examining associations between coping with stress and personality and psychopathology

EXAMINING ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN COPING WITH STRESS AND

PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY ASSESSED BY THE MINNESOTA

MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY-2-RESTRUCTURED FORM

A dissertation submitted to

Kent State University in partial

Fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Ashley M. Holbert

August, 2014

ii

Dissertation written by

Ashley M. Holbert

Ph.D., Kent State University, 2014

M.A., Kent State University, 2010

B.A., Kent State University, 2006

Approved by

_________________________________ , Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Yossef Ben-Porath

_________________________________ , Members,

John Gunstad

_________________________________ ,

John Updegraff

_________________________________ ,

Susan Roxburgh

_________________________________ , Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Clare Stacey

Accepted by

_________________________________ , Chair, Department of Psychology

Maria Zaragoza

_________________________________ , Interim Dean, Arts and Sciences

James L. Blank

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. ix

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

The Person-Situation Debate and Contemporary Theories of Coping ....................3

Situational Theories ........................................................................................4

Dispositional Theories ....................................................................................6

Interaction of Situational and Dispositional Theories ....................................7

Brief Overview of Coping Assessment....................................................................8

Psychometric properties of Self-Report Coping Instruments .......................12

Applications of Coping Self-Report Instruments .................................................20

Coping and Personality .................................................................................20

Coping and Psychopathology .......................................................................27

The Current Investigation .....................................................................................34

The Reactions to Stress Inventory ................................................................34

The MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) .........................................................36

Goals of the Study .........................................................................................41

Conceptual Questions and Hypotheses of the Study ....................................42

METHOD ..........................................................................................................................52

Participants .............................................................................................................52

Measures ................................................................................................................53

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form

(MMPI-2-RF) ..............................................................................................53

The Reactions to Stress Inventory-Dispositional (RSI-D) ............................55

The Reactions to Stress Inventory-Situational (RSI-S) ................................56

Situational Characteristics ............................................................................57

Procedures ..............................................................................................................59

Statistical Analyses .......................................................................................60

RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................67

DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................148

Research Questions and Findings ........................................................................148

General Summary and Implications ....................................................................199

Limitations and Future Directions .......................................................................201

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................205

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1 The RSI Scales .......................................................................................................37

2 The MMPI-2-RF Scales .........................................................................................38

3 Predicted Associations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D Scales ....................43

4 Hypothesized Associations between the MMPPI2-RF and RSI-S Scales .............48

5 Correlations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D Scales .....................................68

6 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPPI-2-RF Scales in

Predicting RSI-D Problem of Confrontation ........................................................80

7 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting

RSI-D Problem Analysis........................................................................................81


RSI-D Self-Examination .......................................................................................81


RSI-D Self-Reassurance ........................................................................................82


RSI-D Seeking Advice ...........................................................................................83


RSI-D Seeking Emotional Support ........................................................................84


RSI-D Emotional Suppression ..............................................................................85


RSI-D Denial ........................................................................................................86


RSI-D Fantasizing .................................................................................................88

vi


RSI-D Avoidance ...................................................................................................88


RSI-D Passive Acceptance ....................................................................................89


RSI-D Over-Reaction.............................................................................................90


RSI-D Spirituality .................................................................................................91

19 Correlations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-S Scales......................................93


RSI-D Problem Confrontation .............................................................................103


RSI-D Problem Analysis......................................................................................104


RSI-D Self Examination ......................................................................................105


RSI-D Self-Reassurance ......................................................................................105


RSI-D Seeking Advice .........................................................................................107


RSI-D Emotional Support ...................................................................................108


RSI-D Emotional Suppression ............................................................................109


RSI-D Denial ......................................................................................................110


RSI-D Fantasizing ...............................................................................................111

vii


RSI-D Avoidance .................................................................................................112


RSI-D Passive Acceptance ..................................................................................113


RSI-D Minimization ...........................................................................................114


RSI-D Over-Reaction ..........................................................................................115

33 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational

Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Problem Confrontation Scores ...................118


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Problem Analysis Scores ...........................120


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Self-Examination Scores .............................122


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Self-Reassurance Scores .............................124


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Seeking Advice Score ................................126


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Emotional Support Scores .........................128


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Emotional Suppression Scores ...................130


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Denial Scores .............................................132


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Fantasizing Scores .....................................134


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Avoidance Scores ......................................136

viii


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Passive Acceptance Scores ........................138


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Minimization Scores ...................................140


Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Over Reaction Scores .................................142

46 Results of Z-Tests comparing RSI-D and RSI-S Z Scores by

MMPI-2-RF Scale ................................................................................................145

47 Supported Hypotheses about Associations Between the MMPI-2-RF

Scales and Dispositional Coping ........................................................................150

48 Supported Hypotheses About Associations between the MMPI-2-RF

Scales and Situational Coping ............................................................................176

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Yossef S. Ben-Porath, for his mentorship

and guidance throughout my academic career at Kent State University. He has

continually encouraged me to think critically, provide a solid rational for my thoughts

and ideas, and to convey my thoughts in a clear, concise, and accurate manner. My work

with Dr. Ben-Porath has also assisted me in strengthening my conceptualization of

research projects and in developing strong clinical and academic writing skills. Lastly, I

appreciate his support and guidance regarding my professional development.

I would also like to recognize several other individuals who provided unwavering

support and encouragement to me throughout my graduate career. Thank you to my

parents, Dr. Michael Smith and Patricia Smith, for their enduring love, continued belief

in me, and for showing and instilling in me the value of higher education and a strong

work ethic. The values you worked so hard to instill in me certainly helped to set me up

for success! Also, a special thank you to my husband, Douglas Holbert, who continues to

demonstrate the value in carving out your own career path and persevering to achieve

success. Doug, your strength and determination are a true source of inspiration and

encouragement to me. This endeavor would have seemed impossible without each of you

by my side and I am forever grateful and appreciate! Thank you!

A.M.H.

1

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few decades, researchers have debated about the types of strategies

that individuals use to cope with stressful encounters. Parker and Endler (1992) asserted

that individuals cope with stress by using the same strategies across situations, such as

using a set of preferred coping strategies. This phenomenon has been labeled

dispositional coping. On the other hand, Folkman and Lazarus (1985) argued that

individuals engage in situational coping to handle stress. This type of coping is

influenced by the specific characteristics of a given situation. Thus, the authors suggest

that the coping strategies utilized by an individual will vary and change across stressful

encounters. Folkman and Lazarus (1985) argued further that coping with stress is a

dynamic process, and that individuals utilize both dispositional and situational coping

responses to address stressful encounters.

Empirical research has demonstrated associations between personality

characteristics and dispositional as well as situational coping responses. For example,

numerous researchers have linked the Five Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1985)

constructs to various dispositional coping strategies (e.g., McWilliams, Cox, & Enns,

2003). Several FFM constructs have also been linked empirically to situational coping,

(e.g., Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-Leger, 2004). However, the specific patterns of

association between personality constructs and particular types of dispositional and

situational coping have varied across studies.

2

Previous research has also demonstrated associations between dispositional and

situational coping and psychopathology. More specifically, research findings have

indicated that both dispositional and situational coping responses are linked to general

psychological distress and specific psychological disorders (e.g., Punamaki, et al., 2008;

Segal, Hook, & Coolidge, 2001; Vollrath, Alnaes, & Torgersen, 1996). In contrast with

the personality and coping literature, the associations found between psychological

dysfunction and coping have been largely consistent, as similar types of dispositional and

situational coping responses have been linked to increased psychopathology.

The current study aims to expand on previous empirical research regarding

dispositional and situational coping responses and their associations with personality

characteristics and psychopathology. Specifically, much of the previous research has

focused narrowly on particular personality traits or certain psychological disorders (i.e.,

PTSD). This study will rely on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-

Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011) to assess a broad

range of personality and psychopathology variables. This study begins with a brief

overview of the person-situation debate and how that debate served as a framework for

the development of contemporary coping theories. Next, an overview of coping

assessment is provided, which includes a discussion of the psychometric properties of the

most common or most frequently used coping self-report instruments. The discussion of

coping self-report measures contains information about both psychometric strengths and

weaknesses found in previous research. Next, a review of the literature on coping and its

associations with personality and psychopathology is provided. This review focuses

3

particularly on the Five Factor Model and the more limited research conducted with the

Personality Psychopathology Five model (Harkness & McNulty, 1994). Research on

associations between psychopathology, including general psychological functioning and

symptoms of specific disorders, and coping is reviewed next. In the current investigation

portion of the study, a detailed description of the rationale behind and development of the

Reactions to Stress Inventory-Dispositional (RSI-D; Ben-Porath, unpublished) and the

Reactions to Stress Inventory-Situational (RSI-S; Windover, 2001) instruments is

provided, followed by a summary of previous research that incorporated the two

measures. A brief description of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-

Restructured Form is then provided, and differences between this MMPI instrument and

its earlier counterpart, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 are noted.

Finally, the goals, conceptual questions, and hypotheses of this study are discussed in

detail to provide a conceptual framework for this study.

The Person-Situation Debate and Contemporary Theories of Coping

The person-situation debate is inherent in the conceptualization of various coping

processes. For several decades, researchers have been interested in understanding and

analyzing the factors that influence behavior, including behavior that is consistent both

over time and across situations. Exploration of potential factors led to an ongoing debate,

where researchers, such as Mischel (1984), argued that an individual’s behavior is largely

shaped by the particular characteristics of a situation. On the other side of the debate,

some authors asserted that stable personality traits were responsible for the production of

a given behavior (Kenrick & Funder, 1988; Costa & McCrae, 1986). A third argument in

4

this debate is that behavior results from an interaction between personality traits and the

characteristics of the situation (Endler, 1983; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1980). Most

contemporary viewpoints have stressed the importance of integrating personality traits

and the characteristics of the situation when examining behavior (Funder, 2006; Mischel

& Shoda, 1995).

Both historic and contemporary coping theories have been influenced in part by

the person-situation debate, as the coping theories also seek to account for behavior;

however, coping theories focus more specifically on behaviors exhibited in response to

stressful circumstances. Additionally, the three main factors associated with the person-

situation debate, including personality traits, characteristics of the situation, and the

interaction of personality and the situation, closely parallel the three main categories of

contemporary coping models. Thus, the current coping theories may be considered a

specific instance of the person-situation debate.

Situational Theories

In line with the “situation” argument from the person-situation debate, situational

coping theory asserts that coping behavior is influenced by the unique conditions within a

particular situation. Situational coping theories state that an individual’s coping response

is dependent on the specific circumstances of a stressful situation, such as the presence or

absence of other individuals; therefore, as the characteristics of the situation vary, so will

the individual’s response to the stressful situation. Situational coping theories further

argue that the way an individual responds to a stressor changes across events due to those

5

unique characteristics of each event (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985); thus, consistent

behavior across stressful events is not necessarily expected.

A study by Folkman and Lazarus (1985) demonstrated that individuals exhibited

different coping responses across three phases of a stressful event (i.e., a college midterm

exam). The researchers administered the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ), a self-

report instrument designed to assess a broad range of cognitive, emotional, and

behavioral coping strategies, to their participants. Their participants completed the WCQ

at three different time points: before the exam (anticipatory stage), following the exam

before grades were received (waiting stage), and after grades were received (outcome

stage). The researchers hypothesized that the three different stages of the stressful event

would elicit different coping responses from the students at both the group and individual

levels. For example, in the outcome stage, students had to manage their thoughts and

feelings associated with the grade they earned on the test. Therefore, as all three stages

had different characteristics or factors at play, the researchers anticipated the students’

coping responses would vary accordingly. The results of their study demonstrated that all

students utilized both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies across the

three situations; however, students also used varying combinations of eight different

coping responses, as the stage of the study changed (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Thus,

the authors concluded that students modified their coping responses as a result of the

changing situational characteristics they encountered.

6

Dispositional Theories

Dispositional coping theories are closely linked to the “person” side of the

person-situation debate. Similar to personality characteristics or styles in the person-

situation debate, dispositional theories hold that individuals employ specific coping styles

when faced with a stressful situation, regardless of the situational characteristics present

(Parker & Endler, 1992). Researchers have proposed that dispositional coping may be the

result of an individual’s personality traits, which are believed to remain stable over time

and account for behavioral consistency across situations in dispositional coping (Carver,

Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Parker & Endler, 1992). Another potential explanation for

dispositional coping behaviors is that individuals develop a standard set of coping

responses to utilize in response to stressful encounters, rather than coping behaviors

being the sole product of stable personality traits (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989).

One study demonstrated that individuals employed dispositional coping

responses in reliable ways. Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) developed a self-report

instrument, the COPE, to address concerns that none of the existing coping measures

assessed dispositional coping styles. The instrument included a set of dispositional scales

that were used to investigate whether stable coping responses were utilized by individuals

in stressful encounters. The results of their study indicated that the instrument reliably

assessed dispositional coping strategies across several stressful situations. However,

stable coping strategies were also linked to longstanding personality characteristics, such

as optimism and trait anxiety. The authors concluded that individuals tend to utilize

preferred, stable (i.e., dispositional) coping strategies across stressful encounters;

7

however, they were unable to determine whether the dispositional coping strategies

resulted from personality characteristics or other underlying factors (Carver, Scheier, &

Weintraub, 1989). Therefore, whereas dispositional coping strategies have been

demonstrated in previous research, researchers have not yet determined the specific

underlying mechanisms that are responsible for the production of dispositional coping

behaviors.

Interaction of Situational and Dispositional Theories

The Cognitive Theory of Stress and Coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus

& Folkman, 1984) is a third type of coping model that unifies both dispositional and

situational viewpoints into a single theory by examining the interaction between

situational and dispositional coping behaviors. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) stated that

individual (i.e. dispositional) factors and environmental (i.e. situational) factors have a

dynamic and bi-directional association in a stressful encounter, suggesting that the factors

influence one another in various ways to produce coping behaviors. According to Lazarus

and Folkman (1984), the association between the dispositional and situational factors is

determined by the individual encountering the stressful circumstances through the

processes of primary and secondary appraisal.

Primary appraisal is the first step in this process, wherein the individual evaluates

whether a given stressor is personally threatening and what they stand to gain or lose

from the stressful encounter (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). If the stressor is considered

non-threatening during primary appraisal, no further action is taken. However, if the

stressor is determined to be potentially harmful, the individual will next engage in

8

secondary appraisal. Secondary appraisal occurs when the individual evaluates their

potential response options, which are aimed at either reducing the threat or improving the

likelihood of benefiting from the stressful encounter (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Primary and secondary appraisal culminates in the coping process. Folkman and

Lazarus (1985) defined coping as the cognitive and behavioral efforts made by an

individual to manage the demands of the person-environment interaction in a stressful

encounter. Thus, coping is the tangible action taken to manage a stressful encounter.

Lazarus and colleagues (1984) asserted that coping can be either situational,

dispositional, or an interaction of situational and dispositional factors, which

collaboratively determine the coping responses utilized.

Brief Overview of Coping Assessment

Coping was initially believed to be an unconscious process, where both adaptive

and maladaptive mechanisms resulted from stressful circumstances. The adaptive

responses were coined coping mechanisms, whereas the maladaptive responses were

labeled and considered defense mechanisms (Parker & Endler, 1992). For example, Freud

(1933) considered defense mechanisms to be a set of unconscious responses, such as

repression, rationalization, and projection, exhibited by an individual in response to threat

and/or conflict. He postulated that individuals did not recognize that they used these

processes to address negative life events, and he considered them to be pathological

responses because they typically resulted in maladaptive outcomes (Freud, 1933).

However, during the 1960’s and 1970’s, the conceptualization of coping shifted

from an unconscious process to a conscious one that can be measured empirically (Parker

9

& Endler, 1992). Although there were several previous attempts to assess coping, few

single, stand-alone coping self-report instruments had been created. Additionally, many

of the instruments or scales previously available had little empirical research to support

their use. Therefore, coping researchers sought to develop independent instruments to

assess more current coping conceptualizations and theories, using more

psychometrically-sound techniques.

For example, Byrne’s Repression-Sensitization Scale (Byrne, 1961) was one the

earliest and most widely known attempts to assess specific types of defense mechanisms

(Parker & Endler, 1992). Byrne (1961) argued that an individual’s defense mechanisms

existed on a continuum, with avoidance-type responses (i.e. repression) at one end and

approach-types responses (i.e. sensitization) at the opposite end of the spectrum. The

author proposed that individuals employing repression as a defense mechanism be

classified as internalizers, who often forgot anxiety-arousing situations, and preferred to

utilize avoidance and forgetting when faced with stressful stimuli (Byrne, 1961). On the

other hand, Byrne (1961) described individuals using sensitizing defenses as more likely

to employ the strategies of rationalization, intellectualization, and humor, and having the

ability to admit inadequacy and failure.

Byrne (1961) created the Repression-Sensitization Scale utilizing a combination

of six Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley,

1943) scales. The author selected items for the scale that were purported to measure the

repression-sensitization dimension based on previous research by Altrocchi, Parsons, and

Dickoff (1960). Altrocchi, Parsons, and Dickoff (1960) utilized the Denial subscale

10

(contained within scale 7) of the MMPI to assess repression, as this was consistent with

the previous research (cf. Gordon, 1959; Hatfield, 1958). However, these researchers

added the L and K scales to the Denial subscale because the subscale was too short to be

a stand-alone measure (Altrocchi, Parsons, & Dickoff, 1960). Altrocchi and colleagues

then selected Scale 7 to examine sensitizing mechanisms, citing its usefulness in

assessing the sensitizing defense mechanisms in previous research, such as that of

Hatfield (1958). Scores were also added from scale 2 and the Welsh’s Anxiety scale to

“help reduce measurement error” (Altrocchi, Parsons, & Dickoff, 1960, p. 68); however,

no specific information was provided regarding why scale 2 and Welsh’s Anxiety were

specifically selected. These scales were then configured into an index. Specifically, total

scores from scales 2 and 7, were added together with scores on the Welsh’s Anxiety

scale. Total scores from L and K were added to the Denial subscale total, and this

combination of scores was subtracted from the combined score derived from scales 2, 7,

and Welsh’ Anxiety scale.

Byrne (1961) attempted to account for problems with earlier coping assessment

instruments in developing his measure, including reducing the item overlap between the

MMPI scales contained in Altrocchi and colleagues’ (1960) index and simplifying scale

interpretation. Therefore, Byrne (1961) created a new scoring system and slightly

modified the 1960 scale to correct for the problems identified with the earlier version of

the scale (Altrocchi, Parsons, & Dickoff, 1960). Byrne’s (1961) scoring system ensured

that all items were only scored once and that items scored inconsistently were omitted.

Additionally, scores were somewhat easier to interpret, as high scores were representative

11

of individuals using sensitization and low scores were indicative of individuals using

repression.

Regarding psychometric properties, Byrne (1961) examined reliability and

demonstrated that his scale’s internal consistency estimate was .88. To determine test-

retest reliability estimates, Byrne (1961) administered the instrument to 75 college

students on two occasions approximately six weeks apart. The results indicated that test-

retest reliability estimate was .88.

Byrne (1961) correlated the scores of his scale with several other instruments

believed to assess other types of defense mechanisms, such as facilitation and inhibition.

The results indicated that the Repression-Sensitization Scale was significantly associated

with the defenses of facilitation and inhibition (r = .76), which are two proposed defense

mechanisms believed to parallel the repression-sensitization dimension (Byrne, 1961).

Consistent with Byrne’s (1961) hypotheses, sensitization was also significantly

associated with negative self-descriptions (r = .62) from the Self Activity Inventory

(Worchel, 1957). This particular finding was consistent with previous research that

demonstrated that repressing individuals tended to describe themselves in a more positive

manner than sensitizers (Altrocchi, Parsons, & Dickoff, 1960). Scores on Byrne’s (1961)

scale were also associated with deviant-response bias (r = .42; r = .33) in an adjective

checklist completed by two different groups of college students. This result suggested

that both sensitizers’ and repressors’ defense mechanisms influenced the way they

responded to adjectives on the checklist (Byrne, 1961). The results further indicated that

Byrne’s (1961) scale was not significantly associated with a measure of intelligence,

12

which he claimed was consistent with previous research. Thus, the author concluded that

this scale demonstrated adequate to good reliability and construct validity (Byrne, 1961).

Whereas Byrne’s (1961) Repression-Sensitization Scale significantly improved

research on specific defense mechanisms, his scale was not a true stand-alone instrument,

as it could not be administered without completing the full MMPI, and the scale was not

part of the routine MMPI scoring, which was also problematic.

To advance coping assessment research, numerous independent self-report

measures were developed to assess individual coping behaviors during the 1980’s and

1990’s. These instruments asked the test-taker to provide information about the specific

types of coping strategies they employed during a particularly stressful encounter.

Several of the measures developed assessed both situational and dispositional coping

strategies; however, some instruments assessed only one of the two common strategies.

Examples of the more prominent coping self-report assessment instruments created

during that timeframe include: Ways of Coping Checklist/ Ways of Coping Questionnaire

(WCC; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; WCQ; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988), Miller Behavioral

Style Scale (MBSS; Miller & Mangan, 1983), Life Situations Inventory (LSI; Feifel &

Strack, 1989), Coping Style Scale (CSS; Nowack, 1989), and the COPE (Carver, Scheier,

& Weintraub, 1989).

Psychometric Properties of Self-Report Coping Instruments

The Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC) is one of the earliest self-report coping

instruments developed by Folkman and Lazarus (1980), and it was created to assess

Folkman and Lazarus’ (1980; 1984) Cognitive Theory of Stress of Coping. The original

13

WCC was revised in 1988 and became the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ;

Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). The revised WCQ contained eight scales, which are grouped

into one problem-focused, six emotion-focused, and one mixed problem and emotion-

focused subscale, and was intended to measure a broad range of cognitive and behavioral

coping strategies.

The test-retest reliability and discriminant and convergent validity of the WCC

and WCQ are unknown, and have yet to be examined systematically. Additionally, the

underlying factor structure of the WCQ has been found to be somewhat sample

dependent, as several studies have demonstrated 8-factor solutions (Aldwin & Revenson,

1987; Smyth & Williams, 1991; Atkinson & Violato, 1993), 7-factor solutions (Mishel &

Sorenson, 1993), and 4-factor solutions (Parker et al., 1993).

The Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS) was developed by Miller (1980) to

create an empirically supported coping self-report instrument. It is intended to

discriminate between individuals who cope by seeking out additional information (i.e.

monitors) and those who distract themselves from the stressful event (i.e. blunters). The

instrument describes four stressful situations, and each is followed by eight questions

rated on a yes/no response format (Miller, 1980), with half of the questions being related

to monitoring responses and the remaining questions being related to blunting strategies.

