appear to be ineffective. Thus, some of people than on others, but they seem as
the coping mechanisms we have identified well to cause the very segments of society
may provide a more formidable barrier to that are under the greatest strain to have
emotional stress than we were able to less effective coping repertoires. The
demonstrate. striking fact that groups most exposed to
The final caveat, related to the forego- hardship are also least equipped to deal
ing issue, concerns causation and the with it gives some urgency to understand-
direction of influence. Throughout we ing better the processes by which people
have talked only of the impact of life- are led toward or away from various cop-
strains on emotional stress, and the ing responses and resources.
ameliorating effects of coping elements. On the basis of the evidence brought
However, it is likely that emotional stress, together here we can assert that what
once established, can in turn influence people do or fail to do in dealing with their
people's exposure to life-strains and the problems can make a difference to their
selective use of coping responses. A net- well-being. At the same time, there are
work of reciprocal effects undoubtedly important human problems, such as those
exists, one whose exact nature would be that we have seen in occupation, that are
best revealed in longitudinal studies. not responsive to individual coping re-
However, although limited to cross- sponses. Coping with these may require
sectional data, we believe that we have interventions by collectivities rather than
been able to demonstrate that the style by individuals. Many of the problems
and content of coping do make a dif- stemming from arrangements deeply
ference to the emotional well-being of rooted in social and economic organiza-
people. Furthermore, the greater the tion may exert a powerful effect on per-
scope and variety of the individual's cop- sonal life but be impervious to personal
ing repertoire, 'the more protection coping efforts to change them. This perhaps is the
affords. But- the complete story of 'coping reason that much of our coping functions
efficacy must include not only an account only to help us endure that which we can-
of what people do, but where they do it as not avoid. Such coping at best provides
well, for the same kinds of coping mech- but a thin cushion to absorb the impact of
anisms are not equally effective in differ- imperfect social organization. Coping fail-
ent role areas. With relatively impersonal ures, therefore, do not necessarily reflect
strains, such as those stemming from eco- the shortcomings of individuals; in a real
nomic or occupational experiences, the sense they may represent the failure of
most effective forms of coping involve the social systems in which the individuals are
manipulation of goals and values in a way enmeshed.
which psychologically increases the dis-
tance of the individual from the problem. NOTE
On the other hand, problems arising from
the relatively close interpersonal relations 1. A completely documented copy of the factors can
of parental and marital roles are best han- be obtained by writing to the authors.
dled by coping mechanisms in which the
individual remains committed to and
REFERENCES
engaged with the relevant others.
Not only may the same individual have Benedict, R.
unequal coping success in different role 1938 "Continuities and discontinuities in cultural
conditioning." Psychiatry 2:161-70.
areas, but different individuals have un-
Blalock, Hubert M.
equal success when dealing with the same 1960 Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
life-problems. These differences make it Gove, W. R. and J. F. Tudor
imperative to know which groups and col- 1973 "Adult sex roles and mental illness."
lectivities are most likely to utilize the American Journal of Sociology 78:812-35.
Jackson, E. F.
more efficacious techniques and which the 1962 "Status consistency and symptoms of
less. We find in this regard that social stress." American Sociological Review
structural conditions not only discriminate 27:469-80.
Janis, Irving L. PARENTING, HOUSEHOLD ECONOMICS AND

