APPRAISED CONTROLLABILITY AS A MODERATOR OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT COPING STRATEGIES - A TEST OF THE GOODNESS OF FIT HYPOTHESIS

This study was designed to test the goodness of fit hypothesis, which proposes that the effectiveness of different coping strategies will be dependent on the appraised controllability of the event. Problem-focused strategies are proposed to be adaptive in situations perceived to be controllable and maladaptive in situations perceived to be uncontrollable. In contrast, high levels of emotion-focused coping are proposed to have positive effects on adaptation in uncontrollable situations and negative effects in controllable situations. Data obtained from a sample of university students and community residents (n = 101), provided some support for these hypotheses. High relative levels of problem-focused coping were associated with favourable ratings of coping efficacy only in situations appraised to be controllable, while the negative effects of self-denigration were more marked in controllable than uncontrollable situations. There was, however, no support for the expectation that high levels of problem-focused coping would be maladaptive in situations appraised to be uncontrollable, or for the expectation that the use of emotion-focused coping would be adaptive in such situations. There was also no support for the proposal that the effectiveness of escapism (an emotion-focused strategy) would be moderated by the appraised controllability of the event. Irrespective of the level of appraised control, escapism was associated with low levels of adaptation.