The MBSS scales demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency reliability,

with estimates ranging from .67 to .98 in three different samples (Miller, 1987; Garvin &

Kim, 2000). Miller and Mischel (1986) calculated test-retest reliability coefficients in an

14

unpublished manuscript and the results demonstrated test-retest estimates ranging from

.72 for the monitoring subscale to .75 for the blunting subscale (Miller, 1987).

The construct validity of the MBSS was examined in several studies. Muris and

Schouten (1994) factor analyzed MBSS responses and demonstrated that a 2-factor

solution was most appropriate, with one monitoring and one blunting factor. Garvin and

Kim (2000) provided support for the convergent validity of the MBSS by demonstrating

moderate associations, that ranged from .30 to .51, between the MBSS monitoring

subscale and a measure of preference for information in short-term illnesses. The authors

concluded that the results of their study were consistent with previous research that a

preference for obtaining information during an illness was linked to the coping response

of monitoring (Garvin & Kim, 2000). Finally, the MBSS demonstrated adequate

discriminant validity, as significant associations were not present between the MBSS and

measures of trait anxiety and depression, Byrne’s Repression-Sensitization Scale, and a

measure of Type A personality (Miller, 1987; Miller & Mangan, 1983).

Feifel and Strack (1989) developed the Life Situations Inventory (LSI) to assess

coping responses in middle-aged (age 40-64) and elderly (age 65-92) individuals, across

five different situations involving conflict (i.e., decision making, loss in competition,

dealing with frustration, conflict with an authority-type figure, and disagreement with a

peer). The instrument examines three major coping strategies - problem-solving,

avoidance, and resignation (Feifel & Strack, 1989). The psychometric characteristics of

the inventory have been largely unreported. To date, no empirical research has explored

the test-retest reliability, and the construct, criterion, or content validity of the instrument.

15

The Coping Style Scale (CSS) was developed by Nowack (1989) to assess four

coping styles on the approach-avoidance continuum, including intrusive positive

thoughts, intrusive negative thoughts, avoidance, and problem-focused coping. Nowack’s

(1989) instrument does not assess any type of coping strategy aimed at reducing the

negative emotions associated with a stressor. The test-retest reliability of the CSS has not

yet been examined and validity information for the CSS has not yet been examined or

published in empirical research.

Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) developed the COPE to assess a more

comprehensive array of coping facets from a more theoretically-based perspective. The

COPE scales assess both situational and dispositional coping because the authors

believed that both variables influenced the production of behavior in response to a

stressful encounter (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). The items on both the

dispositional and situational COPE are identical, but the situational version of the COPE

instructed test takers to reference a single, specific stressful encounter and report the

coping behaviors they used to manage their stress.

Results of several studies have suggested varying factor solutions with the

number of factors ranging from 8 to 13 (Costa & Gouveia, 2008; Kallasmaa & Pulver,

2000; Kleijn, VanHeck, & VanWaning, 2000; Zhang, Huang, & Ye, 1998). Only one

study, conducted by Sica and colleagues (1997), produced the same 13-factor solution as

Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989). Additionally, whereas the test authors report that

situational COPE scales generally possess psychometric properties similar to that of the

dispositional COPE scales, the authors do not provide the data in support of their claims.

16

Thus, specific psychometric information about the situational COPE scales is largely

unavailable.

The Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI; Amirkhan, 1990) was designed to address

the strengths and weaknesses associated with both the theoretical and empirical

approaches to coping scale construction. Amirkhan (1990) developed the instrument to

assess three basic coping strategies, including problem-solving, seeking social support,

and avoidance. The problem-solving dimension assessed by the CSI is akin to Folkman

and Lazarus’ (1980) problem-focused coping, seeking social support strategies include

actively searching for human contact from others, and avoidance strategies were

considered to be coping responses that involved some form of withdrawal (Amirkhan,

1990).

Amirkhan (1990) computed alphas for each of the three scales CSI scales and

results indicated high internal reliability, with values ranging from .84 to .93. Reliability

coefficients for the CSI were also calculated in a sample of college students and members

from the community, and the test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from .77 to .86

(Amirkhan, 1990).

Regarding the construct validity of the CSI, a majority of studies have

demonstrated that a 3-factor solution best fit the responses on the CSI (e.g., Desmond,

Shevlin, & MacLachlan, 2006). However, Ager and MacLachlan (1998) demonstrated

that a 4-factor solution was most appropriate in their study, as the authors suggested the

avoidance factor should be split into two separate factors of withdrawal and distraction.

17

Amirkhan (1990) examined the convergent validity of the CSI by correlating

responses on the CSI and WCC, which also measures coping behaviors and strategies.

Associations between the conceptually-related scales of the CSI and WCC were in the

small to moderate range (r = .27 to .55). However, due to the substantial item overlap

between the WCC and CSI instruments, correlations are likely to be somewhat inflated

(Amirkhan, 1990). The test author also examined the discriminant validity of the CSI,

and, as anticipated, negative correlations were found between negative emotions and

behaviors, such as depression, and the problem-solving scale of the CSI (Amirkhan,

1990).

With regard to criterion validity, Amirkhan (1994) demonstrated that an

individual’s CSI scores corresponded to their self-selected coping group chosen prior to

experiencing electrical shock. Amirkhan (1994) also found that students enrolled in a

Critical Thinking course demonstrated more problem-solving behaviors and fewer

avoidance actions at the end of the semester; while, their counterparts enrolled in an

Introductory Psychology course did not demonstrate any significant changes over the

semester. Finally, Amirkhan (1994) also illustrated that individuals just beginning

substance abuse treatment reported engaging in more avoidance coping behaviors on the

CSI; whereas individuals enrolled in treatment for a longer period of time reported using

more problem-solving and seeking social support strategies.

The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS; Endler & Parker, 1990a)

was created to provide a comprehensive assessment of coping responses, including those

aimed at addressing the stressor itself, the negative emotions associated with the stressor,

18

or avoiding the stressor, from a dispositional perspective. The test authors also intended

to develop a more psychometrically-sound coping instrument in an attempt to address the

problematic psychometric characteristics associated with other coping instruments, such

as unstable, variable factor structures, low reliability estimates, and menial convergent

and discriminant validity. To achieve this end, Endler and Parker (1990a) incorporated

both theoretical and empirical approaches into test development of the CISS, and the final

instrument contained 48 items, rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The authors classified

items into the factors: Task-Oriented Coping, Emotion-Oriented Coping, and Avoidance,

and the Avoidance factor was subdivided into a Distraction and a Social Diversion factor

(Endler & Parker, 1990b).

A situation-specific version of the CISS, the CISS-SSC, was developed by Endler,

Kantor, and Parker (1994). The authors modified the CISS by making the instructions

situation-specific and reducing the total number of items to 21. CISS items were removed

based on low item-total correlations demonstrated in a series of studies with college

undergraduates (Endler, Kantor, & Parker, 1994). The CISS-SSC was purported to assess

the same three broadband coping dimensions as that of the CISS, but the Avoidance

factor was no longer subdivided.

The CISS has demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency reliability, with

coefficients ranging .70 to .92 across several studies (Endler & Parker, 1990a; 1994).

Internal consistency estimates for the CISS-SSC were demonstrated to range from .70 to

.84 in a study by Endler and Parker (1990a). The test authors also examined the test-retest

reliability of the CISS, and their results showed test-retest estimates ranged from .51 to

19

.73 (Endler & Parker, 1990a). Test-retest reliability has not been explored with the CISS-

SSC.

Several studies (e.g., Desmond, Shevlin, & MacLachlan, 2006; Rafnsson, et al.,

2006) have examined the factor structure of the CISS using diverse samples. The great

majority of these studies demonstrated factor structures that parallel the 3-factor structure

illustrated by Endler and Parker (1990a; 1993; 1994).

The test authors investigated the convergent construct validity of the CISS by

correlating it with two alternative coping assessment instruments, namely the CSI and the

Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ; Bond & Vaillant, 1986). As anticipated, moderate

associations were demonstrated between the CISS Task-Oriented scale and its conceptual

counterparts on the CSI and DSQ, and a similar pattern was demonstrated for the

Emotion-Oriented and Avoidance CISS scales (Endler & Parker, 1994).

Endler and Parker (1994) utilized yet another approach to examine construct

validity by exploring associations between CISS scores and symptoms of

psychopathology demonstrated to be present by previous empirical research (cf. Endler,

1988; Nowack, 1989). The results of the study suggested that, as hypothesized, the

emotion-oriented and distraction CISS scales were highly associated with psychiatric

symptomatology and moderately associated with depression (Endler & Parker, 1990a).

Conversely, the Task-Oriented and Social Diversion coping responses were negatively

associated with depression.

The predictive validity of the CISS was examined in a study by Endler and Parker

(1994). Two samples completed the CISS and the CISS-SSC several months apart and

20

each sample was directed to reference a different stressor. The results demonstrated

moderate to high correlations (i.e., .40 to .71) between the Task-Oriented, Emotion-

Oriented, and Avoidance scales of the CISS and the CISS-SSC. Additionally, several

significant, but smaller negative correlations were found between CISS and CISS-SSC

scales that were not conceptually related (i.e. Task-Oriented Coping and Avoidance). The

authors concluded that the dispositional coping styles assessed by the CISS are linked to

congruent types of situation-specific coping, as measured by the CISS-SSC (Endler &

Parker, 1994).

Applications of Coping Self-Report Instruments

Since their development approximately two decades ago, the coping self-report

instruments have been applied in two main categories of research. The first area of

research includes using the coping self-report instruments to explore the associations

between coping behaviors and personality variables. Another application of the coping

self-report instruments involves the investigation of potential links between the coping

process and psychological symptoms and disorders. These two areas of research have a

long-standing history, and they continue to be investigated in more contemporary

research using coping measures developed more recently as well.

Coping and Personality

An extensive empirical research literature focuses on examining and quantifying

associations between personality variables and coping processes. Much of the research in

this area has focused on examining associations between the Five-Factor Model (FFM;

21

Costa & McCrae, 1985) and coping responses. McWilliams, Cox and Enns (2003) noted

that the FFM was typically used in this line research because of the comprehensiveness of

the model and Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007) argued that the FFM traits are largely

stable across cultures and age groups, which they offered as an explanation for the

model’s continued application in current research.

One study that examined associations between the FFM, as assessed by the NEO-

PI-R, and dispositional coping responses, as measured by the CISS, was conducted by

McWilliams, Cox, and Enns (2003). The results of this study demonstrated that the

personality traits of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism

were each linked to dispositional coping responses of the CISS. Additionally, the authors

expanded their findings by also examining associations between personality traits and

psychological problems. McWilliams, Cox, and Enns’ (2003) results indicated that

Neuroticism was associated with increased levels of psychopathology; whereas,

Conscientiousness and Extraversion were linked to lower levels of psychological distress.

Therefore, the authors suggested that personality traits are linked to both dispositional

coping and psychopathology. However, they also argued that personality traits alone do

not adequately predict psychopathology, but rather a combination of personality traits and

dispositional coping responses best predicted psychological distress (McWilliams, Cox,

& Enns, 2003).

Another study that examined coping behaviors and personality variables was

conducted by Jang, et al. (2007). These authors administered a shortened version of the

Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations, the CISS-SF, and the NEO Five Factor

22

Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) to 171 pairs of adult twins. The CISS-SF

(Cohan, Jang, & Stein, 2006) is a 21-item version of the CISS that assesses Emotion-

Oriented, Task-Oriented, and Social Diversion and Distraction (i.e. avoidance) coping

behaviors from a dispositional perspective. Jang and colleagues (2007) were interested in

investigating the associations between coping styles and personality variables.

The results of the study suggested that personality variables account for a

significant amount of the variance (i.e., 9%) in predicting dispositional coping behaviors.

Specifically, the results indicated that the personality traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion,

Openness, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness were each associated with dispositional

coping responses (Jang, et al., 2007). Additionally, the personality trait of Neuroticism

demonstrated the largest number of associations with various types of dispositional

coping. The associations of the largest magnitude were demonstrated between

Neuroticism and Extraversion and emotion-oriented, task-oriented, and social diversion

dispositional coping (Jang, et al., 2007). However, a combination of Neuroticism and

Extraversion was most strongly associated with dispositional distraction. Therefore, the

authors concluded that the personality traits of Neuroticism and Extraversion most

strongly influence the individual’s preferred set of coping strategies used to handle

stressful situations.

Bouchard, Guillemette, and Landry-Leger (2004) explored associations between

situational coping, dispositional coping, and personality traits. The authors administered

the COPE to assess dispositional coping styles, the WCQ to examine situational coping

strategies, and the NEO-FFI to measure personality traits to 233 college undergraduate

23

students. Bouchard and colleagues’ (2004) results suggested that personality traits, when

evaluated as a group, added incrementally, beyond gender, in predicting both situational

and dispositional coping behaviors, and personality traits were demonstrated to share

almost equal amount of variance with both situational and dispositional coping.

Specifically, Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were each

associated with the use of both dispositional and situational coping; however, the each

personality trait exhibited a slightly different pattern of associations with different

dispositional and situational coping responses. In particular, dispositional and situational

problem solving were both negatively associated with Neuroticism and positively

associated with Extraversion and Conscientiousness. Similarly, dispositional and

situational distancing-avoidance was positively associated with Neuroticism, negatively

associated with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-

Leger, 2004). The authors concluded that particular personality traits moderately

influence the types of situational and dispositional coping behaviors employed by an

individual (Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-Leger, 2004).

Finally, a meta-analysis conducted by Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007)

provided a comprehensive review of the studies that examined relations between

personality and coping. The studies they examined were conducted between 1980 and

2004, and included 124 published studies, with 165 independent samples. Connor-Smith

and Flachsbart (2007) required the studies included in the meta-analysis to incorporate

some specific measures of the FFM and coping responses. The authors argued that

empirical studies in the area of coping and personality had provided mixed results;

24

therefore, Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007) sought to examine these studies in more

detail in an attempt to make more meaningful distinctions regarding the associations

between personality and coping.

The results of the meta-analysis conveyed several important findings.

Specifically, all of the FFM personality traits, including Extraversion, Conscientiousness,

Openness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism each significantly predicted both

dispositional and situational coping. The results of the study also showed that the

personality traits of Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness tended to be more

strongly associated with dispositional versus situational coping strategies; however,

Openness and Conscientiousness demonstrated comparable associations across both

dispositional and situational coping responses. It was also determined that the personality

traits typically more strongly predicted dispositional versus situational coping responses

(Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). Also, the pattern of results indicated that particular

personality traits tend to be associated with specific types of coping responses. For

example, coping strategies focused on problem solving were associated with

Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness and inversely associated with

Neuroticism. Another example is coping focused on addressing negative emotions was

negatively linked to Extraversion and positively linked to Neuroticism (Connor-Smith &

Flachsbart, 2007). Thus, the authors argued that personality traits more strongly predicted

dispositional coping responses in their study, and this finding has been largely supported

in previous research (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007).

25

In summary, previous research has established that personality traits are linked to

both dispositional and situational coping. However, it appears that the connection

between personality traits and dispositional coping responses may be stronger than that

between personality traits and situational coping. It remains unclear whether the

association between personality traits and dispositional coping is just simply stronger due

to the engrained nature of both constructs or whether fewer studies have systematically

investigated associations between personality and situational coping. Regardless, future

studies would benefit from including measures of both dispositional and situational

coping to lend some clarity to their associations with personality traits.

The Personality Psychopathology Five Model and coping. The Personality

Psychopathology Five model (PSY-5), developed by Harkness and McNulty (1994),

offers an alternate dimensional view of personality. Specifically, Harkness and McNulty

(1994) argued that the FFM was more a measure of normal personality functioning and

the model was less useful when applied in clinical settings, as it did not adequately assess

abnormal personality functioning. Harkness, McNulty, and Ben-Porath (1995) created the

MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology 5 (PSY-5) Scales to assess personality traits

associated with both normal functioning and clinically significant difficulties. One

advantage of these scales over previous personality models is that they represent a

dimensional approach to assessing abnormal personality markers, predicated on the

notion that these phenomena are continuous, rather than taxonic (Graham, 2006).

The PSY-5 Scales of Aggressiveness (AGGR) is a measure of offensive and

instrumental forms of aggression motivated by the desire for power and influence

26

(Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995). Psychoticism (PSYC) assesses a disconnect

from reality, including having hallucinations and delusions (Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-

Porath, 1995). Disconstraint (DISC) measures maladaptive personality characteristics

linked to impulsivity, risk-taking, and non-conformity with traditional beliefs and

behaviors (Graham, 2006). Lower levels of this dimension are associated with over-

control. Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism (NEGE) assesses a predisposition to

experience emotions, such as worry, guilt, and sadness (Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-

Porath, 1995). Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality (INTR) is linked to a limited

capacity to experience joy and positive emotions and being socially introverted at the

high end and an increased a capacity to experience joy and positive emotions and being

sociable and having energy at lower levels.

To date, only a single study has examined associations between coping responses

and the PSY-5 scales. Windover (2001) explored the ability of personality traits to predict

situational and dispositional coping behaviors. The results of the analyses demonstrated

that the Aggressiveness (AGGR) scale was not significantly associated with any

situational coping behaviors; however AGGR was related to a dispositional tendency to

cope with a stressful encounter by examining one’s role in its production. In addition,

both Psychoticism and Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism were related to both

situational and dispositional avoidance types of coping responses. The Disconstraint scale

was associated with situational and dispositional coping, specifically turning to religion

as a way to cope with stress. Finally, PSY-5 Introversion demonstrated significant

negative associations with situational and dispositional coping responses focused on

27

understanding and reducing the stressor, and several positive associations were

demonstrated between the Introversion scale and situational and dispositional coping

strategies characterized by handling the negative emotions resulting from the stressor.

Although Windover’s (2001) results parallel previous research of coping and

personality traits in some areas they diverge in others. For example, the hypothesis that

the situational coping responses of Problem Analysis, Self-Examination, Passive

Acceptance, and Minimization of the RSI-S would be significantly associated with

personality, as assessed by the PSY-5 Scales was not supported (Windover, 2001).

Additionally, Windover (2001) anticipated associations to be present between the PSY-5

Aggressiveness scale and the situational coping scales of the RSI-S; however, the results

of the study did not support the hypothesis. Therefore, additional research exploring the

PSY-5 model and coping is warranted in order to gain a better understanding of the

associations between normal and abnormal personality traits and coping.

Coping and Psychopathology

Another large area of coping research has focused on the exploring associations

between coping behaviors and psychopathology. Research on coping and

psychopathology has tended to fall into two general categories: coping and general

psychopathology and coping and specific psychological disorders.

Coping and general psychopathology. Several studies have explored

associations between dispositional and situational coping strategies and general

psychopathology or distress. One of the general trends demonstrated by these studies is

28

that particular dispositional and situational coping strategies, namely those focused on

addressing negative emotions associated with the stressor, were typically associated with

higher levels of general distress and psychopathology (e.g., Flett, Blankstein, &

Obertynski, 1996; Vollrath, Alnaes, & Torgersen, 1996). Additionally, other dispositional

coping responses, typically those aimed at reducing or managing the stressor itself, have

been demonstrated to be inversely associated with symptoms of psychopathology and

positively linked to more adaptive functioning (e.g., Vollrath, Alnaes, & Torgersen,

1996; McWilliams, Cox, & Enns, 2003). However, this same pattern of associations has

not been demonstrated for situational coping.

For example, McWilliams, Cox, and Enns (2003) investigated associations

between dispositional coping strategies and general symptoms of psychological

dysfunction. The results showed that dispositional coping responses focused on actively

addressing the stressor itself were inversely associated with psychological difficulties;

while the opposite pattern of associations was present between dispositional coping

aimed at reducing negative emotions and psychopathology (McWilliams, Cox, & Enns,

2003). Finally, the dispositional coping mechanism of distraction, in which an individual

uses other activities as a means to distract themselves from thinking about the stressor,

was not found to be associated with psychopathology. McWilliams, Cox, and Enns

(2003) interpreted the results of their study as evidence to support that various forms of

dispositional coping responses are differentially associated with psychological distress.

Additionally, a study conducted by Punamaki and colleagues (2008) explored

links between dispositional and situational coping responses and a variety of

29

psychological symptoms, including those associated with PTSD, depressive disorders,

somatoform disorders, and general psychological distress in a sample of Palestinian

political ex-prisoners. The results of this study indicated that dispositional coping styles

were associated with PTSD symptomatology, as well as general psychological distress.

On the other hand, situational coping responses were linked to PTSD and somatoform

symptomatology and general psychological distress (Punamaki, et al., 2008).

Additionally, the types of dispositional and situational responses found to be linked to

psychological dysfunction varied across the different psychological difficulties. For

example, the dispositional constructive and distraction coping responses were associated

with general psychological distress; whereas, the situational coping responses of

avoidance and denial were significantly associated with general psychological distress

(Punamaki, et al., 2008).

Coping and specific psychological disorders. Empirical research has

demonstrated two broad findings regarding associations between Post Traumatic Stress

Disorder (PTSD) symptoms and coping with stress. First, associations between PTSD

symptoms and situational coping strategies have been explored using combat-related

samples (Fairbank, Hansen, & Fitterling, 1991). Fairbank, Hansen, and Fitterling (1991)

compared the coping responses of three samples of veterans, including one group of

combat veterans with PTSD, one group of combat veterans without PTSD, and one group

of veterans who did not experience any traumatic events or actual combat (i.e., non-

combat veterans). The results of their study conveyed that each group used slightly

different situational coping responses to deal with a specific situation of combat-related

30

stress. For example, the combat veterans with PTSD used more situational coping

strategies more frequently than any other group and the non-combat veterans tended to

use situational coping responses directed towards the stressor itself (Fairbank, Hansen, &

Fitterling, 1991).

Additionally, associations have been reported between dispositional coping

strategies and self-reported symptoms of PTSD in a sample of law enforcement officers

(Haisch & Meyers, 2004). Specifically, Haisch and Meyers (2004) demonstrated that law

enforcement officers employing the dispositional coping strategies: turning to

alcohol/drugs, avoidance, seeking emotional support or venting emotions, and failing to

address the stressor itself also reported experiencing higher levels of PTSD symptoms.

Thus, the authors argued that individuals utilizing those dispositional coping styles were

at an increased likelihood to develop psychopathology, particularly symptoms of PTSD

(Haisch & Meyers, 2004).