1958 Psychological Stress. New York: Wiley. OCCUPATION (Principal Component Analysis with
Lazarus, Richard S. Varimax Rotation; Item Loadings Shown
1966 Psychological Stress and the Coping Pro- in Brackets)
cess. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S., J. R. Averill and E. M. Opton, Jr. I. MARITAL STRAIN ITEMS
1974 "The psychology of coping: Issues of re- A. Non-acceptance by spouse. How strongly do
search and assessment." Pp. 249-91 in G. you agree or disagree that: (1) I cannot completely be
V. Coehlo, D. A. Hamburg and J. E. myself around my spouse [-76]; (2) My marriage
Adams (eds.), Coping and Adaptation. New doesn't give me enough opportunity to become the
York: Basic Books.
sort of person I'd like to be [-.72]; My spouse
Lenski, G. appreciates me just as I am [.67].
1954 "Status crystallization: A non-vertical di- B. Non-reciprocity in give and take. How strongly
mension of social status consistency and do you agree or disagree that: (1) Generally I give in
symptoms of stress." American Sociologi- more to my spouse's wishes than (he/she) gives in to
cal Review 19:405-13.
mine [.79]; (2) My spouse insists on having (his/her)
Mechanic, David
own way [.78]; (3) My spouse usually expects more
1962 Students Under Stress. New York: Free from me than (he/she) is willing to give back [.72].
Press.
C. Frustration of role expectations. How strongly
1974 "Social structure and personal adaptation: do you agree or disagree that: (1) My spouse is some-
Some neglected dimensions." Pp. 32-44 in one who is a good (wage earner/housekeeper) [.74];
G. V. Coehlo, D. A. Hamburg and J. E. (2) My spouse is someone who spends money wisely
Adams (eds.), Coping and Adaptation. New [.68]; (3) My spouse is someone who is a good sexual
York: Basic Books. partner [.62].
Merton, R. K.
1957 "Social structure and anomie." Pp. 131-60
II. PARENTAL STRAIN ITEMS WITH
in R. K. Merton (ed.), Social Theory and
CHILDREN AGES 16 TO 21
Social Structure. 2nd Edition. Glencoe, II-
linois: Free Press. A. Deviations from parental standards of be-
Pearlin, L. I. havior. How often do you have to give attention to the
1959 "Social and personal stress and escape correction of: (1) Your child(ren) failing to get along
television viewing." Public Opinion Quar- with others the same age [.82]; (2) Poor school work
terly 23:255-9. [.78]; (3) Poor use of time [.75].
1974 "Sex roles and depression." Pp. 183-98 in B. Non-conformity to parental aspirations and
N. Datan and L. Ginsberg (eds.), Pro- values. How often do you wonder if your (child is/
ceedings of Fourth Life-Span Devel- children are): (1) Trying hard enough to prepare for
opmental Psychology Conference: Norma- the life ahead of them [.75]; (2) Practicing the moral
tive Life Crises. New York: Academic beliefs that are important [.70]; (3) Headed for the
Press. success you want for them [.67].
1975 "Status inequality and stress in marriage." C. Disregardfor parental status. How often does it
American Sociological Review 40:344-57. happen that: (1) Your advice and guidance are ignored
Pearlin, L. I. and C. Radabaugh [.73]; (2) You are treated without proper respect [.72];
1976 "Economic strains and the coping functions (3) You are helped with household chores without
of alcohol." American Journal of Sociology asking [-.44].
82:652-63.
Radloff, L. III. HOUSEHOLD ECONOMICS
1975 "Sex differences in depression: The effects STRAIN ITEMS
of occupation and marital status." Sex
Roles 1:249-65. A. Standard of living brinkmanship. How often
Rosenberg, Morris does it happen that you do not have enough money to
1965 Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. afford: (1) The kind of clothing (you/your family)
Princeton: Princeton University Press. should have [.82]; (2) The kind of food (you/your
Stouffer, S. A. family) should have [.75]. (3) How much difficulty do
1949 "An analysis of conflicting social norms." you have in meeting the monthly payments on bills
American Sociological Review 14:707-19. [.74].
White, R. W.
1974 "Strategies of adaptation: An attempt at IV. OCCUPATIONAL STRAIN ITEMS
systematic description." Pp. 47-68 in G. V.
A. Inadequacy of rewards. How strongly do you
Coehlo, D. A. Hamburg and J. E. Adams
agree or disagree that: (1) My work has good fringe
(eds.), Coping and Adaptation. New York:
benefits such as sick pay and retirement [.69]; (2) I
Basic Books.
can count on a steady income [.66]; (3) My chances for
increased earnings in the next year or so are good
[.64].
B. Noxiousness of work environment. On the job,
APPENDIX 1
how much of the time: (1) Do you work in a lot of dirt
A PARTIAL LISTING OF FACTOR ITEMS or dust [.83]; (2) Are you in danger of illness or injury
MEASURING ROLE STRAINS IN MARRIAGE, [.77]; (3) Do you have a lot of noise [.77].
C. Depersonalization in the work environment. II. MASTERY

