COPING RESOURCES AND SITUATIONAL APPRAISALS AS PREDICTORS OF COPING BEHAVIOR

On the basis of Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) cognitive-phenomenological theory of stress and coping, it was proposed that coping behavior is influenced by (a) coping resources, including (internal) control beliefs, self-esteem, (low) neuroticism, (low) denial, and social support, and (b) variables that reflect the person's appraisal of the specific situation, including level of associated stress, situational control beliefs, self-efficacy, and event importance. A prospective study of 138 students facing a mid-year psychology exam was undertaken to examine the proposed effects of these variables. Both the coping resources and the situational variables were assessed prior to the exam (Time 1), while coping strategies (instrumental action, escape/self-blame, seeking emotional support, and minimization) were assessed immediately after the event. Internal control beliefs, self-esteem, judgements of self-efficacy, and high levels of stress, and importance emerged as distinctive predictors of instrumental action, whereas escape/self-blame was associated with (external) control beliefs, (high) denial, and low levels of self-efficacy. High levels of stress emerged as a distinctive predictor of seeking emotional support, as did neuroticism, self-esteem, and the availability of social support. The only significant predictors of minimization were two resource variables. These were the tendency to avoid facing problems (denial) and the absence of a supportive social network. The data revealed little evidence to support the proposal that situational appraisals mediate the relationships between resources and coping; however, there was some evidence to suggest that resources and situational appraisals have interactive effects on coping. There were a number of interactions (involving denial, (internal) control beliefs, social support, and self-esteem) which were consistent with the proposal that coping resources buffer the negative effects of threat (high stress, low situational control, low self-efficacy, and high importance) on coping; however, there were a number of others (involving neuroticism) that were not consistent with this proposal. The only evidence that suggested that low neuroticism had a buffering effect on coping occurred at low, rather than high, levels of threat. © 1991.