With regard to symptoms of depression, Catanzaro, Horaney, and Creasy (1995)

investigated links between situational coping responses and symptoms of depression in

an elderly community sample. The authors demonstrated that situational avoidance and

ventilation coping responses were both positively associated with symptoms of

depression (Catanzaro, Horaney, & Creasy, 1995). However, situational ventilation

coping responses were demonstrated to be independently associated with depressive

symptoms; whereas, situational avoidant coping was only significant when examined in

conjunction with other coping responses. Additionally, the authors also asserted that

situational coping responses focused on addressing negative emotions were also

31

associated with higher levels of depressive symptomatology, and this finding was

supported by previous research (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1986; Catanzaro, Horaney, &

Creasy, 1995).

Flett, Blankstein, and Obertynski (1996) conducted a study similar to that of

Catanzaro, Horaney and Creasy (1995), except these authors examined links between

dispositional coping and depressive symptomatology using a college undergraduate

sample. The authors utilized a correlational design to examine the associations and the

findings from this study demonstrated that there were no significant associations present

between the dispositional coping strategies of diversion and avoidance and symptoms of

depression (Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996). Additionally, the results suggested

that depressive symptoms were positively linked to the dispositional coping responses

focused on reducing negative emotions and the dispositional coping response of

distraction. Finally, Flett, Blankstein, and Obertynski (1996) demonstrated that a negative

association was present between depression and those dispositional coping strategies

aimed at addressing the stressor itself. The strongest association was present between

dispositional coping strategies intended to reduce an individual’s negative emotions and

symptoms of depression, and this finding is consistent with Catanzaro, Horaney, and

Creasy’s (1995) research with situational coping and symptoms of depression.

Additionally, Vollrath, Alnaes, and Torgersen (1996) examined links between

dispositional coping responses and symptoms of nine Axis I disorders. The results of

their study indicated that the patterns of associations between the various types of

dispositional coping and symptomatology varied across the different disorders. More

32

specifically, engagement in dispositional active coping, or coping focused towards

addressing the stressor itself, was inversely associated with symptoms of anxiety,

somatoform, dysthymia, and thought disorders, and alcohol dependence (Vollrath,

Alnaes, & Torgersen, 1996). Additionally, the dispositional coping response of

distraction was linked to increased symptoms of dysthymia, thought, and delusional

disorders. Furthermore, Vollrath, Alnaes, and Torgersen (1996) demonstrated that

dispositional disengagement was linked to increased symptoms associated with thought

disorder. Similarly, the results of the study also suggested that use of dispositional

venting of emotions as a way to cope with stress was associated with symptoms of

anxiety, somatoform, depressive, and thought disorders, as well as alcohol dependence.

Finally, the dispositional coping strategy of using alcohol and drugs to cope with stress

was linked to increased thought and delusional disorder symptomatology. Interestingly,

bipolar/manic symptoms were not predicted by coping in the any of the analyses

conducted in this study, and the authors indicated the lack of findings with bipolar/manic

symptoms is likely due to the instability of the disorder (Vollrath, Alnaes, & Torgerson,

1996). Finally, Vollrath, Alnaes, and Torgersen (1996) argued that the results of their

study demonstrate that the dispositional coping styles of focusing on and venting of

emotions and drug and/or alcohol use are two of the most significant predictors of mental

health deterioration.

With regard to personality disorders, a study by Segal and colleagues (2001)

investigated associations between personality disorders and dispositional coping styles in

both younger and older adults. The authors administered the COPE and the Coolidge

33

Axis II Inventory (CATI; Coolidge, 1993) to assess coping behaviors and personality

disorder symptoms. The results indicated that younger adults reported higher levels of

Cluster A and Cluster B Personality Disorders symptoms and demonstrated a tendency to

use the dispositional coping responses of humor, avoidance, and alcohol/drug use (Segal,

Hook, & Coolidge, 2001). However, the results suggested older adults reported higher

levels of Cluster A and Cluster C Personality Disorder symptomatology and were more

likely to employ the dispositional coping responses of religion and restraint (Segal, Hook,

& Coolidge, 2001). Therefore, the authors interpreted the results of their study as

evidence to suggest that younger adults with higher levels of personality disorder

symptoms have more difficulty coping with stressful encounters; whereas, older adults

have less difficulty coping with stressful encounters and tend to experience fewer

psychological problems (Segal, Hook, & Coolidge, 2001).

Whereas previous empirical research has examined relations between coping

responses and psychopathology, particularly PTSD, many of the affective and thought

disorders, such as anxiety and psychotic disorders, are underrepresented in this line of

research. Therefore, prospective studies should include alternate Axis I and Axis II

conditions to expand upon the understanding of associations between coping and

psychological dysfunction.

34

The Current Investigation

The Reactions to Stress Inventory

The coping self-report instruments reviewed earlier have significant psychometric

shortcomings, which prompted the development of the Reactions to Stress Inventory-

Dispositional (RSI-D; Ben-Porath, unpublished). The measure was designed to address

specific psychometric concerns about the narrow conceptual focus used in developing the

existing coping instruments, the limited reliabilities of the measures, and the fact that

assessment of protocol validity was completely ignored by these instruments.

The existing coping instruments tended to focus on the broad band or higher-order

coping constructs, but they did not adequately assess or distinguish between cognitive

efforts and actual behaviors associated with coping responses. Therefore, these

instruments do not allow for specific behavioral predictions. Furthermore, concerns

regarding the reliability of the existing coping measures were present because the

individual scales contained within a given instrument tended to be quite short, and shorter

scales can be less reliable than longer ones. Finally, none of the current coping self-report

measures included scales that assessed for possible invalid responding, and the

instruments were scored and interpreted regardless of the response style used by the test

taker in completing the measure.

The RSI-D was developed through an iterative process focused on assessing very

specific coping responses while improving the psychometric characteristics of the

instrument. The first stage of development involved collecting written narratives from

35

college students regarding how they coped with a stressful situation in the past. Content

analyses of these narratives resulted in a list of 196 possible coping responses and these

items were combined to create a self-report instrument rated on a Likert scale. This

preliminary RSI-D was then administered to several groups of college students and the

results were factor analyzed to examine the underlying structure of the RSI-D (Windover,

2001). The RSI-D was then revised, as items were rewritten, omitted, and added to the

instrument to more adequately assess the dimensions demonstrated in the factor analyses.

The iterative development process led to the final version of the RSI-D, which contains

136 items rated on a five-point Likert scale.

One unique feature of the RSI-D, compared to other coping instruments, is the

inclusion of a set of validity scales to examine the interpretability of scores in individual

protocols. The Inconsistent Responding Scale assesses whether the test taker engaged in

non-content based random responding. The Inconsistent Affirmation Scale measures the

test-taker’s frequency of reporting coping responses inconsistently; while; the

Inconsistent Negation Scale examines the frequency with which the test-taker

inconsistently denied engaging in certain coping responses.

Additionally, building on the framework of the RSI-D, the Reactions to Stress

Inventory- Situational (RSI-S; Windover, 2001), was developed to assess situational

coping responses. The RSI-D items were reworded to the past tense to allow the test-

taker to reference a specific situation and a sixth response option was added to the Likert

scale to account for the possibility that certain coping responses may not be applicable in

a given situation (Windover, 2001).The RSI-S shares the strengths of the RSI-D, in that it

36

assesses protocol validity and provides comprehensive coverage of the various coping

constructs. Table 1 provides a list and description of each RSI scale, and both the RSI-D

and RSI-S contain the same scales. The RSI-D and RSI-S were used in a study by

Windover (2001) to examine interactions between dispositional and situational coping

and personality characteristics. The results of the study demonstrated that dispositional

and situational coping responses were linked to personality characteristics and also that

certain types of coping responses tend to be more stable, while others are more

influenced by the characteristics of the particular situation (Windover, 2001).

The MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form)

The measure of personality and psychopathology used in the current investigation

is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF;

Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011; Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011). The MMPI-2

RF is a 338-item revised version of the MMPI (Butcher, et al., 2001), designed to

“represent the clinically significant substance of the MMPI-2 item pool with a

comprehensive set of psychometrically adequate measures” (Tellegen & Ben-Porath,

2008/2011, p.1). The test consists of a total of 51 scales including: nine Validity Scales,

three Higher-Order scales, nine Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, twenty-three Specific

Problems (SP) Scales, two Interest Scales, and five revised versions of the

Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales. Table 2 provides the name, abbreviation, and a

brief description of each MMPI-2-RF scale.

A significant change to the MMPI-2, and a first step toward the MMPI-2-RF, was

the construction of the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales (Tellegen, Ben-Porath,

37

Table 1. The RSI Scales

Validity Scales

Inconsistent Responding Assesses for non-content based random responding

Inconsistent Affirmation Assesses for the test taker's tendency to endorse

inconsistent coping responses

Inconsistent Negation Assesses for the test taker's tendency to deny using

consistent coping responses

Coping Scales

Problem Confrontation Coping responses that includes actions taken towards

directly confronting a stressor

Problem Analysis Coping strategy involving generating options that could be

used to respond to the stressor

Self-Examination Coping process where an individual explores his/her role in

the creation of the stressor

Self-Reassurance Coping response characterized by reassuring onself about

their ability to handle a stressor

Seeking Advice Coping strategy involving seeking input from others

regarding how to respond to a stressor

Seeking Emotional Support Coping response characterized by seeking comfort from

others

Emotional Suppression Coping process focused on suppressing one's emotional

reactions to the stressor

Denial Coping strategy that helps the individual deny that a

stressor exists

Fantasizing Coping response that involves imagining that a stressor

will simply disappear

AvoidanceCoping process characterized by circumventing a stressor

Passive Acceptance Coping strategy where an individual accepts a stressor

without attempting to resolve it

Minimization Coping response aimed at minimizing the significane of a

stressor

Over-Reaction Coping strategy involving being overly distressed by a

stressor

Spirituality Coping with a stressor by relying on spiritiual beliefs

38

Table 2. The MMPI-2-RF Scales

Validity Scales

VRIN-r Variable Response Inconsistency- Random responding

TRIN-r True Response Inconsistency- Fixed responding

F-r Infrequent Responses- Responses infrequent in the general population

Fp-r Infrequent Psychopathology Responses- Responses infrequent in psychiatric

populations

Fs Infrequent Somatic Responses- Somatic complaints infrequent in medical

populations

FBS-r Symptom Validity- Somatic and cognitive complaints associated at high

levels of over-reporting

RBS Response Bias Scale- Exaggerated memory complaints

L-r Uncommon Virtues- Rarely claimed moral attributes or activities

K-r Adjustment Validity- Avowals of good psychological adjustment associated

at high levels with under-reporting

Higher-Order (H-O)

Scales

EID Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction- Problems associated with mood and

affect

THD Thought Dysfunction- Problems associated with disordered thinking

BXD Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction- Problems associated with under-

controlled behavior

Restructured Clinical

(RC) Scales

RCd Demoralization- General unhappiness and dissatisfaction

RC1 Somatic Complaints- Diffuse physical health complaints

RC2 Low Positive Emotions- Lack of positive emotional responsiveness

RC3 Cynicism- Non-self-referential beliefs expressing distrust and a generally

low opinion of others

RC4 Antisocial Behavior- Rule breaking and irresponsible behavior

RC6 Ideas of Persecution- Self-referential beliefs that others pose a threat

RC7 Dysfunctional Negative Emotions- Maladaptive anxiety, anger, irritability

RC8 Aberrant Experiences- Unusual perceptions or thoughts

RC9 Hypomanic Activation- Over-activation, aggression, impulsivity, and

grandiosity

39

Table 2. (Continued)

Specific Problems

(SP) Scales

Somatic Scales

MLS Malaise- Overall sense of physical debilitation, poor health

GIC Gastrointestinal Complaints- Nausea, recurring upset stomach, and poor

appetite

HPC Head Pain Complaints- Head and neck pain

NUCNeurologial Complaints- Dizziness, weakness, paralysis, loss of balance, etc.

COG Cognitive Complaints- Memory problems, difficulties concentrating

Internalizing Scales

SUI Suicidal/Death Ideation- Direct reports of suicidal ideation and recent

suicide attempts

HLP Helplessness/Hopelessness- Belief that goals cannot be reached or problems

solved

SFD Self-Doubt- Lack of confidence, feelings of uselessness

NFC Inefficacy- Belief that one is indecisive and inefficacious

STW Stress/Worry- Preoccupations with disappointments, difficulty with time

pressure

AXY Anxiety- Pervasisve anxiety, frights, frequent nightmares

ANP Anger Proneness- Becoming easily angered, impatient with others

BRFBehavior-Restricting Fears- Fears that significantly inhibit normal activities

MSF Multiple Specific Fears- Fears of blood, fire, thunder, etc.

Externalizing ScalesJCP Juvenile Conduct Problems- Difficulties at shool and at home, stealing

SUB Substance Abuse- Current and past misuse of alcohol and drugs

AGG Aggression- Physically aggressive, violent behavior

ACT Activation- Heightened excitation and energy level

Interpersonal Scales

FML Family Problems- Conflictual family relationships

IPP Interpersonal Passivitiy- Being unassertive and submissive

SAV Social Avoidance- Avoiding or not enjoying social events

SHY Shyness- Bashful, prone to feel inhibited and anxious around others

DSF Disaffiliativeness- Disliking people and being around them

40


Interest Scales

AES Aesthetic-Literary Interests- Literature, music, the theater

MEC

Mechanical-Physical Interests- Fixing and building things, the outdoors,

sports

Personality Psychopathology

Five (PSY-5) Scales

AGGR-r Agressiveness-Revised- Instrumental, goal-directed aggression

PSYC-r Psychoticism-Revised- Disconnection from reality

DISC-r Disconstraint-Revised- Under-controlled behavior

NEGE-r

Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism-Revised- Anxiety, insecurity,

worry, and fear

INTR-r

Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised- Social disengagement

and anhedonia

McNulty, Arbisi, & Graham, 2003). The RC Scales were derived from factor analyses of

the original Clinical Scales to identify the major distinctive component of each scale. A

large common factor among the clinical scales was placed into a new scale,

Demoralization (RCd). Each of the remaining RC scales represents a major distinctive

component of one of the eight original Clinical Scales. The authors of the RC Scales

indicated that they were not intended to constitute a comprehensive MMPI-2 assessment

of psychopathology and personality characteristics and that some of the facets of these

scales warrant independent assessment. Thus, the MMPI-2-RF was developed to add

substantive scales that assess constructs either not targeted by the RC scales or

warranting more specific assessment (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). The

methodology used to construct the various substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF

paralleled the development of the RC Scales to a large extent (Tellegen & Ben-Porath,

2008/2011).

41

The substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF are organized into a three-tiered

hierarchical structure. The Higher-Order Scales provide a broadband framework with

which to organize information obtained from the test. The three dimensions measured by

these scales, including emotional, thought, and behavioral dysfunction, tap psychological

factors relevant to the assessment of psychopathology and general maladaptive

psychological functioning. Additionally, the RC Scales, can also be linked to symptoms

of psychopathology, as can the more narrowly-focused SP Scales. The revised PSY-5

scales were designed to measure variables associated with more longstanding adaptive

and maladaptive personality characteristics.

Goals of the Study

The goals of the current study are to expand upon previous research by examining

associations between personality and psychological dysfunction and coping with stress.

This study will examine a wider array of psychological constructs than the very specific

disorders that were the focus of previous research. Specifically, this study will explore

associations between stable (i.e., dispositional) and short-term (i.e., situational) coping

responses and personality and psychopathology variables as assessed by the MMPI-2-RF.

This study aims to determine whether examining a broad range of personality and

psychopathology constructs improves the prediction of dispositional and/or situational

coping strategies.

42

Conceptual Questions and Hypotheses of the Study

(1) Which personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the

MMPI-2-RF, are associated with the dispositional coping styles assessed

by the RSI?

With regard to personality and coping, previous empirical research has

demonstrated significant links between dispositional coping and personality. More

specifically, the results from the studies of Bouchard, et al., (2004), Connor-Smith and

Flachsbart (2007), Jang, et al., (2007), McWilliams, Cox, and Enns (2003), and

Windover (2001), suggest that associations will be present between the dispositional

scales of the RSI-D and MMPI-2-RF scales that assess both internalizing and

externalizing characteristics, and Table 3 provides a summary of the hypothesized

associations between personality and psychopathology, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF

scales, and the dispositional coping responses of the RSI-D. It is anticipated that

associations will be found between the RSI-D scales and MMPI-2-RF scales in the

Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction (EID) hierarchy, specifically the scales: EID, RC2,

RC7, STW, AXY, ANP, BRF, MSF, NEGE-r, and INTR-r. Additionally, associations

are hypothesized to be present between interpersonal difficulties associated with

internalizing, as measured by the MMPI-2-RF scales FML, IPP, SAV, and SHY, and

dispositional coping. Regarding the externalizing dysfunction, associations also are

hypothesized to be present between the MMPI-2-RF scales of the Behavioral/

Externalizing Dysfunction (BXD) hierarchy, principally the scales of BXD, RC4, RC9,

43

Table 3. Predicted Associations Between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D Scales.

MMPI-2-RF

ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR

H-O Scales

EID − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

THD − − − − − + + + + + + + + +

BXD − − − − − − + + + + − + + −

RC Scales

RCd − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

RC1 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

RC2 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

RC3 − − + − − − + + + + + + + −

RC4 − − + − − − + + + + − + + −

RC6 − − + − − − + + + + + + + −

RC7 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

RC8 − − + − − + + + + + − + + −

RC9 + + + + + + + + + + − + + −

SP Scales

Somatic Scales

MLS − − − − − − + + + + + + + +

GIC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +

HPC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +

NUC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +

COG − − − − − − + + + + + + + +

Internalizing

Scales

SUI − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

HLP − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

SFD − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

NFC − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

STW − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

AXY − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

ANP − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

BRF − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

MSF − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

Note: + = positive association; − = inverse association; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA =

Problem Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice;

SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D = Denial; F =

Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR =

Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.

RSI-D Scales

44


MMPI-2-RF


Externalizing

Scales

JCP − − − − − − + + + + − + + −

SUB − − − − − − + + + + − + + −

AGG − − − − − − + + + + − + + −

ACT + + + + + − − + + + − + + −

Interpersonal

Scales

FML − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

IPP − − + − − − + + + + + + + +

SAV − − + − − − + + + + + + + +

SHY − − + − − − + + + + + + + +

DSF − − − − − − + + + + + + + −

PSY-5 Scales

AGGR-r − − − − − − + + + − − − + −

PSYC-r − − + − − + + + + + + + + −

DISC-r − − − − − − + + + + − + + −

NEGE-r − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

INTR-R − − + − − + + + + + + + + +






RSI-D Scales

45

JCP, SUB, AGG, ACT, AGGR-r, and DISC-r and the dispositional coping scales of the

RSI-D.

Previous research has also demonstrated that links exist between dispositional

coping and symptoms of general psychological distress (McWilliams, Cox, & Enns,

2003; Punamaki, et al., 2008). Therefore, it is hypothesized that associations will be

found between dispositional coping and the MMPI-2-RF scales EID, RCd, RC2, RC7,

SUI, HLP, SFD, NFC, STW, AXY, ANP, BRF, MSF, NEGE-r, and INTR-r, all of which

assess general psychological distress.

Findings from previous studies have also suggested that certain types of

dispositional coping strategies are associated with specific symptoms of psychological

disorders, including Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depressive disorders (e.g.,

Major Depressive Disorder), thought, delusional, and somatoform disorders, drug and/or

alcohol use, and Cluster A, B, and C Personality Disorders (Haisch & Meyers, 2004;

Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996; Vollrath, Alnaes, & Torgersen, 1996; Segal,

Hook, & Coolidge, 2001). Thus, it is hypothesized that the dispositional coping scales of

the RSI-D will be positively linked to PTSD symptomatology, as assessed by the

following MMPI-2-RF scales: EID, RCd, RC7, SUI, HLP, SFD, NCF, STW, AXY,

ANP, BRF, MSF, NEGE-r, and INTR-r. Associations are also anticipated between

symptoms of depression, measured by the EID, RCd, RC2, SUI, HLP, SFD, NFC, and

INTR-r scales of the MMPI-2-RF and the RSI-D scales. In addition, it is hypothesized

that dispositional coping, as measured by the RSI-D, will be associated with the

symptoms of thought and delusional disorders, as assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales

46

THD, RC6, RC8, PSYC-r. Furthermore, associations are anticipated between the RSI-D

scales and alcohol and/or drug use, as assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales: BXD, RC4,

RC9, JCP, SUB, AGG, ACT, AGGR-r, and DISC-r. Also, somatoform symptomatology,

as assessed by the RC1, MLS, GIC, HPC, NUC, and COG MMPI-2-RF scales, is

hypothesized to be linked to the dispositional coping strategies contained within the RSI-

D. Dispositional coping responses, as assessed by the RSI-D, are additionally anticipated

to be associated with Cluster A, B, and C Personality Disorder symptoms, assessed by all

of the substantive MMPI-2-RF with the exception of RCd, RC1, MLS, GIC, HPC, NUC,

COG, HLP, MSF.

Finally, previous research has demonstrated that particular forms of dispositional

coping were associated with more adaptive psychological functioning and less

psychological distress (McWilliams, Cox, & Enns, 2003; Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski,

1996; Vollrath, Alanes, & Torgersen, 1996). Thus, it is hypothesized that select RSI-D

scales will be associated with all of the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales.

(2) Which combination of personality and psychopathology constructs,

assessed by MMPI-2-RF scale sets, best predict dispositional coping

responses on the RSI-D?

Multivariate analyses will be conducted to explore associations between

combinations of personality and psychopathology-related constructs and dispositional

coping. No specific hypotheses are offered for these exploratory analyses.

47


MMPI-2-RF, are associated with situational coping responses assessed

by the RSI?

Although fewer studies have examined the associations between situational

coping responses and personality, previous research has suggested that situational coping

has also been linked to both internalizing and externalizing characteristics (e.g., Bouchard

et al., 2004; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Windover, 2001). Table 4 provides a list

of the anticipated associations between personality and psychopathology, as assessed by

the MMPI-2-RF scales, and situational coping, as measured by the RSI-S. It is

hypothesized that situational coping will be associated with the construct of internalizing,

measured by the MMPI-2-RF scales EID, RC2, RC7, STW, AXY, ANP, BRF, MSF,

NEGE-r, and INTR-r. Also, associations are anticipated between interpersonal difficulties

associated with internalizing dysfunction, including the MMPI-2-RF scales FML, IPP,

SAV, and SHY, and situational coping. Regarding externalizing dysfunction, associations

are hypothesized to be present between the scales BXD, RC4, RC9, JCP, SUB, AGG,

ACT, AGGR-r, DISC-r of the MMPI-2-RF and the situational coping scales of the RSI-S.