On the job, how often: (1) Do people treat you in an How strongly do you agree or disagree that: (1) I
unfriendly way [.80]; (2) Do people act toward you as
have little control over the things that happen to me
if you are a person without real feelings [.76]; (3) Are [.76]; (2) There is really no way I can solve some of the
you treated unfairly by another person [.75].
problems I have [.71]; (3) There is little I can do to
D. Role overload. How much of the time: (1) Do
change many of the important things in my life [.70];
you have more work than you can handce [.70]; (2) Are (4) 1 often feel helpless in dealing with the problems of
you under pressure to keep up with ne* ways of doing life [.65]; (5) Sometimes I feel that I'm being pushed
things [.69]; (3) Do you work too many hours [.65]. around in life [.56]; (6) What happens to me in the
future mostly depends on me [- .47]; (7) 1 can do just
about anything I really set my mind to do [-.47].
APPENDIX 2
III. SELF-ESTEEM
FACTOR ITEMS MEASURING STRESS IN
MARRIAGE, PARENTING, HOUSEHOLD ECO- How strongly do you agree or disagree that: (1) I
NOMICS AND OCCUPATION (Principal Compo- feel that I have a number of good qualities [.79]; (2) I
nent Analysis with Varimax Rotation; Item Loadings feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal
Shown ini Brackets) plane with others [.79]; (3) I am able to do things as
well as most other people [.68]; (4) I take a positive
I. MARITAL STRESS ITEMS
attitude toward myself [.65]; (5) On the whole, I am
When you think of the pleasures and problems of satisfied with myself [.56]; (6) All in all, I am inclined
your daily life with your (spouse), how do you to feel that I'm a failure [-.46].
feel? (1) Unhappy [.83]; (2) Bothered orupset [.81]; (3)
Frustrated [.80]; (4) Tense [.80]; (5) Worried [.76]; (6)
Neglected [.72]; (7) Relaxed [- .70];(8) Bored [.68]; (9)
APPENDIX 4
Contented [-.66].
A PARTIAL LISTING OF FACTOR ITEMS
MEASURING COPING RESPONSES IN MAR-
II. PARENTAL STRESS ITEMS
RIAGE, PARENTING, HOUSEHOLD ECONOM-
When you think of your experiences as a parent, ICS AND OCCUPATION (Principal Component
how-. do you feel? (1) Frustrated [.84]; (2) Tense Analysis with Varimax Rotation; Item Loadings
[.82]; (3) Worried [.77]; (4) Bothered or upset [.76]; (5) Shown in Brackets)
Unhappy [.71]; (6) Emotionally worn out [.69]; (7)
Unsure of yourself [.69]. I. MARITAL COPING RESPONSE ITEMS
A. Self-Reliance vs. advice seeking. In the past

III. HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIC year or so have you: (1) Asked the advice of relatives
STRESS ITEMS about getting along in marriage [.73]; (2) Asked for the
advice of a friend or neighbor .. . [.72]; (3) Gone to a
When you think of your financial situation, doctor, counselor, or other professional person for
how do you feel? (1) Worried [.85]; (2) marriage advice [.70].
Bothered or upset [.85]; (3) Unhappy [.84]; (4) Tense B. Controlled reflectiveness vs. emotional dis-
[.84]; (5) Frustrated [.84]; (6) Insecure [.81]; (7) Re- charge. How often do you: (1) Yell or shout to let off
laxed [-.70]; (8) Contented [-.69]. steam [.76]; (2) Find yourself thinking over marital
problems [-.54]; (3) Have you read any books or
IV. OCCUPATIONAL STRESS ITEMS magazines recently about getting along in marriage
[-.44].
When you think, of your day-to-day job, C. Positive comparisons. (1) How would you com-
how do youfeel? (1) Botheredorupset[.81]; (2) pare your marriage to that of most other people like
Unhappy [.77]; (3) Worried [.76]; (4) Frustrated [.75]; yourself: better? the same? or less good? [.76]. (2)
(5) Tense [.72]; (6) Contented [-.63]; (7) Relaxed With time, does your marriage get better? stay the
[-.65]. same? or get less good? [.74]. (3) How often do you
appreciate your own marriage more after seeing what
other marriages are like [.47].
APPENDIX 3 D. Negotiation. How often do you: (1) Try to find a
fair compromise in marriage problems [.78]; (2) Sit
FACTOR ITEMS MEASURING PSYCHOLOG-
down and talk things out [.68].
ICAL COPING RESOURCES (Principal Component
E. Self-assertion vs. passive forebearance. When
Analysis with Varimax Rotation; Item Loadings
you have differences with your spouse, how often do
Shown in Brackets)
you: (1) Keep out of (his/her) way for a while [.67]; (2)
I. SELF-DENIGRATION Give in more than half way [.67]; (3) Just keep hurt
feelings to yourself [.51].
How strongly do you agree or disagree that: (1) I F. Selective ignoring. How often do you: (1) Tell
certainly feel useless at times [.64]; (2) At times I think yourself that marital difficulties are not important
I am no good at all [.63]; (3) I wish I could have more [.77]; (2) Try to overlook your spouse's faults and pay
respect for myself [.59]; (4) All in all, I am inclined to attention only to good points [.63]; (3) Try to ignore
feel that I'm a failure [.45]. difficulties by looking only at good things [.63].
II. PARENTAL COPING RESPONSE ITEMS B. Selective ignoring. When you are short of
WITH CHILDREN AGES 16 TO 21 money how often do you: (1) Concentrate on more
important things in life [.69]; (2) Notice people around
A. Selective ignoring. How often do you: (1) Re-
who are worse off than you [.67]; (3) Tell yourself that
mind yourself that things could be worse [.66]; (2) Tell
money isn't worth getting upset about [.64].
yourself that something in your children's behavior is
C. Positive comparisons. Would you say your fam-
not really important [.56]; (3) Try to notice only the ily income is higher, lower, or about the same as: (1)
good things [.56].
People with the same education as yours [.74]; (2)
B. Non-punitiveness vs. reliance on discipline.
Most of your friends [.69]; (3) Most of your relatives
When your children's behavior is troublesome, how [.68].
often do you: (1) Take away a privilege [.85]; (2) Scold D. Optimistic faith. (1) How do you think your
them [.83]; (3) Threaten some kind of punishment standard of living will compare in a year or two to the
[.83]. one you have now: much better? about the same? or
C. Self-reliance vs. advice seeking. In the past year
much worse? [.71]. When you are short of money,
or so, have you: (1) Asked for the advice of friends or
how often do you (2) Just sit back and wait for things
neighbors concerning difficulties in your children's to work out? [.58]; (3) Just accept the money pinch
behavior [.77]; (2) Asked for the advice of a relative
because there's little you can do about it [.48].
[.77]; (3) Asked for the advice of a doctor, teacher, or
other professional person [.58].
D. Positive comparisons. As time goes by has
being a parent generally become easier, more dif-
ficult, or stayed the same [.80]; (2) Would you guess
IV. OCCUPATIONAL COPING
that in the next year or so being a parent will become
RESPONSE ITEMS
easier, more difficult, or stay the same [.70]; (3) When
you compare yourself with other parents having chil- A. Substitution of rewards. How strongly do you
dren about the same ages as yours, would you guess agree or disagree that: (1) The most important thing
you have fewer problems, about the same, or more about my job is that it provides me the things I need in
problems [.54]. life [.69]; (2) I can put up with a lot on my job as long as
E. Exercise of potency vs. helpless resignation. the pay is good [.68]; (3) Time solves most problems
How strongly do you agree or disagree that: (1) The on my job [.58].
way my children are turning out depends on their B. Positive comparisons. Would you say that your
inner nature and there is little I can do about it [.77]; work life is better, the same, or worse than: (1) It was
(2) There is only so much I can do as a parent and after about a year ago [.80]; (2) It will be a year or so from
that I just accept my children as they are [.72]. (3) now [ .78]; (3) The jobs of most other people you know
How often do you decide there's really nothing you [.58].
can do to change things? [.44]. C. Optimistic action. When you have difficulties in
your work situation, how often do you: (1) Take some
action to get rid of them [.79]; (2) Talk to others to find
III. HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIC
COPING RESPONSE ITEMS
a solution [.73]; (3) Notice people who have more
difficulties than you do [.50].
A. Devaluation of money. (1) During a typical D. Selective ignoring. When you have difficulties
week, about how often are money problems on your in your work situation, how often do you: (1) Tell
mind? [.57]. How strongly do you agree or disagree yourself that they are unimportant [.72]; (2) Try to pay
that: (2) My money never seems to be enough for my attention only to your duties and overlook them [.52];
wants? [.57]; (3) Financial success does not interest (3) Remind yourself that for everything bad there is
me? [-.52]. also something good [.46].

