Never the twain shall meet?: Closing the gap between coping research and clinical intervention research

Two distinct literatures have contributed to a tremendous growth of interest in coping. The Ist consists of descriptive studies that have used coping checklists. This literature is in crisis because of its failure to yield substantive findings concerning the role of coping in adaptation that cannot be dismissed as truisms, trivia, or the product of a confounding of stress, coping, and distress. The 2nd literature concerns interventions to improve adaptation by enhancing coping. It provides Evidence of the efficacy of intervention but provides little understanding of crucial ingredients, mechanisms of change, or barriers to maintaining gains. Both literatures would benefit from cross-fertilization. Process studies of interventions designed to improve coping provide an alternative to fruitless and potentially misleading correlational studies using checklists. Such studies might also aid in understanding and refining intervention strategies.