Additionally, empirical research has examined links between situational coping and

psychopathology, and the results of these studies indicate that situational coping is

associated with general psychological distress and symptoms of PTSD, somatoform, and

depressive disorders (Punamaki, et al., 2008; Fairbank, Hansen, & Fitterling, 1991;

Catanzaro, Horaney, & Creasy, 1995). Subsequently, it is anticipated that situational

coping will be associated with general psychological distress, as assessed by the MMPI-

48

Table 4. Hypothesized Associations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-S Scales

MMPI-2-RF


H-O Scales

EID − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

THD

BXD − − − − − − + + + + − + + −

RC Scales

RCd − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

RC1 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

RC2 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

RC3 − − + − − − + + + + + + + −

RC4 − − − − − − + + + + − + + −

RC6

RC7 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

RC8

RC9 + + + + + − − + + + − + + −

SP Scales

Somatic Scales

MLS − − − − − − + + + + + + + +

GIC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +

HPC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +

NUC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +

COG − − − − − − + + + + + + + +

Internalizing

Scales

SUI − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

HLP − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

SFD − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

NFC − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

STW − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

AXY − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

ANP − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

BRF − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

MSF − − + − − + + + + + + + + +






RSI-S Scales

49

Table 4, (Continued)

MMPI-2-RF


Externalizing

Scales

JCP − − − − − − + + + + − + − −

SUB − − − − − − + + + + − + − −

AGG − − − − − − + + + + − + − −

ACT + + + + + − − + + + − + − −

Interpersonal

Scales

FML − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

IPP − − + − − − + + + + + + + +

SAV − − + − − − + + + + + + + +

SHY − − + − − − + + + + + + + +

DSF − − − − − − + + + + + + + −

PSY-5 Scales

AGGR-r − − − − − − + + + − − − + −

PSYC-r

DISC-r − − − − − − + + + + − + + −

NEGE-r − − + − − + + + + + + + + +

INTR-R − − + − − + + + + + + + + +






RSI-S Scales

50

2-RF scales of EID, RCd, RC2, RC7, SUI, HLP, SFD, NFC STW, AXY, ANP, BRF,

MSF, NEGE-r, and INTR-r. In addition, it is hypothesized that the situational coping

scales of the RSI-S will be linked to PTSD symptomatology, measured by the EID, RCd,

RC7, SUI, HLP, SFD, NFC, STW, AXY, ANP, BRF, MSF, NEGE-r, and INTR-r.

Associations are also anticipated between symptoms of depression, measured by the

MMPI-2-RF scales of EID RCd, RC2, SUI, HLP, SFD, NFC, and INTR-r scales in

particular, and situational coping, as assessed by the RSI-S. Finally, symptoms of

somatoform disorders, as assessed by the RC1, MLS, GIC, HPC, NUC, and COG MMPI-

2-RF scales, are hypothesized to be associated with situational coping.

Several significant differences between questions 1 and 3 should be noted.

Whereas disordered thinking, alcohol/drug use, personality disorder, and more adaptive

functioning are anticipated to be associated with dispositional coping (i.e., conceptual

question 1), these phenomena have not been linked to situational coping, and therefore

they are not included in the hypotheses generated for conceptual question 3.


assessed by MMPI-2-RF scale sets, best predict situational coping

responses on the RSI-S?

As just discussed in question # 2, exploratory multivariate analyses will be

conducted to examine associations between combinations of MMPI-2-RF scales and

situational coping behavior as measured by the RSI-S.

51

(5) Which combination of situational variables, rated by participants and

judges, and personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the

MMPI-2-RF scales, best predict situational coping on the RSI-S?

Expanding upon the results of question # 4, exploratory analyses will be

conducted to determine whether incorporating particular characteristics of the stressful

situation, such as confrontability, timing, duration, and type/category of stressful

situation, improves or significantly predicts situational coping responses. Although these

analyses are exploratory, it is generally hypothesized that including situational variables

will significantly predict and/or improve the prediction of situational coping responses on

the RSI-S, however, more specific hypotheses cannot be offered.

(6) Are personality and psychopathology constructs, as assessed by the

MMPI-2-RF, differentially associated with the dispositional coping

assessed by the RSI-D versus the situational coping assessed the RSI-S?

The analyses associated with questions # 1 and # 3 will determine which MMPI-

2-RF personality and psychopathology constructs are associated with dispositional

coping responses, as assessed by the RSI-D, and situational coping responses, as assessed

by the RSI-S. However, those analyses will not determine whether significant differences

exist between the magnitude of the associations demonstrated between the MMPI-2-RF

and the RSI-D and the MMPI-2-RF and the RSI-S. Therefore, exploratory analyses will

be conducted to examine which MMPI-2-RF personality and psychopathology constructs

are more strongly linked to dispositional versus situational coping. Since these analyses

are exploratory in nature, specific hypotheses cannot be offered.

52

METHOD

Participants

Participants were selected from 487 undergraduate students from a large,

Midwestern university who volunteered to take part in a study in return for extra credit in

a psychology course in which they were enrolled. After excluding missing and

incomplete data, 424 individuals were eligible for inclusion in the study.

Individuals were also excluded if they produced invalid MMPI-2-RF protocols,

based on the criteria in the MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual: Cannot Say [CNS] raw score

≥ 18, Variable Response Inconsistency [VRIN-r] and/or True Response Inconsistency

[TRIN-r] T ≥ 80, Infrequent Responses [F-r] T = 120, or Infrequent Psychopathology

Responses [Fp-r] T ≥ 100. Participants that produced invalid RSI-D protocols based on

the criteria outlined by Ben-Porath (unpublished): Inconsistent Affirmation and

Inconsistent Negation > 2, and Inconsistent Responding > 5, were also excluded from this

study. Individuals that produced invalid RSI-S protocols based on the criteria outlined by

Windover (2001): Inconsistent Affirmation > 2, Inconsistent Negation > 3, and

Inconsistent Responding > 6 were also excluded. In summary, all participants were

required to produce valid MMPI-2-RF, RSI-D, and RSI-S protocols in order to be eligible

for inclusion in this study. Application of these criteria resulted in a final sample of 343

individuals. A comparison of the individuals producing valid and invalid test protocols

revealed no significant differences among the participants with regard to age or

53

education. However, chi-square analyses demonstrated that men were more likely to

produce invalid protocols than women. The results also suggested that Caucasian

individuals were more likely to produce invalid protocols than individuals of any other

race.

After removing incomplete and invalid protocols the final sample contained 116

men and 227 women, with ages ranging from 18 to 43 years (M = 19.4; SD = 2.3).

Educational levels within the sample ranged from 12 to 18 years (M = 12.4; SD = 0.8).

The sample was 88% Caucasian, 6% African American, 1% Asian, 1% Hispanic, and 4%

had other or mixed ethnicities, including American Indian or biracial ethnicities (e.g.,

Caucasian and African American) for example.

Measures

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2- Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF)

The MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011; Tellegen & Ben-Porath,

2008/2011) is a self-report inventory containing 338 items that are rated on a

dichotomous, true/false response format. The scales on the MMPI-2-RF are structured in

a hierarchical framework and include: nine Validity Scales, three Higher-Order (H-O)

scales, nine Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, twenty-three Specific Problems (SP)

Scales, two Interest Scales, and five revised Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales.

The Validity Scales include seven revised MMPI-2 measures, namely Variable

Response Inconsistency [VRIN], True Response Inconsistency [TRIN], Infrequency [F],

Infrequency Psychopathology [Fp], Symptom Validity [FBS], Lie [L], and Correction

54

[K], and two new scales, namely the Infrequent Somatic Responses [Fs] Scale and the

Response Bias (RBS) Scale (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). The three Higher-

Order Scales were developed to measure personality and psychopathology at their

broadest levels. The next level of the hierarchy includes the Restructured Clinical (RC)

Scales, which are identical to the RC scales of the MMPI-2 (Ben-Porath & Tellegen,

2008/2011). The RC Scales assess distinctive core components of the Clinical Scales,

while parsing out the repeated measurement of the construct of demoralization. The next

level of the hierarchy includes the 23 Specific Problems (SP) Scales and two Interest

Scales. These scales aim to measure particular somatic, internalizing and externalizing

facets, interpersonal problems, and general interests of individuals. Extensive empirical

data regarding the psychometric characteristics of the MMPI-2-RF are provided in the

Technical Manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011).

The final set of MMPI-2-RF scales is the Personality Psychopathology Five

(PSY-5), which are revised versions of the similarly named MMPI-2 scales. Harkness

and McNulty (2007) used an iterative process consisting of both internal and external

analyses to revise the PSY-5 scales for the MMPI-2-RF. They removed 22 of the 96

items that transferred from the MMPI-2 to the MMPI-2-RF and added 30 new items. This

resulted in five non-overlapping scales consisting of 104 items. According to Harkness

and McNulty (2007), the revised PSY-5 scales demonstrated lower intercorrelations and

analogous external validity, compared to the original scales. However, they still assess

the same dimensional models of personality pathology (Ben-Porath & Tellegen,

2008/2011).

55

Finally, MMPI-2-RF scales will be scored from individual responses to the

MMPI-2 items. Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008/2011) demonstrated that individuals

completing the two versions of the test produce interchangeable scores on the MMPI-2-

RF scales.

The Reactions to Stress Inventory- Dispositional (RSI-D)

The RSI-D (Ben-Porath, unpublished) is a 136-item self-report inventory. The

response format is a 5-point Likert-type scale, with potential response options ranging

from (A) “I never respond this way” to (E) I always respond this way” (Windover, 2001).

The items are scored into 3 validity scales and 14 scales that measure different types of

coping strategies. The 3 validity scales, namely Inconsistent Affirmation, Inconsistent

Negation, and Inconsistent Responding, are intended to assess for non-content based

invalid responding and inconsistent responding that would affect the interpretability of

the coping scales.

Additionally, the 14 coping scales are labeled: Problem Confrontation, Problem

Analysis, Self-Examination, Self-Reassurance, Seeking Advice, Seeking Emotional

Support, Emotional Suppression, Denial, Fantasizing, Avoidance, Passive Acceptance,

Minimization, Over-Reaction, and Spirituality. These coping scales aim to provide a

comprehensive assessment of various coping responses, including strategies aimed at

reducing the negative emotions associated with a given stressor and strategies directed at

managing the stressor itself.

Regarding reliability, the RSI-D dispositional coping scales demonstrated internal

consistency estimates ranging from .68 to .95, indicating the items contained within each

56

scale are assessing a similar construct and, overall, the scales possess adequate internal

consistency.

To examine test-retest reliability, the RSI-D was administered to 105 college

students twice on the same occasion, and correlation coefficients for that sample ranged

from.70 to .92 (Handel & Ben-Porath, 1998). The measure was also administered to a

sample of 103 college students, approximately one day apart, and test-retest estimates

ranged from .54 to .92 (Handel & Ben-Porath, 1998). Two community samples were also

administered the RSI-D to establish the instrument’s reliability. Test-retest reliabilities

for 258 community members, who took the test twice on the same occasion, ranged from

.73 to .94, and correlation coefficients ranged from .68 to .91 for a sample of 124

community members who took the test twice, one week apart (Handel & Ben-Porath,

1998). Windover (2001) further examined the test-retest reliability of the RSI-D, and the

instrument was completed by a group of college undergraduates on two occasions, one

week apart. The results demonstrated that reliability coefficients ranged from .68 to .86 in

that sample. Thus, the RSI-D has consistently demonstrated adequate test-retest

reliability.

The Reactions to Stress Inventory- Situational (RSI-S)

The RSI-S (Windover, 2001) is an adaptation of the RSI-D that was developed to

assess coping responses from a situational perspective. The RSI-S contains 136 items,

rated on a 6-point, rather than 5-point, Likert scale of the RSI-D. The additional RSI-S

response option is “This response was not relevant for my situation,” which gives

participants an opportunity to indicate that a particular coping response was irrelevant to

57

their personal situation. To assess situational coping, the RSI-D items were reworded to

the past tense, to allow participants to more easily relate to a specific stressful situation

they identified (Windover, 2001). The RSI-S is scored using the same format of the RSI-

D, as scores on the 3 validity scales and 14 coping scales are generated based on item

responses.

Regarding reliability, Windover (2001) examined the test-retest reliability of the

RSI-S scales that were administered to the same group of participants on two separate

occasions, approximately one week apart. Windover (2001) demonstrated that the RSI-S

possessed adequate test-retest reliability, with coefficients ranging from .63 to .89. The

results of the study also indicated that the RSI-S possessed comparable reliability

estimates for most scales, compared to the RSI-D; however, the dispositional scales of

Self-Examination and Fantasizing demonstrated somewhat higher reliability estimates

compared to their situational counterparts (Windover, 2001). To date, no additional

reliability or validity studies of the RSI-S have been published.

Situational Characteristics

Ratings were also completed by the participants, as well as three expert judges, in

order to provide information about situational characteristics of the stressful experience

referenced by the participant while completing the RSI-S. Agreement between a

minimum of two of the three judges was required in order for a given rating to be

included in this study. In particular, three ratings were completed by both the participants

and the judges, included ratings of the confrontability, duration, and timing of the

stressful situation, and these ratings were made on a dichotomous scale.

58

The confrontability of the situation examined whether the participant had some

way to directly address the stressor itself. For example, a stressor that was considered

confrontable was a college exam, as an individual can prepare in advance for the exam by

studying; however, a stressor that was not considered confrontable was the death of a

loved one. Participants and judges rated confrontability as “1” if the individual was not

able to directly address the stressor and “2” if the individual was able to take some action

to alleviate the stressor.

Regarding duration, this situational characteristic explored whether the stressor

persisted for more than one day. Ratings of “1” for duration indicated the stressor lasted

less than or equal to one day and ratings of “2” meant that the stressor persisted for more

than one day. An example of a stressor that endured less than one day is taking a college

exam and an example of stressor persisting for more than one day is preparing to take a

college exam.

The situational characteristic of timing pertained to whether coping began while

the stressor was ongoing or the coping began only after the stressor occurred. A rating of

“1” was given if the coping began while the stressor was ongoing and a rating of “2”

indicated that the individual began coping after the stressor already occurred. Being

diagnosed with a serious medical condition or illness, such as cancer or diabetes, is an

example of situation in which the individual began coping with the stressor while it was

ongoing and coping with the death of a loved one is an example of a situation where the

individual began coping after the stressor (i.e., death) occurred.

59

The judges also examined the stressful situations to determine which type or

category of stressor best described the stressor, and they subsequently provided a rating

that indicated the broad category of the stressor the participant referenced while

completing the RSI-S. The specific types or categories of the stressful situation were

classified into one of 12 broad categories, such as breaking rules or laws (N = 3), job

stress (N = 17), money/financial problems (N = 6), health concerns (N = 6), intrapersonal

issues (N = 3), interpersonal problems (N = 48), sex-related problems (N = 4), and

important decisions (N = 7). Another category the judges frequently used to describe the

stressor was significant life changes (N = 90), and this category included stressors such as

moving away from home for the first time or beginning college, for example. The

category of negative life events (N = 14) contained those stressors that may have

negatively impacted one’s life, such as experiencing the death of a loved one or being

involved in a motor vehicle accident. Another category, problems of others (N = 18),

captured those stressors that involved a friend or family member’s personal problem that

impacted the participant in some manner. Finally, the category of other (N = 19) was

included to account for those stressors that did not fit into one of the other 11 categories

just described.

Procedures

The data included in this study are archival and were collected at a Midwestern

university in the late 1990’s. All individuals who participated in this study were required

to be 18 years of age or older, as is consistent with the requirements for administration of

the MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). Individuals participated in this

60

study in exchange for extra credit for one of their undergraduate psychology courses. The

measures administered in this study included the MMPI-2, a demographic questionnaire,

and a set of extra-test measures. Included in this set of extra test measures were the RSI-

D and RSI-S. Lastly, in accordance with ethical considerations and confidentiality, all

identifying personal information was removed from the data.

Statistical Analyses

The research questions outlined in the Introductory chapter were addressed with

the following analyses.



by the RSI?

To address the first research question of the study, Pearson Product Moment

correlations were calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales and each of the

coping scales on the RSI-D. Due to the large number of analyses being conducted, a

Bonferroni correction was applied and the level of statistical significance required for

interpretation was set at .001 (i.e., .05/42). Correlations that did not meet the more

stringent statistical significance level were not interpreted. Because some inflation of

correlation coefficients was anticipated owing to shared method variance, rather than

relying solely on statistical significance when interpreting the correlations, only those

correlations that met or exceeded a medium effect size (r = .30; Cohen, 1988) were

interpreted.

61




To address the second research question, a series of linear regression analysis

were conducted. The MMPI-2-RF scales served as the independent variables and

individual scale scores from the RSI-D were the dependent variables in the regression

analyses. A total of 14 sets of regression analyses were conducted to determine which

combination of personality and psychopathology constructs best predicted each type of

dispositional coping, as examined by the RSI-D.

Independent variables were entered into each of the regression analyses using a

forward step-wise procedure. Separate regression analyses were conducted with the

independent variables for each of the regression analyses corresponding with the

hierarchical structure of the MMPI-2-RF. Specifically, the independent variables for the

first regression analysis included the Higher-Order Scales, the independent variables for

the second regression analysis were the Restructured Clinical Scales, the Specific

Problems Scales served as the predictor variables for the third analysis, and the fourth

regression analysis included the Personality Psychopathology Five Scales as the

independent variables. A final regression analysis utilized a set of mixed predictors

spanning across the levels of the MMPI-2-RF measurement hierarchy, and these

predictors were selected for inclusion only if they previously demonstrated a significant

beta weight in one of the four regression analyses. Conducting separate regression

analyses based on the hierarchical structure of the MMPI-2-RF determined whether

62

certain RSI-D scales were better predicted by lower- or higher-level MMPI-2-RF

constructs. Additionally, the final regression analysis also determined the extent to which

the MMPI-2-RF constructs can optimally predict RSI-D variance.


MMPI-2-RF, are associated with situational coping responses assessed by

the RSI?

To address the third research question of the study, Pearson Product Moment

correlations were calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales and each of the

coping scales on the RSI-S. Due to the large number of analyses being conducted, a

Bonferroni correction was applied, and the level of statistical significance required for

interpretation was set at .001 (i.e., .05/42). To account for shared method variance, only

those correlations that met or exceeded a medium effect size (r = .30; Cohen, 1988) were

interpreted.




To address the fourth research question, a series of linear regression analyses

were conducted. The MMPI-2-RF scales served as the independent variables and

individual scale scores from the RSI-S were the dependent variables in the regression

analyses. A total of 14 sets of regression analyses were conducted to determine which

combination of personality and psychopathology constructs best predicted each type of

situational coping, as examined by the RSI-S.

63

Independent variables were entered into each of the regression analyses using a

forward step-wise procedure. Separate regression analyses were conducted with the

independent variables for each of the regression analyses corresponding with the

hierarchical structure of the MMPI-2-RF. Specifically, the independent variables for the

first regression analysis included the Higher-Order Scales, the independent variables for

the second regression analysis were the Restructured Clinical Scales, the Specific

Problems Scales served as the predictor variables for the third analysis, and the fourth

regression analysis included the Personality Psychopathology Five Scales as the

independent variables. A final regression analysis utilized a set of mixed predictors

spanning across the levels of the MMPI-2-RF measurement hierarchy, and these

predictors were selected for inclusion only if they previously demonstrated a significant

beta weight in one of the four regression analyses. Conducting separate regression

analyses based on the hierarchical structure of the MMPI-2-RF determined whether

certain RSI-S scales were better predicted by lower- or higher-level MMPI-2-RF

constructs. Additionally, the final regression analysis also determined the extent to which

the MMPI-2-RF constructs optimally predicted RSI-S variance.




Analyses were also conducted to explore whether situational characteristics

significantly predicted or added incrementally to the prediction of situational coping

responses on the RSI-S. To address this inquiry, a series of hierarchical regression

64

analyses was conducted. The MMPI-2-RF scales and situational variables served as the

independent variables and the scores on the various RSI-S scales served as the dependent

variables. A total of 14 sets of regression analyses were conducted to determine whether

the situational variables, namely the confrontability, duration, and timing of the stressor,

as well as the type or category of the stressful situation, significantly predicted or added

incrementally to the prediction of situational coping responses, beyond the variance

accounted for by the MMPI-2-RF scales.

Two sets of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted for each RSI-S scale

because the situational variables were rated by participants and trained judges.

Independent variables were entered into each of the regression analyses using a forward

step-wise procedure. In the first set of analyses, select MMPI-2-RF scales were entered

into the first block, and these predictors were selected for inclusion only if they

previously demonstrated a significant beta weight in the linear regression analyses

conducted to address research question # 4 (i.e., scales from various levels of the MMPI-

2-RF measurement hierarchy that previously demonstrated they significantly predicted

situational coping). The situational variables, as rated by participants, were then entered

into the second block. A second hierarchical regression analysis was conducted and the

participant ratings of the situational characteristics served as the independent variables in

the first block and select MMPI-2-RF scales that previously demonstrated a significant

beta weight were included in the second block. Thus, the independent variables were

essentially entered in reverse order, as compared to the first regression analysis.

65

The second set of hierarchical regression analyses incorporated situational

variables that were rated by judges. The judges also provided ratings about the type or

category of the stressor, and this variable was included in the analyses, along with the

other situational variables. Agreement between two of the three judges regarding rating

of the situational variable was required in order for that predictor to be included in the

analyses. Similar to the first set of hierarchical regression analyses, select MMPI-2-RF

scales were entered into the first block, and these predictors were selected for inclusion

only if they previously demonstrated a significant beta weight in the linear regression

analyses conducted to address research question # 4 (i.e., scales from various levels of the

MMPI-2-RF measurement hierarchy that previously demonstrated they significantly

predicted situational coping). The situational variables, as rated by judges, were then

entered into the second block. A second hierarchical regression analysis was conducted

and the situational characteristics rated by judges served as the independent variables in

the first block and select MMPI-2-RF scales that previously demonstrated a significant

beta weight were included in the second block. Thus, the independent variables were

essentially entered in reverse order, as compared to the first regression analysis.




The correlational findings resulting from analyses conducted to address research

questions # 1 and # 3 were also used to evaluate whether personality and

psychopathology constructs are better able to predict dispositional or situational coping.