Coping Methods Questionnaire (Mastery Scale)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coping Methods Questionnaire (Mastery Scale)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coping Methods Questionnaire (Mastery Scale)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Structure of Coping

Author(s): Leonard I. Pearlin and Carmi Schooler

LEONARD I. PEARLIN CARMI SCHOOLER

Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1978, Vol. 19 (March):2-21

pact of those problems. Following a brief

that we have succeeded in identifying, ing circumstances in the environment, and

at the unpleasant feelings of distress of

plethora of behaviors, cognitions, and regression analyses, a technique appro-

Appendix 2. It needs to be noted that in while in the economic and occupational

TABLE 1. STEPWISE REGRESSIONS OF STRESSES ON LIFE-STRAINS AND ON COPING

Regression Coefficients of Stresses on:

Role Area Strains X1 X. X8 X4 X5 Xs R2

TABLE 2. STEPWISE REGRESSIONS OF STRESSES ON LIFE-STRAINS AND ON

Regression Coefflicents of Stresses on:

Role Area Strains XI X X3 R2

* All coefficients significant at the .05 level or better.

TABLE 3. REGRESSIONS OF STRESSES ON ROLE STRAINS, COPING RESPONSES AND

Regression Coefficients of Stresses on:

Role Areas Strains Responses Resources R2

* All coefficients significant at the .01 level or better.

TABLE 4. CORRELATIONS OF ROLE STRAINS AND STRESSES AMONG PEOPLE WHOSE

Number of Coping Responses Actively Invoked

(Limited Repertoire) (Extended Repertoire)

TABLE 5. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS WITH

Coping Resources and Responses Sex a Age b Education Income'

Marriage Coping Responses

Parental Coping Responses

Household Economic Coping Responses

Occupational Coping Responses

most interesting. Thus, we find that the SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

self-attitudes of mastery and self-esteem

Janis, Irving L. PARENTING, HOUSEHOLD ECONOMICS AND

C. Depersonalization in the work environment. II. MASTERY

A. Self-Reliance vs. advice seeking. In the past

You might also like