66

A Fisher’s r-to-z transformation was applied to all of the calculated correlations. The r-

to-z transformation converted the correlations onto the same metric, which allowed for

the correlations between the MMPI-2-RF scales and parallel scales from the two coping

instruments to be directly compared using a z-test (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2008). After the

transformation was applied, for every MMPI-2-RF substantive scale, a z-test comparing

the Fisher z statistics for dispositional coping and the Fisher z statistics for situational

coping was conducted. These comparisons determined which of the personality and

psychopathology constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF were preferentially associated

with dispositional versus situational coping responses. Due to the number of tests that

were conducted, a Bonferroni correction was applied, and the level of statistical

significance required for interpretation was set at .001 (i.e., .05/42).

67

RESULTS

(1) Which personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-

RF, are associated with the dispositional coping styles assessed by the RSI?

Zero order correlations were calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF

scales and each of the 14 coping scales on the RSI-D. Table 5 provides the results for the

correlational analyses. The correlations were required to meet two criteria for

interpretation in order to account for the large number of analyses being conducted. In

particular, the correlation was required to be statistically significant at p ≤ .001 (i.e.,

.05/42), as a Bonferroni correction was applied, and the correlation also had to reach or

exceed a magnitude of .3 or a medium effect size (r = .30; Cohen, 1988).

With regard to the RSI-D Problem Confrontation scale, inverse associations were

hypothesized between the MMPI-2-RF Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction hierarchy of

scales and the Problem Confrontation scale of the RSI-D. The results demonstrated

significant inverse associations between the EID Higher-Order (H-O) scale, and one

Restructured Clinical (RC) scale, namely RCd, and the RSI-D Problem Confrontation

scale. Several Internalizing Specific Problems (SP) scales, including SFD, NFC, and

AXY, as well as one Interpersonal SP scale, FML, were also negatively associated with

dispositional problem confrontation as hypothesized. Several statistically significant

associations were present between several other scales contained within the EID

hierarchy, including RC2, RC7, STW, ANP, and NEGE-r and Problem Confrontation;

68

Table 5. Correlations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D Scales

MMPI-2-RF


H-O Scales

EID -.30**

-.06 .30**

-.36**

-.01 -.03 .03 .28**

.37**

.22**

.08 -.02 .43**

-.04

THD -.15 -.10 .11 -.07 -.08 -.15 .02 .34**

.30**

.29**

.14 .09 .15*

-.01

BXD -.04 -.08 -.05 .01 -.12 -.19** .04 .06 -.02 .13 .02 .08 .00 -.28**

RC Scales

RCd -.30**

-.12 .23**

-.35**

-.03 -.08 .08 .27**

.34**

.23**

.13 -.01 .37**

-.08

RC1 -.21**

-.01 .26**

-.10 -.02 -.08 .04 .26**

.28**

.27**

.16*

.13 .21**

.09

RC2 -.23**

.02 .27**

-.32**

-.10 -.09 .07 .17*

.22**

.11 .03 -.02 .31**

-.07

RC3 -.23**

-.06 .05 -.10 -.01 -.12 .08 .34**

.28**

.31**

.21**

.05 .25**

-.02

RC4 -.14 -.08 .00 -.07 -.07 -.11 -.03 .12 .12 .21**

.04 .03 .08 -.21**

RC6 -.19*

-.09 .09 -.16*

-.02 -.11 .09 .32**

.30**

.27**

.15 .07 .16*

.05

RC7 -.26**

-.07 .21**

-.23**

.04 -.02 .01 .39**

.40**

.30**

.13 .02 .40**

.03

RC8 -.13 -.07 .18*

.00 -.07 -.15*

.02 .32**

.27**

.29**

.18*

.09 .19*

-.04

RC9 .02 -.08 -.09 .08 .03 -.05 -.01 .20**

.09 .15*

.07 .08 .06 -.09

SP Scales

Somatic Scales

MLS -.27**

-.06 .18*

-.27**

-.11 -.13 .09 .26**

.27**

.24**

.11 .06 .24**

-.13

GIC -.21**

-.06 .18*

-.18*

.03 .00 .01 .25**

.33**

.26**

.09 .04 .20**

-.01

HPC -.15 .00 .16*

-.11 -.02 -.06 .00 .12 .20**

.18*

.13 .09 .19*

.14

NUC -.19**

-.03 .20**

-.05 -.07 -.12 .02 .25**

.22**

.22**

.11 .11 0.15* .06

COG -.27**

-0.15* .13 -.17*

.00 -.09 .06 .34**

.31**

.24**

.16*

.02 .25**

-.04

Note: N = 169; * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .001; bold = medium or larger effect size; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis; SE

= Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D =

Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.

RSI-D Scales

69

Table 5 (Continued)

MMPI-2-RF


SUI -.19*

-.03 .16*

-.26**

-.07 -.03 .04 .03 .19*

.02 .01 -.09 .20**

-.07

HLP -.15*

-.03 .12 -.19**

.00 -.04 .04 .23**

.23**

.06 .16*

.04 .28**

.01

SFD -.30**

-.19**

.21**

-.32**

-.04 -.04 .08 .20**

.32**

.15 .11 -.02 .35**

-.08

NFC -.30**

-.03 .23**

-.24**

.09 .03 -.05 .42**

.42**

.30**

.21**

.06 .41**

.08

STW -.20**

.01 .20**

-.22**

.04 .00 -.02 .21**

.27**

.21**

.00 -.05 .43**

-.08

AXY -.31**

-.05 .26**

-.23**

-.09 -.07 .00 .32**

.37**

.30**

.11 .05 .32**

-.02

ANP -.24**

-.21**

-.02 -.19**

-.09 -.04 -.05 .30**

.23**

.24**

.03 .03 .28**

-.03

BRF -.14 .03 .20**

.05 .09 -.01 -.03 .25**

.33**

.15*

.15*

.04 .17*

.12

MSF -.15*

.02 .14 -.09 .03 .01 .02 .25**

.36**

.18*

.00 .07 .10 .19**

JCP -.04 -.05 -.02 .01 -.01 -.11 -.02 .06 .03 .12 .04 .04 -.02 -.14

SUB -.07 -.03 .03 -.01 -.08 -.13 .07 0.15* .09 .15*

.12 .12 .05 -.32**

AGG -.12 -.09 -.02 -.14 -.14 -.18*

.08 .19**

.16*

.16*

-.07 -.01 .13 -.12

ACT .00 .00 .07 .16*

.19**

.17*

-.19**

.27**

.16*

.06 .08 -.01 .15*

.11

FML -.30**

-.06 .15*

-.20**

-.03 -.03 -.07 .23**

.37**

.28**

.01 -.05 .31**

.04

IPP -.20**

-.03 .17*

-.15*

-.02 -.01 .04 .08 .17*

.04 .14 -.02 .21**

.00

SAV .06 .27**

.27**

-.08 -.01 -.10 .16*

-.07 .03 -.08 -.01 -.02 .18*

.01

SHY -.18*

-.02 .13 -.28**

.05 .09 -.01 .23**

.28**

.15*

.12 -.02 .33**

.00

DSF -.11 -.03 -.03 -.14 -.21**

-.32**

.39**

.02 .07 -.02 .02 .07 .00 -.06

Note: N= 169; * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .001; bold = medium or larger effect size; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis;

SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression;

D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR =

Spirituality.

RSI-D Scales

Externalizing Scales



70

Table 5 (Continued)

MMPI-2-RF


PSY-5 Scales

AGGR-r .10 -.06 -.19*

.09 -.06 -.11 .04 .04 -.08 .04 -.08 .04 -.16*

-.06

PSYC-r -.11 -.06 .13 -.03 -.02 -.12 .02 .33**

.31**

.28**

.17*

.12 .17*

.00

DISC-r .04 -.03 -.07 .09 -.07 -.16*

.02 -.05 -.15* .04 .02 .09 -.06 -.31**

NEGE-r -.22**

-.06 .23**

-.22**

.08 .03 -.03 .36**

.36**

.28**

.08 -.02 .46**

.03

INTR-R -.07 .17*

.27**

-.24**

-.12 -.18*

.18*

-.06 .06 -.02 -.02 -.06 .18*

-.06

Note: N= 169; * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .001; bold = medium or larger effect size; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis;

SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression;

D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR =

Spirituality.

RSI-D Scales

71

however, these correlations approached, but did not reach a medium effect size. Several

MMPI-2-RF scales assessing somatic problems, such as RC1, MLS, GIC, and COG were

also statistically significantly inversely related to Problem Confrontation, but these

correlations did not meet the effect size requirement for interpretation. Two of the

interpersonal functioning scales of the MMPI-2-RF, RC3 and IPP, were also statistically

significant negatively associated with the RSI-D Problem Confrontation scale, as

anticipated; however, these associations did not reach a medium effect size as required

for interpretation. Finally, negative associations were anticipated between MMPI-2-RF

scales assessing thought dysfunction and behavioral/externalizing dysfunction and

Problem Confrontation; however, the results did not support these hypotheses.

With regard to the Problem Analysis scale, statistically significant inverse

correlations were present between the SFD, ANP, and SAV SP scales of the MMPI-2-RF

and the Problem Analysis scale, but the correlations did not reach a medium effect size as

required for interpretation. Additionally, although it was hypothesized that negative

associations would be present between the remaining substantive MMPI-2-RF scales and

the Problem Analysis RSI-D scale, none of the other calculated correlations met either of

the requirements for interpretation.

In examining the results for the Self-Examination scale, a positive association was

demonstrated between the EID MMPI-2-RF scale and the Self-Examination scale of the

RSI-D. Although none of the other calculated correlations met both requirements for

interpretation as anticipated, several of the correlations were statistically significant and

approached a medium effect size. More specifically, scales contained in the EID

72

hierarchy, including RCd, RC2, RC7, SFD, NFC, STW, AXY, BRF, NEGE-r, and INTR-

r, demonstrated statistically significant associations with the Self-Examination scale, but

the associations did not reach a medium effect size as required for interpretation.

Additionally, the Somatic Scales, RC1 and NUC, and an Interpersonal SP scale, SAV,

were also statistically significantly associated with Self-Examination; however, the

associations did not reach a medium effect size. Conversely, none of the MMPI-2-RF

scales contained within the Thought Dysfunction or Behavioral/Externalizing

Dysfunction hierarchies were significantly associated with the Self-Examination scale of

the RSI-D. Thus, those hypotheses were not supported by the results.

Several hypothesized inverse associations were present between the MMPI-2-RF

scales of EID, RCd, RC2, and SFD and the RSI-D Self-Reassurance scale. There were

also several other statistically significant associations that approached, but did not reach,

medium effect sizes. Specifically, dispositional self-reassurance was significantly

associated with RC7, SUI, NFC, STW, AXY, NEGE-r, and INTR-r as anticipated;

however, the magnitudes of these correlations ranged from .20 to .27. Similarly, one

somatic scale, MLS, and two interpersonal scales, FML and SHY were also statistically

significantly inversely associated with dispositional self-reassurance, but not to the level

required for interpretation. In contrast, inverse associations between the Thought

Dysfunction and Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchies of the MMPI-2-RF

and Self-Reassurance were not present as hypothesized.

Although inverse associations were hypothesized between the Seeking Advice

RSI-D scale and each of the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales, only two correlations met

73

the statistical significance requirement for interpretation. In particular, the correlations

between the ACT and DSF SP scales and the Seeking Advice scale were statistically

significant, but these correlations did not reach a medium effect size. None of the other

correlations calculated between the remaining substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF and

Seeking Advice met either of the requirements for interpretation.

The results for the correlations calculated between the Seeking Emotional Support

scale of the RSI-D and all of the substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF indicated that only

two correlations achieved statistical significance. Specifically, the correlations between

the H-O BXD scale and the Interpersonal Functioning SP DSF scale and the RSI-D

Seeking Emotional Support scale were both statistically significant; however, only the

correlation between DSF and Seeking Emotional Support exceeded a medium effect size.

In contrast, the anticipated associations between the remaining substantive MMPI-2-RF

scales and the Seeking Emotional Support RSI-D scale were not supported.

Associations were hypothesized to be present between the Emotional Suppression

RSI-D scale and each of the substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF. A single correlation

between the DSF Interpersonal SP scale and the RSI-D Emotional Suppression scale was

both statistically significant and exceeded a medium effect size. A statistically significant

inverse correlation was demonstrated between the Externalizing SP scale of ACT and the

Emotional Suppression scale as anticipated; however, the correlation did not reach a

medium effect size. None of the other calculated correlations met the requirements for

interpretation; therefore, the remaining hypothesized associations were not supported.

74

Many of the correlations demonstrated to be present between the Denial scale of

the RSI-D and MMPI-2-RF scales assessing emotional/internalizing difficulties, thought

dysfunction, and somatic difficulties were both statistically significant and exceeded a

medium effect size. In particular, scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing

Dysfunction hierarchy, namely RC7, NFC, AXY, ANP, and NEGE-r, the scales of the

Thought Dysfunction hierarchy, including THD, RC6, RC8, and PSYC-r, one Somatic

Scale, COG, and one interpersonal SP scale, RC3, were significantly associated with

Denial and the magnitude of the associations exceeded .3.

In addition, correlations between the MMPI-2-RF scales of EID, RCd, HLP, SFD,

STW, BRF, MSF, and the Denial scale were statistically significant and the magnitude of

the associations approached, but did not reach, a medium effect size. MMPI-2-RF scales

assessing interpersonal functioning, including FML, and SHY, and somatic problems,

including RC1, MLS, GIC, and NUC, were also statistically significantly associated with

the RSI-D scale of Denial; however, the magnitude of these correlations fell below a

medium effect size. Furthermore, several MMPI-2-RF scales assessing

behavioral/externalizing dysfunction, such as RC9 and ACT were also statistically

significantly linked to the Denial scale, but these associations did not achieve the

magnitude required for interpretation. Therefore, a majority of the hypotheses predicted

between the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales and the Denial RSI-D scale were upheld by

the correlational results.

Similar to the Denial scale, a large number of anticipated associations that met

both of the requirements for interpretation were demonstrated between the Fantasizing

75

scale of the RSI-D and scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing, Thought

Dysfunction, and Somatic MMPI-2-RF hierarchies. In particular, the results showed

statistically significant associations were present between the fantasizing scale and the

EID, RCd, RC7, SFD, NFC, AXY, BRF, MSF, and NEGE-r, THD, RC6, and PSYC-r,

and GIC and COG scales, and these correlations exceeded .3. Likewise, a statistically

significant association was demonstrated between the Interpersonal Functioning SP scale

of FML and the Fantasizing scale, and the magnitude of this association was larger than

.3.

Several other statistically significant correlations were present between the

Fantasizing scale and other MMPI-2-RF scales assessing emotional and thought

dysfunction, somatic complaints, and interpersonal functioning; however, these

correlations did not reach the required magnitude for interpretation. Several other scales

of the MMPI-2-RF EID hierarchy, including RC2, HLP, STW, and ANP were

significantly associated with the Fantasizing scale; however, these associations

approached, but did not reach, .3. Also, the RC8 scale, which is part of the THD

hierarchy, was significantly linked to the Fantasizing scale, but the magnitude of the

association fell just below .3. Regarding somatic problems, the MMPI-2-RF scales of

RC1, MLS, HPC, and NUC scales demonstrated statistically significant associations with

the Fantasizing scale, but these associations did not reach .3 as initially anticipated.

Lastly, the results showed the Fantasizing scale and Interpersonal Functioning SP scales

of RC3 and SHY were statistically significantly associated; yet, the magnitude of the

associations was below .3.

76

In examining the results for the Avoidance RSI-D scale, hypothesized

associations were demonstrated to be present between this scale and several MMPI-2-RF

scales assessing emotional/internalizing dysfunction and interpersonal functioning,

including RC7, NFC, AXY, as well as RC3. As hypothesized, the results indicated that

several other statistically significant associations were present between the Avoidance

scale and MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the EID hierarchy, such as EID, RCd,

STW, ANP, and NEGE-r; however, the magnitude of the correlations only approached .3.

Moreover, several MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the THD hierarchy, namely THD,

RC6, RC8, and PSYC-r demonstrated statistically significant associations with the

Avoidance scale as anticipated, but these correlations did not reach the magnitude

required for interpretation. Several MMPI-2-RF assessing somatic difficulties, including

RC1, MLS, GIC, NUC, and COG were also statistically significantly associated with the

Avoidance scale as hypothesized, but the magnitude of these correlations fell below .3.

Finally, the Avoidance scale was also statistically significantly associated with one

MMPI-2-RF scale assessing externalizing behavior, namely RC4, and one scale assessing

familial problems, specifically FML. However, the magnitudes of the correlations did not

reach .3.

The pattern of results demonstrated between the Passive Acceptance scale of the

RSI-D and the MMPI-2-RF scales was weak overall. None of the calculated correlations

met both of the requirements for interpretation; however, two of the associations were

statistically significant. More specifically, significant associations were present between

the Passive Acceptance scale and RC3, as well as an emotional/internalizing dysfunction

77

scale, NFC; yet, the magnitude of these associations approached.3. None of the other

calculated correlations reach the required level of statistical significance. Thus, a majority

of the anticipated associations between various MMPI-2-RF scales and the Passive

Acceptance scale were not supported by the results of this study.

None of the correlations calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales

and the Minimization scale of the RSI-D were statistically significant; therefore, the

hypothesized associations between these scales were not upheld.

The Over-Reaction scale of the RSI-D was significantly associated with many of

the MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction

hierarchy, as anticipated. In particular, the MMPI-2-RF scales of EID, RCd, RC2, RC7,

SFD, NFC, STW, AXY, and NEGE-r were statistically significantly associated with the

Over-Reaction scale and the magnitudes of these associations exceeded .3. Furthermore,

consistent with the hypotheses, two Interpersonal Functioning SP scales, FML and SHY,

were also statistically significantly associated with the Over-Reaction scale and the

magnitude of the associations rose above the level required for interpretation.

Also, consistent with the hypotheses, the Over-Reaction scale was also

statistically significantly associated with several other MMPI-2-RF scales assessing

emotional dysfunction, including SUI, HLP, and ANP, but the magnitude of these

associations did not reach a medium effect size. Two other MMPI-2-RF scales assessing

interpersonal problems, RC3 and IPP, were also statistically significantly associated with

the Over-Reaction scale; however, the magnitude of the associations fell below the level

required for interpretation. In addition, associations were present between several somatic

78

scales of the MMPI-2-RF, including RC1, MLS, GIC, and COG, but the correlations only

approached a medium effect size. Finally, none of the hypothesized associations between

the Over-Reaction scale and those MMPI-2-RF scales assessing behavioral/externalizing

dysfunction were supported by the results of this study.

Lastly, only two hypotheses regarding associations between the MMPI-2-RF

scales and the RSI-D scale of Spirituality were fully supported. The SUB SP scale and

the DISC PSY-5 scale, both of which are contained within the Behavioral/Externalizing

Dysfunction scale hierarchy, were statistically significantly negatively associated with the

Spirituality scale, and the magnitude of the correlations exceeded a medium effect size.

Several other hypotheses were partially supported, as statistically significant inverse

associations were demonstrated between other MMPI-2-RF scales assessing externalizing

problems, including BXD and RC4, and the Spirituality scale of the RSI-D. However, the

correlations only approached a medium effect size; therefore, these correlations were not

interpreted.




A series of linear regression analyses were conducted to examine which

personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, best

predicted the various types of dispositional coping responses on the RSI-D. For each RSI-

D scale, a set of five regression analyses were conducted to correspond with the

hierarchical structure of the MMPI-2-RF, and variables were entered into each of the

79

regression analyses using a forward step-wise procedure. In particular, the first regression

analysis included the Higher-Order (H-O) Scales, the second regression analysis

examined the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, the Specific Problems (SP) Scales

served as the independent variables for the third analysis, and the fourth regression

analysis incorporated the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales as the

independent variables. A final (i.e., fifth) regression analysis utilized a set of mixed

independent variables from various levels of the MMPI-2-RF measurement hierarchy,

and select MMPI-2-RF scales were only included in the analysis if they demonstrated a

significant beta weight in one of the prior regression analyses. Tables 6 through 18

provide the results for the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-D scales.

The results of the regression analyses predicting scores on RSI-D Problem

Confrontation scale are displayed in Table 6. The results indicated that the EID H-O scale

accounted for 9% of the variance in predicting dispositional problem confrontation. The

results also demonstrated the RCd scale accounted for 9% of the variance in predicting

scores on the RSI-D scale. The results of the analyses also conveyed that the SP scales

AXY, FML, SAV, and IPP collectively accounted for 21% of the variance in predicting

the dispositional coping response of problem confrontation. With regard to the PSY-5

scales, the results indicated that NEGE-r accounted for 5% of the variance in predicting

scores on the RSI-D Problem Confrontation scale. The results for the final, “mixed,”

regression analysis were identical to the results for the SP regression model, as the AXY,

FML, SAV, and IPP scales accounted for a total of 21% of the variance in predicting

dispositional problem confrontation.

80

Table 6. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting

RSI-D Problem of Confrontation

R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β

HO scales EID .30 .09 .09 16.62 1, 167 .001 -.30*

RC scales RCd .30 .09 .09 16.88 1, 167 .001 -.30*

SP scales AXY, FML,

SAV, IPP .45 .21 .19 10.61 4, 164 .001

-.24*, -.24*,

.23*, -.22*

PSY-5 scales NEGE .22 .05 .04 8.37 1, 167 .004 -.22*

Mixed model AXY, FML,

SAV, IPP .45 .21 .19 10.61 4, 164 .001

-.24*, -.24*,

.23*, -.22*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.

With regard to the RSI-D Problem Analysis scale, the results, illustrated in Table

7, conveyed that none of the H-O or RC scales significantly predicted the dispositional

coping response of problem analysis. In contrast, the results for the third analysis

demonstrated that the SAV, SFD, and ANP SP scales collectively accounted for 16% of

the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D Problem Analysis scale. The results also

demonstrated that the INTR scale accounted for 3% of the variance in predicting scores

on the dispositional problem analysis scale. The results of the final regression analysis

indicated that SFD and ANP accounted for 12% of the variance in predicting scores on

the RSI-D Problem Analysis scale.

Exploring the results for the RSI-D Self-Examination scale, which are presented

in Table 8, the first regression analysis demonstrated that EID accounted for 9% of the

variance in predicting the dispositional coping response of self-examination. The second

regression analysis indicated that RC2 accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting

scores on the RSI-D Self-Examination scale. The results also showed that the SP scales

81


RSI-D Problem Analysis


HO scales ≡

RC scales ≡

SP scales SAV, SFD, ANP .40 .16 .15 10.75 3, 165 .001 .32*, -.21*, -.17*

PSY-5 scales INTR .17 .03 .02 4.78 1, 167 .03 .17*

Mixed model SFD, ANP .34 .12 .10 10.77 2, 166 .001 -.25*, -.17*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates that a beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates no

variables entered into the regression equation.

Table 8. Results of the Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in

Predicting RSI-D Self-Examination


HO scales EID .30 .09 .09 16.85 1, 167 .001 .30*

RC scales RC2 .27 .07 .07 13.21 1, 167 .001 .27*

SP scales SAV, AXY, DSF .37 .14 .12 8.73 3, 165 .001 .27*, .23*, -.17*

PSY-5 scales INTR, NEGE .32 .10 .09 9.28 2, 166 .001 .23*, .17*

Mixed model EID, SAV, DSF .37 .14 .12 8.79 3, 165 .001 .25*, .21*, -.17*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates that a beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates no


of SAV, AXY, and DSF collectively accounted for 14% of the variance. The fourth

analysis conveyed that the PSY-5 scales of INTR and NEGE accounted for a total of 10%

of the variance in the prediction of scores on the RSI-D Self-Examination scale. The

results for the final “mixed” regression analysis demonstrated that a combination of H-O

and SP scales best predicted the dispositional coping response of problem analysis. In

particular, the scales of EID, SAV, and DSF accounted for 14% of the variance in

predicting scores on the RSI-D Self-Examination scale.

82

The results for the regression analysis predicting scores on the RSI-D Self-

Reassurance scale are displayed in Table 9. The results for the first regression analysis

conveyed that the EID scale accounted for 13% of the variance in predicting the

dispositional coping response of self-reassurance. The results also illustrated that the RCd

and RC8 scales collectively accounted for 15% of the variance in predicting scores on the

RSI-D Self-Reassurance scale. In examining the results of the third regression analysis,

the scales of SFD, ACT, and SHY accounted for a total of 16% of the variance in

predicting the dispositional coping response of self-reassurance. The results of the fourth

regression analysis demonstrated that the PSY-5 scales INTR and NEGE accounted for

8% of the variance. The results of the “mixed” regression model conveyed that the

combination of one H-O scale, EID, and one SP scale, ACT, best predicted scores on the

RSI-D Self-Reassurance scale by accounting for 17% of the variance.

Table 9. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF scales in predicting

RSI-D Self-Reassurance


HO scales EID .36 .13 .12 24.89 1, 167 .001 -.36*

RC scales RCd, RC8 .39 .15 .14 14.44 2, 166 .001 -.42*, .17*

SP scales SFD, ACT, SHY .40 .16 .15 10.54 3, 165 .001 -.25*, .20*, -.19*

PSY-5 scales INTR, NEGE .29 .08 .07 7.54 2, 166 .001 -.19*, -.17*

Mixed model EID, ACT .41 .17 .16 16.79 2, 166 .001 -.38*, .20*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates that a beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.

In predicting the dispositional coping response of seeking advice, the results,

which are illustrated in Table 10, indicated that none of the H-O, RC, or PSY-5 scales

significantly contributed to the predicting scores on the RSI-D Seeking Advice scale.

83

Conversely, the results demonstrated that the SP scales of DSF and ACT collectively

accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting dispositional seeking advice. Therefore,

the combination of two SP scales, DSF and ACT, best predicted scores on the Seeking

Advice scale of the RSI-D.


RSI-D Seeking Advice


HO scales ≡

RC scales ≡

SP scales DSF, ACT .27 .07 .06 6.65 2, 166 .002 -.19*, .17*

PSY-5 scales ≡

Mixed model DSF, ACT .27 .07 .06 6.65 2, 166 .002 -.19*, .17*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates that a beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05, ≡

indicates that no variables entered into the regression equation.

With regard to the RSI-D Seeking Emotional Support scale, the results are

illustrated in Table 11, and the results demonstrated that BXD accounted for 4% of the

variance. The results also indicated that the RC8 scale accounted for 2% of the variance

in predicting dispositional seeking emotional support. Furthermore, the results of the

third regression analysis demonstrated that DSF, SHY, and MLS collectively accounted

for 16% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D Seeking Emotional Support

scale. The results of the fourth regression analysis conveyed INTR and DISC accounted

for 7% of the variance. The results of the final regression analysis, which examined a

mixed set of MMPI-2-RF scales, mirrored the results of the third analysis, which

illustrated that the combination of the SP scales of DSF, SHY, and MLS best predicted

84

the dispositional coping response of seeking emotional support, and accounted for 16%

of the variance.


RSI-D Seeking Emotional Support


HO scales BXD .19 .04 .03 6.05 1, 167 .02 -.19*

RC scales RC8 .15 .02 .02 4.00 1, 167 .05 -.15*

SP scales DSF, SHY, MLS .40 .16 .14 10.43 3, 165 .001 -.36*, .24*, -.17*

PSY-5 scales INTR, DISC .27 .07 .06 6.55 2, 166 .002 -.22*, -.20*

Mixed model DSF, SHY, MLS .40 .16 .14 10.43 3, 165 .001 -.36*, .24*, -.17*

Variables entered

F test


The results for the RSI-D Emotional Suppression scale, which are presented in

Table 12, illustrated that none of the H-O or RC scales significantly predicted the

dispositional coping response of emotional suppression. The results also demonstrated

that the SP scales of DSF and ACT collectively accounted for 18% of the variance in

predicting scores on the Emotional Suppression scale of the RSI-D. The results further

illustrated that the PSY-5 scale of INTR accounted for 3% of the variance in predicting

scores on the RSI-D Emotional Suppression scale. The results of the final regression

analysis were identical to the results for the third regression analysis, which indicated that

the combination the SP scales of DSF and ACT best predicted the dispositional coping

response of emotional suppression.

85


RSI-D Emotional Suppression


HO scales ≡

RC scales ≡

SP scales DSF, ACT .42 .18 .17 17.63 2, 166 .001 .38*, -.15*

PSY-5 scales INTR .18 .03 .03 5.87 1, 167 .02 .18*

Mixed model DSF, ACT .42 .18 .17 17.63 2, 166 .001 .38*, -.15*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡


In examining the regression analyses for the RSI-D Denial scale, the results are

illustrated in Table 13, and they demonstrated that the THD and EID scales accounted for

a total of 15% of the variance. The results also showed that two RC scales, RC7 and RC3,

accounted for 17% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D Denial scale. The

results of the regression analyses also conveyed that the SP scales of NFC and ACT

collectively accounted for 21% of the variance in predicting dispositional denial. The

results of the fourth regression analysis illustrated that four PSY-5 scales, namely NEGE,

PSYC, DISC, and INTR accounted for a total of 21% of the variance in predicting scores

on the RSI-D Denial scale. Finally, the results of the “mixed” regression analysis

demonstrated that a combination of H-O, RC, SP, and PSY-5 scales, including NFC,

THD, DISC, RC3, and INTR optimally predicted the dispositional coping response of

denial by accounting for 29% of the variance.

86

Table 13. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting RSI-D Denial


HO scales THD, EID .39 .15 .14 14.48 2, 166 .001 .28*, .19*

RC scales RC7, RC3 .41 .17 .16 17.15 2, 166 .001 .29*, .18*

SP scales NFC ACT .46 .21 .20 21.78 2, 166 .001 .38*, .19*

PSY-5 scales NEGE, PSYC, DISC, INTR .46 .21 .19 10.96 4, 164 .001 .30*, .26*, -.19*, -.16*

Mixed model NFC, THD, DISC, RC3, INTR .53 .29 .26 13.03 5, 163 .001 .29*, .26*, -.21*, .17*, -.14*

Variables entered

F test


87

The results predicting scores on the RSI-D Fantasizing scale, which are presented

in Table 14, indicated that EID, THD, and BXD collectively accounted for 20% of the

variance. The second regression analysis demonstrated that a single RC scale, RC7,

accounted for 16% of the variance in predicting the situational coping response of

fantasizing. The results of the third regression analysis conveyed that three SP scales,

NFC, MSF, and FML accounted for 29% of variance in predicting scores on the

Fantasizing scale of the RSI-D. The results of the fourth regression analysis conveyed

that the NEGE, DISC, and PSYC PSY-5 scales collectively accounted for 22% of the

variance in predicting the dispositional coping response of fantasizing. Furthermore, the

results of the “mixed” regression analysis indicated that the combination of SP and H-O

scales, including NFC, MSF, FML, THD, and BXD best predicted scores on the RSI-D

scale of Fantasizing, as the scales collectively accounted for 34% of the variance.

With regard to the RSI-D Avoidance scale, the results are displayed in Table 15,

and the results of the first regression analysis indicated that the THD H-O scale

accounted for 8% of the variance in predicting the coping response of dispositional

avoidance. The results of the second regression analysis illustrated that the RC3 and RC1

scales accounted for 13% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D Avoidance

scale. The results also demonstrated that the SP scales of AXY, FML, SAV, SUI, and

NFC collectively accounted for 20% of the variance in predicting the dispositional coping

response of avoidance. The results of the fourth regression analysis showed that the

PSYC and NEGE PSY-5 scales accounted for 11% of the variance in predicting scores on

the Avoidance scale of the RSI-D. The final regression analysis demonstrated that a

88

Table 14. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting RSI-D Fantasizing


HO scales EID, THD, BXD .45 .20 .18 13.54 3, 165 .001 .29*, .29*, -.18*

RC scales RC7 .40 .16 .15 31.66 1, 167 .001 .40*

SP scales NFC, MSF, FML .54 .29 .28 22.58 3, 165 .001 .25*, .27*, .24*

PSY-5 scales NEGE, DISC, PSYC .47 .22 .20 15.23 3, 165 .001 .25*, -.27*, .29*

Mixed model NFC, MSF, FML, THD, BXD .58 .34 .32 16.66 5, 163 .001 .22*, .23*, .24*, .25*, -.19*

≤

Variables entered

F test


Table 15. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting RSI-D Avoidance


HO scales THD .29 .08 .08 14.77 1, 167 .001 .29*

RC scales RC3, RC1 .36 .13 .12 12.55 2, 166 .001 .25*, .20*

SP scales AXY, FML, SAV, SUI, NFC .45 .20 .17 8.03 5, 163 .001 .26*, .21*, -.17*, -.18*, .18*

PSY-5 scales PSYC, NEGE .33 .11 .10 10.03 2, 166 .001 .20*, .19*

Mixed model RC3, AXY, SUI, FML .42 .18 .16 8.94 4, 164 .001 .18*, .26*, -.20*, .18*

Variables entered

F test


89

combination of RC and SP scales predicted the dispositional coping response of

avoidance, as RC3, AXY, SUI, and FML collectively accounted for 18% of the variance.

In exploring the dispositional coping response of passive acceptance, the results

are documented in Table 16, and they indicated that none of the H-O scales significantly

predicted scores on the RSI-D Passive Acceptance scale. Conversely, the results of the

second regression analysis demonstrated that RC3 accounted for 4% of the variance in

predicting dispositional passive acceptance. The results also showed that the NFC and

STW scales collectively accounted for 8% of the variance in predicting scores on the

RSI-D Passive Acceptance scale. The results of the fourth regression analysis illustrated

that PSYC accounted for 3% of the variance in predicting the dispositional coping

response of passive acceptance. The results of the final regression analysis indicated that

a combination of SP and RC scales, including NFC, STW, and RC3, accounted for 11%

of the variance and best predicted scores on the RSI-D Passive Acceptance scale.


RSI-D Passive Acceptance


HO scales ≡RC scales RC3 .21 .04 .04 7.65 1, 167 .01 .21*

SP scales NFC, STW .28 .08 .07 6.83 2, 166 .001 .35*, -.22*

PSY-5 scales PSYC .17 .03 .02 4.83 1, 167 .03 .17*

Mixed model NFC, STW, RC3 .33 .11 .09 6.53 3, 165 .001 .30*, -.28*, .20*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates

that no variables entered into the regression equation.

90

The results for the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-D

Minimization scale demonstrated that none of the H-O, RC, SP, or PSY-5 scales

significantly predicted the dispositional coping response of minimization.

The results of the regression analyses exploring dispositional over-reaction are

present in Table 17, and they indicated that the EID H-O scale accounted for 19% of the

variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D Over-Reaction scale. The results also

indicated that the RC7 scale accounted for 16% of the variance in predicting the

dispositional coping response of over-reaction. With regard to the SP scales, STW, NFC,

and IPP collectively accounted for 24% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D

Over-Reaction scale. The results further demonstrated that the PSY-5 scales of NEGE

and AGGR accounted for 24% of the variance in predicting dispositional over-reaction.

The final, “mixed,” regression analysis indicated that two PSY-5 scales, NEGE and

AGGR, optimally predicted scores on the Over-Reaction scale of the RSI-D, as the

results of the analysis were identical that of the fourth regression analysis.


RSI-D Over-Reaction


HO scales EID .44 .19 .18 38.89 1, 167 .001 .44*

RC scales RC7 .40 .16 .16 32.29 1, 167 .001 .40*

SP scales STW, NFC, IPP .49 .24 .23 17.33 3, 165 .001 .29*, .21*, .15*

PSY-5 scales NEGE, AGGR .49 .24 .23 26.23 2, 166 .001 .46*, -.18*

Mixed model NEGE, AGGR .49 .24 .23 26.23 2, 166 .001 .46*, -.18*

≤

Variables entered

F test


91

With regard to the RSI-D Spirituality scale, the results of the regression analyses

are conveyed in Table 18. The results conveyed that BXD accounted for 8% of the

variance in predicting the dispositional coping response of spirituality. The results also

demonstrated that RC4 accounted for 5% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-

D Spirituality scale. The SP scales of SUB, HPC, MLS, and MSF were demonstrated to

collectively account for 24% of the variance in predicting dispositional spirituality. The

results showed that a single PSY-5 scale, DISC, accounted for 10% of the variance in

predicting scores on the Spirituality scale of the RSI-D. The results of the final analysis,

examining a mixed set of independent variables, mirrored the results for the third

regression analysis, as the SUB, HPC, MLS, and MSF scales accounted for 24% of the

variance.


RSI-D Spirituality


HO scales BXD .28 .08 .07 13.79 1, 167 .001 -.28*

RC scales RC4 .21 .05 .04 7.96 1, 167 .01 -.21*

SP scales SUB, HPC,

MLS, MSF .49 .24 .22 12.87 4, 164 .001 -.32*, .35*, -.32*, .24*

PSY-5 scales DISC .31 .10 .09 18.05 1, 167 .001 -.31*

Mixed model SUB, HPC,

MLS, MSF .49 .24 .22 12.87 4, 164 .001 -.32*, .35*, -.32*, .24*

≤

Variables entered

F test


92



the RSI?

Zero order correlations were calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF

scales and each of the 14 coping scales on the RSI-S. Table 19 provides the Pearson

product moment correlation coefficients for the analyses. The correlations were required

to meet two criteria for interpretation. In particular, the correlation was required to be

statistically significant at p ≤ .001, as well as reach or exceed a magnitude of .3 or a

medium effect size (r = .30; Cohen, 1988) for interpretation.

Although inverse associations were hypothesized to be present between each of

the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales and the Problem Confrontation scale of the RSI-S, the

results demonstrated that none of the calculated correlations met both of the requirements

for interpretation. Providing partial support for some hypotheses, several of the

associations demonstrated were statistically significant, but the magnitude of these

associations did not reach .3. Specifically, the Problem Confrontation scale was

statistically significantly inversely associated with MMPI-2-RF scales assessing

internalizing difficulties, HLP, NFC, and MSF but the effect sizes demonstrated were

small in magnitude. Therefore, the hypothesized associations between the various MMPI-

2-RF scales and the Problem Confrontation were largely unsupported by the results of

this study.

Similarly, the results for the correlations calculated between the Problem Analysis

RSI-S scale and the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales indicated that none of the

93

Table 19. Correlations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-S Scales

MMPI-2-RF


H-O Scales

EID -.12 .04 .08 -.20** .09 .08 -.07 .30** .29** .11 -.02 .05 .33** -.06

THD -.03 .11 .07 .02 .12 .04 .00 .35** .31** .12 .10 .06 .22** .04

BXD .08 .13 .06 .03 .13 -.09 .06 .09 .03 .05 .02 .05 0.14* -.03

RC Scales

RCd -.11 .06 .11 -.15* .12 .05 -.06 .30** .33** .12* .01 .08 .38** -.04

RC1 .03 .10 .07 .00 .15* .09 -.09 .27** .29** .06 .01 .09 .24** -.01

RC2 -.11 -.09 -.02 -.27** -.04 -.01 -.01 .15* .10 -.03 -.08 .03 .18* -.08

RC3 -.12 .05 .04 -.14* .12 -.01 -.01 .21** .19** .09 .08 -.03 .20** -.09

RC4 .03 .05 .03 -.04 .08 -.09 .04 .11 .07 .00 -.04 .03 .18* -.03

RC6 -.05 .13* .13* -.07 .12 .03 -.04 .37** .32** .11 .01 .03 .31** .03

RC7 -.07 .04 .10 -.10 .13* .11 -.09 .40** .37** .15* .02 .07 .33** -.03

RC8 .00 .11 .08 .08 .12 .02 .01 .26** .25** .10 .13* .07 .18** .06

RC9 .05 .15* .05 .06 .22** .05 -.07 .17** .19** .18** .12 .07 .23** .01

SP Scales

Somatic Scales

MLS -.05 .02 .12 -.09 .06 .05 -.08 .25** .29** .16** .02 .12 .26** -.02

GIC .07 .06 .07 -.01 .05 .02 -.03 .19** .15* .03 -.04 .09 .14* -.05

HPC .00 .17** .11 .01 .17** .11 -.07 .21** .26** .11 .08 0.08 .18** -.01

NUC .02 .03 .03 -.02 .14* .09 -.11 .21** .23** -.01 -.07 .03 .25** .06

COG -.11 .02 .05 -.04 .11 .02 .00 .26** .20** .12 .14* .13* .23** .07

Note: N = 250; * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .001; bold = medium or larger effect size; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis; SE =

Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D =


RSI-S Scales

94

Table 19 (Continued)

MMPI-2-RF


SUI -.04 .01 -.01 -.04 .02 -.01 .04 .25** .18** .07 -.04 .05 .13* -.01

HLP -.16** .03 .06 -.19** .12 .09 -.04 .25** .25** .05 -.04 -.02 .25** .02

SFD -.12* -.03 .00 -.18** .00 .02 -.05 .26** .26** .08 .00 .01 .30** -.06

NFC -.19** -.01 .04 -.07 .11 .11 -.10 .38** .30** .15* .11 .07 .30** .02

STW -.05 .10 .09 -.04 .04 .05 -.05 .32** .31** .15* .02 .06 .28** .00

AXY -.01 .09 .14* -.03 .17* .09 -.07 .34** .28** .08 .01 .05 .28** -.01

ANP .02 .11 .09 -.09 .09 .02 -.07 .27** .27** .07 -.02 .02 .27** -.03

BRF -.10 -.09 .01 -.02 .01 .05 -.09 .14* .15* .05 .04 .08 .10 .06

MSF -.16** -.03 .09 -.07 .02 .12* -.13* .16** .19** .04 .01 -.06 .04 .12

JCP .09 .11 .04 .00 .10 -.13* .08 .07 .03 .04 -.07 .01 .12 .05

SUB -.05 -.05 -.01 -.03 .01 -.05 .03 .12 .02 -.02 -.02 .05 .09 -.06

AGG .01 .04 .01 -.07 .06 -.02 -.03 .22** .20** .05 .00 -.04 .20** -.06

ACT .01 .03 -.01 .06 .17** .10 -.11 .11 .18** .11 .09 .06 .16** .01

FML -.06 .01 .01 -.12 .08 .01 -.08 .14* .15* .10 .03 -.02 .19** -.11

IPP -.10 -.08 .07 .01 -.10 .04 -.03 .14* .11 .10 .08 .13* .11 -.05

SAV -.01 .02 -.03 -.20** -.06 -.05 .10 -.05 -.07 -.08 -.14* -.05 .03 .00

SHY -.10 .00 .01 -.13* .01 .03 .05 .17** .13* .16* .07 .07 .07 -.12

DSF -.03 -.01 -.05 .02 -.12 -.16* .30** .10 .03 .00 .07 .01 .05 -.01




RSI-S Scales




95


MMPI-2-RF


PSY-5 Scales

AGGR-r .04 .06 -.05 -.04 .09 -.05 .03 -.01 .01 -.03 -.02 -.11 -.02 .10

PSYC-r -.04 .12* .10 .07 .12 .03 .04 .35** .31** .15* .17** .12 .19** .06

DISC-r .13* .14* .06 .05 .09 -.12* .08 .00 -.07 -.04 -.01 .04 .07 -.06

NEGE-r -.06 .09 .12 -.08 .14* .12* -.16* .37** .35** .15* -.02 .04 .37** -.03

INTR-R -.03 -.01 -.03 -.26** -.13* -.09 .13* -.02 -.08 -.14* -.15* -.07 .00 -.01

RSI-S Scales




96

hypothesized associations were fully supported. In fact, only one Somatic scale of the

MMPI-2-RF, HPC, was statistically significantly associated with the Problem Analysis

scale; however, the magnitude of the association was small. Also, the correlation

calculated was positive, but the hypothesized direction of the association was negative.

The results of the correlations calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF

scales and the RSI-S scale of Self-Reassurance demonstrated several hypothesized

inverse associations were partially, but not fully supported. In particular, the correlations

between the scales of EID, RC2, HLP, SFD, and INTR-r and the RSI-S Self-Reassurance

scale were statistically significant; however, the associations approached, but did not

reach, medium effect sizes. Also, a similar pattern was demonstrated between the MMPI-

2-RF SP scale of SAV and the RSI-S Self-Reassurance, as the calculated correlation was

statistically significantly as hypothesized; yet, the magnitude of the correlation fell below

.3. Finally, none of the associations hypothesized between the scales contained in the

Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchies of the MMPI-2-RF and the Self-

Reassurance scale of the RSI-S were supported by the results of the analyses.

Inverse associations were hypothesized to be present between the Seeking Advice

RSI-S scale and each of the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales; however, none of the

calculated correlations met both of the requirements for interpretation. Specifically, two

scales contained within the MMPI-2-RF Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchy,

RC9 and ACT, were statistically significantly associated with the Seeking Advice scale,

but the magnitudes of these associations did not reach .3 as initially anticipated.

Similarly, the Seeking Advice RSI-S scale was statistically significantly positively

97

associated with HPC, a Somatic MMPI-2-RF scale, but the magnitude of the correlation

was less than .3. Moreover, the results illustrated that none of the anticipated associations

between the MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing

Dysfunction hierarchy and the Seeking Advice RSI-S scale were supported by the results

of this study.

The Emotional Suppression RSI-S scale was statistically significantly associated

with the MMPI-2-RF Interpersonal Functioning SP scale of DSF, and the correlation was

r = .30. One other hypothesis was partially supported, as a statistically significant

association was present between MSF, an Internalizing MMPI-2-RF scale, and the

Emotional Suppression scale; however, the correlation did not achieve a medium effect

size as previously hypothesized. Finally, none of the other calculated correlations met

either of the requirements for interpretation; therefore, the remaining hypotheses were not

supported.

In contrast, the results for the correlations calculated between the Denial scale of

the RSI-S and all of the substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF indicated that many of the

hypotheses were supported. In particular, several of the scales contained within the

MMPI-2-RF Emotional/Internalizing hierarchy, including EID, RCd, RC7, NFC, STW,

AXY, and NEGE-r were statistically significantly associated with the Denial scale and

the magnitudes of these associations exceeded .3. Also, several unexpected associations

were present between the Denial scale and those MMPI-2-RF scales contained with the

Thought Dysfunction hierarchy, including THD, RC6, and PSYC-r, and the correlations

between these scales exceeded .3. Thus, although these associations were not initially

98

hypothesized, the correlations demonstrated met both requirements for interpretation.

Several other MMPI-2-RF emotional/internalizing scales, such as SUI, HLP, SFD, ANP,

and MSF were statistically significantly associated with the Denial scale as anticipated,

but these associations did not reach a medium effect size. Also, RC8, a scale assessing

odd perceptual experiences and thought dysfunction, was statistically significantly linked

to the Denial scale; however, the magnitude of the correlation only approached .3. The

Denial scale was also statistically significantly associated with several of the MMPI-2-RF

scales assessing Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction, such as RC9 and AGG; however,

the magnitude of the associations did not reach a medium effect size. Furthermore, all of

the MMPI-2-RF Somatic scales, including RC1, MLS, GIC, HPC, NUC, and COG were

statistically significantly correlated with the Denial scale, but the correlations were small

in magnitude. Finally, two MMPI-2-RF scales assessing interpersonal functioning, RC3

and SHY, demonstrated statistically significant associations with the Denial scale, but the

magnitude of the correlations was small. Overall, a large majority of the hypothesized

associations were either fully or at least partially supported by the results of this study.

Similar to the Denial scale, a large number of anticipated associations were

demonstrated to be present between the RSI-S Fantasizing scale and scales contained

within the Emotional/Internalizing, Behavioral/Externalizing, and Somatic MMPI-2-RF

hierarchies. Specifically, the results showed statistically significant associations were

present between the Fantasizing scale and the MMPI-2-RF scales of RCd, RC7, NFC,

AXY, and NEGE-r, and the magnitude of these associations exceeded .3. Also, several

unanticipated associations were present between MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the

99

Thought Dysfunction hierarchy, specifically THD, RC6, and PSYC-r, and the Fantasizing

scale, and these associations were of a medium effect size.

In addition, several statistically significant associations were demonstrated

between the RSI-S Denial scale and other scales assessing emotional difficulties, such as

EID, SUI, HLP, SFD, ANP, and MSF; however, the magnitude of the associations did

not reach .3. Likewise, the Fantasizing scale demonstrated another statistically significant

association with an MMPI-2-RF Thought Dysfunction scale, RC8, but the magnitude of

the correlation did not reach the level required for interpretation. Furthermore, several of

the scales contained within the MMPI-2-RF Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction

hierarchy, in particular RC9, AGG, and ACT, were statistically significantly associated

with the Denial scale, but the magnitude of the correlations was small. The MMPI-2-RF

Somatic Scales, including RC1, MLS, HPC, NUC, and COG, as well as the Interpersonal

Functioning SP scale of RC3, demonstrated statistically significant associations with the

Fantasizing scale; yet, the magnitudes of the associations fell below .3. Thus, several of

the hypotheses were fully supported by the results of this study and the results illustrated

many of the remaining hypotheses were partially supported as well.

In examining the pattern of correlations calculated between the Avoidance RSI-S

and MMPI-2-RF scales, the hypothesized associations were largely unsupported, as none

of the calculated correlations met both of the requirements for interpretation. However,

one association was demonstrated between RC9, which is an MMPI-2-RF scale of the

Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchy, and the Avoidance RSI-S scale, but the

magnitude of the association was less than .3. MLS, an MMPI-2-RF scale assessing

100

somatic problems, was also statistically significantly associated with the Avoidance RSI-

S scale; however, the correlation did not reach the magnitude required for interpretation.

No significant associations were present between the Avoidance scale and any of the

MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing hierarchy; thus, those

hypothesized associations were not supported.

The Passive Acceptance scale of the RSI-S was anticipated to be associated with

the MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing and

Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchies; however, none of those hypotheses

were supported by the results of this study. One unexpected statistically significant

association was present between the PSYC-r scale, which is part of the Thought

Dysfunction hierarchy, and the RSI-S Passive Acceptance scale, but the magnitude of the

association was small. Therefore, the pattern of results demonstrated between the various

MMPI-2-RF scales and the Passive Acceptance scale was weak and a majority of the

study hypotheses were not supported.

Many of the correlations calculated between the RSI-S Over-Reaction scale and

the MMPI-2-RF scales provided at least partial support for the hypotheses. Associations

that were both statistically significant and of a medium or large effect size were

demonstrated between the Over-Reaction scale and several MMPI-2-RF scales assessing

emotional/internalizing problems, including EID, RCd, RC7, SFD, NFC, and NEGE-r. In

addition, an unexpected, but significant, association was demonstrated between RC6, a

scale contained within the Thought Dysfunction hierarchy, and the Over-Reaction RSI-S

scale, and this association was of a medium effect size.

101

Several other associations between select MMPI-2-RF scales and the RSI-S Over-

Reaction scale were statistically significant as hypothesized, but did not reach the

magnitude required for interpretation. In particular, other scales of the

Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction MMPI-2-RF hierarchy, such as HLP, STW, AXY,

and ANP, were statistically significantly associated with the Over-Reaction scale, but the

associations only approached .3. Also, as hypothesized, statistically significant

associations were present between the Over-Reaction RSI-S scale and MMPI-2-RF scales

contained within the Behavioral/ Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchy, including RC9,

AGG, and ACT; however, the associations were of a small effect size. The results also

partially supported the hypothesized associations between the Over-Reaction scale and

two of the Interpersonal Functioning scales, RC3 and FML, as statistically significant

associations were present between these scales, but the associations did not reach the

magnitude required for interpretation. Statistically significant associations were

demonstrated between the Somatic MMPI-2-RF Scales, such as RC1, MLS, HPC, NUC,

and COG, and the Over-Reaction scale as anticipated, but the magnitude of the

associations was smaller than .3. Finally, other scales contained within the MMPI-2-RF

Thought Dysfunction hierarchy, specifically THD, RC8, and PSYC-r, demonstrated

unexpected, but statistically significant, associations with the Over-Reaction RSI-S scale;

however, these associations did not rise to the level required for interpretation.

In examining the results for the Self-Examination, Seeking Emotional Support,

Minimization, and Spirituality RSI-S scales, the results demonstrated that none of the

correlations calculated with the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales were significant. Thus,

102

none of the hypothesized associations between the various MMPI-2-RF scales and the

Self-Examination, Seeking Emotional Support, Minimization, and Spirituality scales of

the RSI-S were supported.

In conclusion, fewer statistically significant associations between the various

MMPI-2-RF and RSI-S scales were found overall, and the magnitudes of these

associations were generally smaller than the magnitude of associations between the

MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D scales. This pattern is consistent with the study hypotheses.




A series of linear regression analyses were conducted to examine which

personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, best

predicted the various types of situational coping responses on the RSI-S. For each RSI-S

scale, a set of five regression analyses were conducted to correspond with the hierarchical

structure of the MMPI-2-RF, and variables were entered into each of the regression

analyses using a forward step-wise procedure. In particular, the first regression analysis

included the Higher-Order (H-O) Scales, the second regression analysis examined the

Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, the Specific Problems (SP) Scales served as the

independent variables for the third analysis, and the fourth regression analysis

incorporated the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales as the independent

variables. A final (i.e., fifth) regression analysis utilized a set of mixed scales from

various levels of the MMPI-2-RF measurement hierarchy, and those scales were only

103

included in the analysis if they previously demonstrated a significant beta weight in one

of the four regression analyses. Tables 20 to 32 provide the results for the regression

analyses.

The results of the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-S Problem

Confrontation scale, located in Table 20, demonstrated that none of the H-O or RC scales

significantly contributed to the prediction. The results also indicated the SP scale of NFC

and ANP collectively accounted for approximately 6% of the variance in predicting

situational problem confrontation. The results also conveyed the DISC PSY-5 scale

accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Problem

Confrontation scale. The results for the final, “mixed,” regression analysis were identical

to the results for the SP regression model, as the NFC and ANP scales accounted for 6%

of the variance. Thus, the SP scales optimally predicted the situational coping response of

problem confrontation.


RSI-S Problem Confrontation


HO scales ≡RC scales ≡SP scales NFC, ANP .24 .06 .05 7.59 2, 248 .001 -.28*, .17*

PSY-5 scales DISC .13 .02 .01 4.39 1, 249 .04 .13*

Mixed model NFC, ANP .24 .06 .05 7.59 2, 248 .001 -.28*, .17*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05,

≡ indicates that no variables entered into the regression equation.

104

Regarding situational problem analysis, the results are illustrated in Table 21, and

they showed that the H-O scale of BXD accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting

scores on the RSI-S Problem Analysis scale. The results of the second regression analysis

conveyed that RC9 accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting the situational coping

response of problem analysis. Results for the third analysis demonstrated the HPC and

BRF SP scales accounted for 5% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S

Problem Analysis scale. According to the results for the fourth regression analysis, the

DISC scale accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Problem

Analysis scale. The results of the final regression analysis illustrated that a combination

of SP and PSY-5 scales best predicted scores on the Problem Analysis scale of the RSI-

S, as the HPC, DISC, and BRF scales collectively accounted for 6% of the variance.


RSI-S Problem Analysis


HO scales BXD .13 .02 .01 4.37 1, 249 .04 .13*

RC scales RC9 .15 .02 .02 5.84 1, 249 .02 .15*

SP scales HPC, BRF .22 .05 .04 6.01 2, 248 .003 .20*, -.13*

PSY-5 scales DISC .14 .02 .02 4.94 1, 249 .03 .14*

Mixed model HPC, DISC, BRF .25 .06 .05 5.39 3, 247 .001 .19*, .12*, -.13*

Variables entered

F test


Exploring the results for the RSI-S Self-Examination scale, which are displayed in

Table 22, the first and fourth regression analyses conveyed that none of the H-O or PSY-

5 scales significantly predicted situational self-examination. The second regression

analysis demonstrated that RC6 accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting scores on

105

the RSI-S Self-Examination scale. The results of the third regression analysis showed that

the AXY scale accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting situational self-

examination. The results for the final “mixed” regression analysis mirrored the results for

the SP model, as the AXY scale accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting scores on

the RSI-S Self-Examination scale.

The results for the regression analyses predicting situational self-reassurance are

illustrated in Table 23. The results for the first regression analysis predicting scores on


RSI-S Self-Examination.


HO scales ≡RC scales RC6 .13 .02 .01 4.12 1, 249 .04 .13*

SP scales AXY .14 .02 .02 5.18 1, 249 .02 .14*

PSY-5 scales ≡Mixed model AXY .14 .02 .02 5.18 1, 249 .02 .14*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡



RSI Self-Reassurance


HO scales EID .20 .04 .04 10.63 1, 249 .001 -.20*

RC scales RC2, RC1 .30 .09 .08 11.91 2, 248 .001 -.33*, .15*

SP scales SAV, HLP .25 .06 .05 7.90 2, 248 .001 -.16*, -.15*

PSY-5 scales INTR .27 .07 .07 18.75 1, 249 .001 -.27*

Mixed model RC2, RC1 .30 .09 .08 11.91 2, 248 .001 -.33*, .15*

Variables entered

F test


106

the RSI-S Self-Reassurance scale conveyed that the EID scale accounted for 4% of the

variance. The second regression analysis indicated that the RC2 and RC1 scales

collectively accounted for 9% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Self-

Reassurance scale. In examining the third regression analysis, the results showed that the

SAV and HLP scales collectively accounted for 6% of the variance in predicting

situational self-reassurance. The results of the fourth regression analysis demonstrated

that a single PSY-5 scale, namely INTR, accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting

scores on the RSI-S Self-Reassurance scale. Finally, the results of the “mixed” regression

model indicated that two RC scales optimally predicted scores on the RSI-S Self-

Reassurance scale, as RC2 and RC1 collectively accounted for 9% of the variance.

In predicting the situational coping response of seeking advice, the results of the

regression analyses are documented in Table 24. The results of the first regression

analysis indicated that the BXD H-O scale accounted for 2% of the variance, and the

results of the second analysis demonstrated that RC9 accounted for 5% of the variance in

predicting scores on the RSI-S Seeking Advice scale. The results of the third regression

analysis showed that the SP scales of ACT, AXY, DSF, and IPP accounted for a total of

9% of the variance in predicting the situational coping response of seeking advice. The

results of the fourth regression analysis showed that two PSY-5 scales, namely NEGE

and INTR, collectively accounted for 5% of the variance in predicting situational seeking

advice. The results of the “mixed” regression model demonstrated that a combination of

RC and SP scales, including RC9, DSF, and AXY, optimally predicted scores on the RSI-

S Seeking Advice scale by accounting for 9% of the variance.

107


RSI-S Seeking Advice


HO scales BXD .13 .02 .01 3.97 1, 249 .05 .13*

RC scales RC9 .22 .05 .04 12.10 1, 249 .001 .22*

SP scales ACT, AXY,

DSF, IPP .30 .09 .07 6.03 4, 246 .001

.13*, .21*, -.16*,

-.14*

PSY-5 scales NEGE, INTR .22 .05 .04 5.98 2, 248 .003 .18*, -.16*

Mixed model RC9, DSF, AXY .30 .09 .08 7.84 3, 247 .001 .19*, -.17*, .15*

Variables entered

F test


With regard to the RSI-S Seeking Emotional Support scale, the results of the

regression analyses are conveyed in Table 25, and the results of the first two regression

analyses illustrated that none of the H-O or RC scales significantly predicted the seeking

emotional support situational coping response. Conversely, the results of the third

regression analysis demonstrated that the DSF, HLP, and JCP SP scales collectively

accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Seeking Emotional

Support scale. The results of the fourth regression analysis conveyed that the NEGE,

DISC, and INTR scales accounted for 6% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-

S Seeking Emotional Support scale. The final regression model, which examined a mixed

set of MMPI-2-RF scales, demonstrated that a combination of select SP scales, including

DSF, HLP, and JCP accounted for 7% of the variance and optimally predicted scores on

the RSI-S Seeking Emotional Support scale.

108


RSI-S Seeking Emotional Support


HO scales ≡

RC scales ≡

SP scales DSF, HLP,

JCP .26 .07 .06 5.91 3, 247 .001 -.21*, .18*, -.12*

PSY-5 scales NEGE, DISC,

INTR .24 .06 .05 4.97 3, 247 .002 .17*, -.17*, -.16*

Mixed model DSF, HLP,

JCP .26 .07 .06 5.91 3, 247 .001 -.21*, .18*, -.12*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates

that no variables entered into the regression equation.

In predicting scores on the RSI-S Emotional Suppression scale, the results are

illustrated in Table 26, and the results of the first two regression analyses illustrated that

none of the H-O or RC scales significantly predicted the situational coping response of

emotional suppression. The results of the third regression analysis indicated that the DSF,

BRF, and FML scales accounted for a total of 13% of the variance in predicting scores on

the RSI-S Emotional Suppression scale. The fourth regression analysis demonstrated that

the NEGE, INTR, and DISC scales accounted for a total of 7% of the variance in

predicting situational emotional suppression. The results of the final regression analysis

illustrated that the a combination of SP and PSY-5 scales, DSF and NEGE, accounted for

13% of the variance and optimally predicted scores on the RSI-S Emotional Suppression

scale.

109


RSI-S Emotional Suppression


HO scales ≡

RC scales ≡

SP scales DSF, BRF, FML .36 .13 .12 12.45 3, 247 .001 .36*, -.15*, -.15*

PSY-5 scales NEGE, INTR,

DISC .27 .07 .06 6.48 3, 247 .001 -.21*, .21*, .14*

Mixed model DSF, NEGE .36 .13 .12 18.07 2, 248 .001 .32*, -.20*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates that no


In examining the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-S Denial scale,

the results are displayed in Table 27. The results showed that the H-O scales of THD and

EID accounted for a total of 15% of the variance. The results of the second regression

analysis demonstrated that two RC scales, RC7 and RC6, accounted for 20% of the

variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Denial scale. Additionally, the results of the

third regression analysis conveyed that the NFC, AXY, and SAV scales accounted for

19% of the variance in predicting situational denial. The fourth regression analysis

illustrated that the PSY-5 scales of NEGE and PSYC accounted for a total of 18% of the

variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Denial scale. The results of the final, “mixed”

regression analysis showed that the combination of RC and SP scales, including RC7,

RC6, and SAV, optimally predicted the situational coping response of denial by

accounting for 22% of the variance.

110


RSI-S Denial


HO scales THD, EID .39 .15 .14 21.92 2, 248 .001 .27*, .19*

RC scales RC7, RC6 .44 .20 .19 30.51 2, 248 .001 .29*, .22*

SP scales NFC, AXY, SAV .44 .19 .18 19.74 3, 247 .001 .31*, .20*, -.14*

PSY-5 scales NEGE, PSYC .42 .18 .17 26.66 2, 248 .001 .26*, .23*

Mixed model RC7, RC6, SAV .47 .22 .21 22.80 3, 247 .001 .32*, .22*, -.14*

Variables entered

F test


The results for predicting scores on the RSI-S Fantasizing scale are illustrated in Table

28. The results indicated that the THD and EID scale accounted for 13% of the variance.

The second regression analysis demonstrated that the RC7, RC6, RC1, and RC2 scales

collectively accounted for 19% of the variance in predicting the situational coping

response of fantasizing. The results of the third regression analysis conveyed that select

SP scales, including STW, MLS, SAV, and NFC, accounted for 16% of the variance in

predicting scores on the RSI-S Fantasizing scale. The fourth regression analysis indicated

that four of the five PSY-5 scales, namely NEGE, PSYC, INTR, and DISC, collectively

accounted for 20% of the variance in predicting the situational coping response of

fantasizing. The results of the “mixed” regression model illustrated that the combination

of select RC, SP, and PSY-5 scales, specifically the RC7, SAV, RC6, DISC, MLS, and

RC2 scales, optimally predicted the situational coping response of fantasizing, as the

scales collectively accounted for 24% of the variance.

With regard to the RSI-S Avoidance scale, the results are conveyed in Table 29.

The results of the first regression analysis indicated that none of the H-O scales

111

Table 28. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting RSI-S Fantasizing


HO scales THD, EID .36 .13 .12 18.10 2, 247 .001 .23*, .20*

RC scales RC7, RC6, RC1, RC2 .43 .19 .18 14.20 4, 245 .001 .25*, .19*, .18*, -.17*

SP scales STW, MLS, SAV, NFC .40 .16 .15 11.75 4, 245 .001 .16*, .17*, -.16*, .17*

PSY-5 scales NEGE, PSYC, INTR, DISC .45 .20 .19 15.39 4, 245 .001 .30*, .22*, -.18*, -.17*

Mixed model RC7, SAV, RC6, DISC, MLS, RC2 .49 .24 .22 12.52 6, 243 .001 .28*, -.12, .21*, -.15*, .25*, -.23*

Variables entered

F test


112

significantly predicted the coping response of situational avoidance. The second

regression analysis showed that the RC9 scale accounted for 3% of the variance in

predicting scores on the RSI-S Avoidance scale. The results of the third regression

analysis demonstrated that the SHY and SAV SP scales collectively accounted for 6% of

the variance in predicting the situational coping response of avoidance. The results of the

fourth regression analysis also showed that the PSYC and INTR scales accounted for a

total of 4% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Avoidance scale. The final

regression analysis demonstrated that a combination of RC, SP, and PSY-5 scales,

including RC9, SHY, and INTR, collectively accounted for 9% of the variance and

optimally predicted situational avoidance.


RSI-S Avoidance


HO scales ≡

RC scales RC9 .18 .03 .03 8.26 1, 249 .004 .18*

SP scales SHY, SAV .23 .06 .05 7.19 2, 248 .001 .25*, -.19*

PSY-5 scales PSYC, INTR .21 .04 .04 5.65 2, 248 .004 .16*, -.15*

Mixed model RC9, SHY, INTR .30 .09 .08 7.99 3, 247 .001 .11, .25*, -.21*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates that

no variables entered into the regression equation.

In exploring the situational coping response of passive acceptance, the results are

shown in Table 30, and they indicated that none of the H-O scales significantly predicted

scores on the RSI-S Passive Acceptance scale. The results of the second regression

analysis demonstrated that the RC8 scale accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting

situational passive acceptance. The third regression analysis showed that the SAV, COG,

113

and JCP SP scales collectively accounted for 6% of the variance in predicting scores on

the RSI-S Passive Acceptance scale. The results of the fourth regression analysis

conveyed that the PSYC and INTR scales accounted for 6% of the variance in predicting

situational passive acceptance. The final regression analysis indicated that a combination

of PSY-5 and SP scales, including PSYC, INTR, and JCP accounted for 7% of the

variance and best predicted scores on the RSI-S Passive Acceptance scale.


RSI-S Passive Acceptance


HO scales ≡

RC scales RC8 .13 .02 .01 4.34 1, 249 .04 .13*

SP scales SAV, COG, JCP .25 .06 .05 5.61 3, 247 .001 -.19*, .20*, -.13*

PSY-5 scales PSYC, INTR .23 .06 .05 7.19 2, 248 .001 .18*, -.16*

Mixed model PSYC, INTR, JCP .27 .07 .06 6.25 3, 247 .001 .21*, -.18*, -.13*

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates that

no variables entered into the regression equation.

The results for the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-S

Minimization scale are provided in Table 31. The results demonstrated that none of the

H-O, RC, or PSY-5 scales significantly predicted situational minimization. However, the

results also demonstrated that one SP scale, IPP, accounted for 2% of the variance in

predicting scores on the RSI-S Minimization scale.

114


RSI-S Minimization


HO scales ≡

RC scales ≡

SP scales IPP .13 .02 .01 4.56 1, 249 .03 .13*

PSY-5 scales ≡

Mixed model N/A

Variables entered

F test

Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p

≤ .05; ≡ indicates that no variables entered into the regression

The results of the regression analyses exploring situational over-reaction, which

are represented in Table 32, indicated that the EID H-O scale accounted for 11% of the

variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Over-Reaction scale. Additionally, the results

indicated that the RCd and RC9 scales accounted for a total of 16% of the variance in

predicting the situational coping response of over-reaction. With regard to the SP scales,

NFC and AXY collectively accounted for 11% of the variance in predicting scores on the

RSI-S Over-Reaction scale. The results further demonstrated that the NEGE PSY-5 scale

accounted for 14% of the variance in predicting situational over-reaction. The final,

“mixed,” regression analysis illustrated that a combination of RC, PSY-5, and H-O

scales, including RCd, NEGE, and EID, optimally predicted scores on the RSI-S Over-

Reaction scale, as they accounted for 18% of the variance.

115


RSI-S Over-Reaction


HO scales EID .33 .11 .10 29.97 1, 249 .001 .33*

RC scales RCd, RC9 .40 .16 .15 23.83 2, 248 .001 .34*, .13*

SP scales NFC, AXY .34 .11 .11 15.78 2, 248 .001 .22*, .17*

PSY-5 scales NEGE .37 .14 .13 39.37 1, 249 .001 .37*

Mixed model RCd, NEGE, EID .42 .18 .17 17.69 3, 247 .001 .47*, .27*,. -.31*

Variables entered

F test


With regard to the RSI-S Spirituality scale, the results of the regression analyses

showed that none of the H-O, RC, SP, or PSY-5 scales significantly predicted the

situational coping response of spirituality. These results represent the weakest pattern

regarding the MMPI-2-RF scales’ relative ability to predict a given type of situational

coping.

In summary, the personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the

MMPI-2-RF scales, significantly predicted both dispositional and situational coping

responses, as measured by the RSI scales. However, the personality and psychopathology

constructs more strongly predicted scores on the RSI-D scales as compared to the RSI-S

scales, with two exceptions. In particular, the MMPI-2-RF scales better predicted scores

on the situational Seeking Advice and situational Minimization scales, as opposed to their

dispositional counterparts, but the difference in the amount of variance accounted for by

the situational versus dispositional coping responses was relatively small (i.e., about 2%).

Overall, these findings parallel the results of the correlational analyses, which indicated

116

stronger associations were present between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D scales, as

compared to the RSI-S scales.




Analyses were also conducted to examine whether particular situational

characteristics, namely the confrontability, duration, and timing of the stressor, as well as

the type or category of the stressful situation, significantly contributed to the prediction of

situational coping responses on the RSI-S. Each of the situational characteristics were

rated by the participants themselves, as well as by trained judges. Therefore, two sets of

analyses were conducted, with the first set of analyses including the participant ratings

and the second set incorporated the ratings made by judges. With regard to the judges’

ratings, agreement between two of the three judges on the rating of the situational

characteristic was required in order for a specific situational characteristic to be included

in the analyses.

The first regression analysis explored whether the situational characteristics added

incrementally to personality and psychopathology constructs in predicting situational

coping. In particular, those MMPI-2-RF scales that previously demonstrated a significant

beta weight in earlier analyses were entered into the first block and the second block

included the situational variables. A second regression analysis was conducted to

determine which situational characteristics best predicted the various types of situational

coping responses and whether personality and psychopathology constructs added

117

incrementally to the prediction. In particular, situational characteristics served as the

independent variables in the first block of the second regression analysis and those

MMPI-2-RF scales that previously demonstrated a significant beta weight were included

in the second block. Thus, the independent variables were essentially entered in reverse

order, as compared to the first regression analysis. Tables 33 to 45 provide the results for

the post hoc regression analyses.

The results of the regression analyses examining whether situational

characteristics, as rated by participants, added incrementally to the prediction of scores on

the RSI-S Problem Confrontation scale are displayed in Table 33. The results

demonstrated that the participants’ ratings of the timing of the situation significantly

improved the prediction. In particular, the NFC and ANP scales accounted for 6% of the

variance and the situational characteristic of timing, as rated by participants,

incrementally contributed 3% of the variance to the prediction of the situational coping

strategy of problem confrontation. In sum, the NFC and ANP scales and timing, as rated

by participants, accounted for 9% of the variance. The results of the regression analyses

incorporating participant ratings of situational characteristics in the first block and select

RF scales in the second block conveyed that the situational characteristic of timing

accounted for 4% of the variance and the NFC scale accounted for another 3% of unique

variance, for a total of 7%, in predicting scores on the RSI-S Problem Confrontation

scale.

118

Table 33. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Problem

Confrontation Scores

Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β

1 MMPI-2-RF scales NFC, ANP .24 .06 .05 7.76 2, 246 .001 -.29*, .17*

2 Situational

Variables (P) timing (P) .29 .09 .08 .03 7.71 3, 245 .001 7.21 .01 -.26*, .14*, .17*

1 Situational

Variables (P) timing (P) .20 .04 .03 9.84 1, 248 .002 .20*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales NFC .27 .07 .07 .03 9.56 2, 246 .001 8.97 .003 .18*, -.18*

1 MMPI-2-RF scales; NFC, ANP .24 .06 .05 7.59 2, 248 .001 -.28*, .17*

2 Situational

Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 Situational

Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 MMPI-2-RF scales NFC, ANP .24 .06 .05 7.59 2, 248 .001 -.28*, .17*

F chg Analysis

Variables entered

F test

Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics

were rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.

119

In examining the regression analyses including select MMPI-2-RF scales and

ratings of the situational characteristics made by judges, the results indicated the SP

scales of NFC and ANP accounted for approximately 6% of the variance; however, the

judges’ ratings of situational characteristics did not incrementally improve the prediction

of scores on the RSI-S Problem Confrontation scale. Similarly, when the situational

characteristics, as rated by judges, were entered into the first block and the select RF

scales in the second block, the same pattern of results emerged. Thus, the situational

characteristics rated by judges do not significantly predict or add incrementally to the

prediction of situational problem confrontation.

In examining situational problem analysis, the results, which are illustrated in

Table 34, demonstrated that the participant-rated situational characteristic of

confrontability incrementally contributed to the prediction of scores on the RSI-S

Problem Analysis scale, above and beyond the variance already accounted for by select

MMPI-2-RF scales. Specifically, the HPC and BRF scales collectively accounted for 5%

of the variance and confrontability, as rated by participants, accounted for an additional

2% of the variance, for a total of 7% of the variance. Conversely, when entered into the

first block of the regression analyses, two participant-rated situational characteristics,

confrontability and duration, significantly predicted the situational coping response of

problem analysis by collectively accounting for 7% of the variance. The HPC and DISC

scales also added incrementally to the prediction by accounting for an additional 2% of

the variance. Thus, confrontability and duration, as rated by participants, and the HPC

120

Table 34. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S

Problem Analysis Scores


1 MMPI-2-RF scales HPC, BRF .22 .05 .04 6.05 2, 246 .003 .20*, -.14*

2 Situational

Variables (P) confrontability (P) .26 .07 .06 .02 6.10 3, 245 .001 5.95 .02 .20*, -.13*, .15*

1 Situational

Variables (P)

confrontability (P),

duration (P) .21 .04 .04 5.70 2, 246 .004 .16*, .15*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales HPC, DISC .29 .09 .07 .02 5.73 4, 244 .001 4.77 .03

.16*, .14*, .15*,

.14*

1 MMPI-2-RF scales; HPC, DISC, BRF .25 .06 .05 5.39 3, 247 .001 .19*, .12*, -.13*

2 Situational

Variables (J)

problems of others

(J), intrapersonal

problems (J) .34 .11 .10 .02 6.28 5, 245 .001 5.02 .03

.21*, .12*, -.12*,

-.19*, -.14*

1 Situational

Variables (J)

problems of others (J)

.18 .03 .03 8.46 1, 249 .004 -.18*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales HPC, DISC .29 .08 .07 .02 7.28 3, 247 .001 4.60 .03 -.19*, .17*, .13*

F chg Analysis

Variables entered

F test



121

and DISC scales collectively accounted for 9% of the variance in predicting scores on the

RSI-S Problem Analysis scale in the second analysis.

The results of the regression analyses incorporating the situational characteristics

rated by judges demonstrated that the HPC, DISC, and BRF scales collectively accounted

for 6% of the variance and problems of others and intrapersonal problems, as rated by

judges, accounted for an additional 5% of unique variance, for a total of 11%, in

predicting situational problem analysis. When the order of entry is reversed, the stressful

situation of problems of others emerged as the only significant situational characteristic,

as it accounted for 3% of the variance. The results also demonstrated that the HPC and

DISC scales incrementally contributed to the prediction by accounting for an additional

5% of the variance, for a total of 8%, in predicting scores on the Problem Analysis scale

of the RSI-S.

The results for the regression analyses for the RSI-S Self-Examination scale are

shown in Table 35, and they indicated that none of the participant-rated situational

characteristics significantly predicted or incrementally contributed to the prediction of the

situational coping response of self-examination, whether entered into the first or second

block of the analysis. The results demonstrated that the AXY SP scale accounted for 2%

of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Self-Examination scale.

In contrast, the results of the regression analysis examining the judges’ ratings of

situational characteristics showed that the AXY scale accounted for 2% of the variance,

and that timing, problems of others, and money problems incrementally contributed to the

prediction of scores on the Self-Examination RSI-S scale by accounting for an additional

122

Table 35. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting

RSI-S Self-Examination Scores


1 MMPI-2-RF scales AXY .14 .02 .02 5.11 1, 247 .03 .14*

2 Situational

Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 Situational

Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --



2Situational

Variables (J)

timing (J), problems of

others (J), money

problems (J) .42 .17 .16 .02 12.97 4, 246 .001 5.21 .02

.12*, .27*, -.26*,

-.13*

1 Situational

Variables (J)

timing (J), problems of

others (J), money

problems (J),

interpersonal problems .42 .17 .16 12.89 4, 246 .001

.25*, -.24*, -.13*,

.12*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales AXY .43 .19 .17 .01 11.27 5, 245 .001 4.12 .04

.24*, -.24*, -.13*,

.12*, .12*

F chg Analysis

Variables entered

F test

Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics were

rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.

123

15% of the variance, for a total of 17%. A similar pattern of results was demonstrated

when the order of entry was reversed. In particular, the situational characteristics of

timing, problems with others, money problems, and interpersonal problems, as rated by

judges, collectively accounted for 17% of the variance and the AXY scale accounted for

2% of unique variance, for a total of 19%, in predicting the situational coping response of

self-examination.

The results for the regression analyses examining the results for the RSI-S Self-

Reassurance scale are displayed in Table 36. The results indicated that participant-rated

situational characteristics did not add incrementally to the prediction of scores on the

RSI-S Self-Reassurance scale and were also not independently significant. The results

further conveyed that the RC2 and RC1 scales collectively accounted for 9% of the

variance in predicting self-reassurance on the RSI-S.

Incorporating the situational characteristics, rated by judges, into the regression

analyses indicated that the RC2 and RC1 scales accounted for 9% of the variance;

however, none of the situational characteristics added incrementally to the prediction of

the situational coping response of self-reassurance. The pattern of results remained the

same when the situational characteristics were entered into the first block of the

regression analyses. Thus, the judges’ ratings of the situational characteristics did not

significantly predict or incrementally improve the prediction of scores on the RSI-S Self-

Reassurance scale.

In predicting the situational coping response of seeking advice, the regression

analyses demonstrated that the situational characteristics of duration and confrontability,

124


Self-Reassurance Scores


1 MMPI-2-RF scales RC2, RC1 .30 .09 .09 12.52 2, 246 .001 -.34*, .15*

2 Situational

Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 Situational

Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --


1 MMPI-2-RF scales; RC2, RC1 .30 .09 .08 11.91 2, 248 .001 -.33*, .15*

2 Situational

Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 Situational

Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --


F chg Analysis

Variables entered

F test



125

as rated by participants, added incrementally above and beyond the variance already

accounted for by select MMPI-2-RF scales, and the results are illustrated in Table 37. In

particular, the RC9, DSF, and AXY scales collectively accounted for 9% of the variance,

and duration and confrontability accounted for 5% of unique variance, for a total of 14%,

in predicting situational seeking advice. A nearly identical pattern emerged when the

participant-rated situational characteristics were entered into the first block of the

regression analysis and the MMPI-2-RF into the second. Duration and confrontability

accounted for 5% of the variance and the RC9, DSF, and AXY scales accounted for 9%

of variance, above and beyond duration and confrontability, in predicting scores on the

RSI-S Seeking Advice scale. Thus, duration, confrontability, RC9, DSF, and AXY

collectively accounted for 14% of the variance.

The results of the regression analyses including the judge-rated situational

characteristics showed that the RC9, DSF, and AXY scales accounted for 9% of the

variance and that the situational characteristics of interpersonal problems, duration, and

breaking laws/rules accounted for an additional 5% of unique variance, for a total of for

14%, in predicting scores on the RSI-S Seeking Advice scale. However, with reversed

entry of the blocks of variables, the results illustrated that the stressful situation of

interpersonal problems accounted for 3% of the variance, and the MMPI-2-RF scales of

RC9, DSF, and AXY added incrementally to the prediction of the situational coping

response of seeking advice by accounting for an additional 8% of the variance. In sum,

interpersonal problems, as rated by judges, and the RC9, DSF, and AXY scales

collectively accounted for 11% of the variance.

126


Seeking Advice Scores


1 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, DSF, AXY .30 .09 .08 7.84 3, 245 .001 .19*, -.17*, .15*

2 Situational

Variables (P)

duration (P),

confrontability (P) .38 .14 .12 .02 8.02 5, 243 .001 6.30 .01

.19*, -.18*, .17*,

.19*, .15*

1 Situational

Variables (P)

duration (P),

confrontability (P) .22 .05 .04 6.33 2, 246 .002 .18*, .14*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, DSF, AXY .38 .14 .12 .03 8.02 5, 243 .001 7.42 .01

.19*, .15*, .19*, -

.18*, .17*

1 MMPI-2-RF scales; RC9, DSF, AXY .30 .09 .08 7.84 3, 247 .001 .19*, -.17*, .15*

2 Situational

Variables (J)

interpersonal problems

(J), duration (J),

breaking rules/laws (J) .37 .14 .12 .02 6.49 6, 244 .001 4.43 .04

.20*, -.16*, .16*,

.16*, -.14*, .13*

1 Situational

Variables (J)

interpersonal problems

(J) .17 .03 .02 7.11 1, 249 .01 .17*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, DSF, AXY .33 .11 .09 .02 7.31 4, 246 .001 5.12 .02

.14*, .19*, -.15*,

.15*

F chg Analysis

Variables entered

F test



127

With regard to the RSI-S Seeking Emotional Support scale, the results are

conveyed in Table 38. The results indicated that the DSF and HLP scales accounted for

6% of the variance and the participant-rated situational characteristic of duration

accounted for 3% of unique variance in predicting the seeking emotional support

situational coping response. The DSF and HLP scales, as well as duration collectively

accounted for 9% of the variance. Similarly, when entered into the first block of the

analyses, participant-rated duration accounted for 4% of the variance and the DSF and

HLP scales added incrementally to the prediction of scores on the RSI-S Seeking

Emotional Support scale by accounting for 5% of unique variance. Thus, duration, DSF,

and HLP accounted for a total of 9% of the variance.

On the other hand, the results of the regression analyses incorporating the

situational characteristics rated by judges conveyed that the DSF, HLP, and JCP scales

accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting the situational coping response of seeking

emotional support. The results also conveyed that the judges’ rating of the stressful

situation of interpersonal problems incrementally contributed an additional 3% of the

variance in the prediction. Therefore, the DSF, HLP, and JCP SP scales, as well as

interpersonal problems, accounted for a total of 10% of the variance. When entered into

the first block of the regression analyses, interpersonal problems and other problems, as

rated by judges, collectively accounted for 6% of the variance in predicting scores on the

128

Table 38. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Seeking

Emotional Support Scores


1 MMPI-2-RF scales DSF, HLP .24 .06 .05 7.22 2, 246 .001 -.23*, .18*

2 Situational

Variables (P) duration (P) .30 .09 .08 .04 8.18 3, 245 .001 9.60 .002 -.22*, .16*, .19*

1 Situational

Variables (P) duration (P) .20 .04 .04 10.66 1, 247 .001 .20*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales DSF, HLP .30 .09 .08 .02 8.18 3, 245 .001 5.94 .02 .19*, -.22*, .16*

1 MMPI-2-RF scales; DSF, HLP, JCP .26 .07 .06 5.91 3, 247 .001 -.21*, .18*, -.12*

2 Situational

Variables (J)

interpersonal

problems (J) .32 .10 .09 .03 6.86 4, 246 .001 9.13 .003

-.19*, .16*, -.12*,

.18*

1 Situational

Variables (J)

interpersonal

problems (J), other

problems (J) .24 .06 .05 7.79 2, 248 .001 .19*, -.13*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales DSF, HLP .31 .10 .08 .02 6.52 4, 246 .001 5.30 .02 .17*, -.10, -.18*, .15*

F chg Analysis

Variables entered

F test



129

RSI-S Seeking Emotional Support scale. The results also showed that the DSF and HLP

MMPI-2-RF scales also added incrementally to the prediction by accounting for another

4% of the variance, above and beyond that already accounted for by the two types of

stressful situations. In sum, the combination of interpersonal and “other” problems, as

well as the DSF and HLP scales, accounted for a total of 10% of the variance in

predicting the situational coping response of seeking emotional support.

The results of the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-S Emotional

Suppression scale are illustrated in Table 39. The results of the regression analyses

illustrated that the DSF and NEGE scales collectively accounted for 13% of the variance

and the participant-rated situational characteristic of duration accounted for an additional

2% of the variance, above and beyond that already accounted for by DSF and NEGE. In

sum, DSF, NEGE, and duration, as rated by participants, accounted for a total of 15% of

the variance in predicting the situational coping response of emotional suppression. When

entered into the first block, participant-rated duration accounted for 2% of the variance,

and the DSF and NEGE scales accounted for 13% of unique variance, for a total of 15%,

in predicting scores on the RSI-S Emotional Suppression scale. Therefore, the pattern of

results is nearly identical, whether the situational characteristics, as rated by participants,

are entered into the first or second block of the analyses.

The results of the regression analyses examining the situational characteristics

rated by judges showed that the DSF and NEGE scales accounted for 13% of the variance

and the stressful situation of interpersonal problems accounted for another 5% of unique

variance, above and beyond the DSF and NEGE scales, in predicting scores on the RSI-S

130


Emotional Suppression Scores


1

MMPI-2-RF

scales

DSF, NEGE

.37 .13 .13 18.95 2, 246 .001 .32*, -.21*

2 Situational

Variables (P)

duration (P)

.38 .15 .14 .01 14.16 3, 245 .001 4.10 .04 .32*, -.20*, -.12*

1 Situational

Variables (P)

duration (P)

.14 .02 .01 4.55 1, 247 .03 -.14*

2

MMPI-2-RF

scales

DSF, NEGE

.38 .15 .14 .04 14.16 3, 245 .001 11.70 .001 -.12*, .32*, -.20*

1

MMPI-2-RF

scales;

DSF, NEGE

.36 .13 .12 18.07 2, 248 .001 .32*, -.20*

2 Situational

Variables (J)

interpersonal problems (J)

.42 .18 .17 .05 17.55 3, 247 .001 14.55 .001 .30*, -.20*, -.22*

1 Situational

Variables (J)

interpersonal problems (J)

.25 .06 .06 16.32 1, 249 .001 -.25*

2

MMPI-2-RF

scales

DSF, NEGE

.42 .18 .17 .04 17.55 3, 247 .001 11.40 .001 -.22*, .30*, -.20*

F chg Analysis

Variables entered

F test



131

Emotional Suppression scale. The combination of the DSF and NEGE scales and

interpersonal problems collectively accounted for 18% of the variance. When the order of

entry of the independent variables was reversed, a very similar pattern of results was

demonstrated. In particular, the results illustrated that interpersonal problems, as rated by

judges, accounted for 6% of the variance, and the DSF and NEGE scales incrementally

contributed to the prediction of the situational coping response of emotional suppression

by accounting for an additional 12% of the variance, for a total of 18% of the variance.

In examining the regression analyses for the RSI-S Denial scale, the results are

displayed in Table 40, and they indicated that the participant-rated situational

characteristics did not significantly predict the situational coping response of denial,

whether entered into the first or second block of the regression analyses. However, the

RC7, RC6, and SAV scales collectively accounted for 22% of the variance in predicting

scores on the RSI-S Denial scale.

The results of the regression analyses incorporating the situational characteristics

rated by judges conveyed that the RC7, RC6, and SAV scales accounted for 22% of the

variance and the stressful situation of health concerns, as well as timing, incrementally

contributed 4% of the variance, for a total of 26% of the variance, in predicting

situational denial. Similarly, when entered into the first block of the regression analyses,

the results demonstrated that the situational characteristic of timing and health concerns,

as rated by judges, accounted for 4% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S

Denial scale. The results also indicated that the MMPI-2-RF scales of RC7, RC6, and

SAV incrementally contributed to the prediction by accounting for an additional 22% of

132


Denial Scores


1 MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, RC6, SAV .46 .22 .21 22.36 3, 245 .001 .31*, .22*, -.15*

2 Situational

Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 Situational

Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, RC6, SAV .46 .22 .21 22.36 3, 245 .001 .31*, .22*, -.15*

1

MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, RC6, SAV .47 .22 .21 22.80 3, 47 .001 .32*, .22*, -.14*

2 Situational

Variables (J) health concerns (J), timing (J) .50 .26 .24 .01 16.73 5, 245 .001 4.24 .04

.33*, .21*, -.14*,

.17*, .12*

1 Situational

Variables (J) timing (J), health concerns (J) .20 .04 .03 5.29 2, 248 .01 .16*, .14*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, RC6, SAV .50 .26 .24 .02 16.73 5, 245 .001 6.22 .01

.12*, .17*, .33*,

.21*, -.14*

F chg Analysis

Variables entered

F test

Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by

judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.

133

the variance. Thus, the combination of timing and health concerns, as rated by judges,

and the RC7, RC6, and SAV scales accounted for a total of 26% of the variance in

predicting the situational coping response of denial.

The results for predicting scores on the RSI-S Fantasizing scale are shown in

Table 41. The results indicated that RC7, SAV, RC6, DISC, MLS, and RC2 collectively

accounted for 24% of the variance; however, none of the situational characteristics, as

rated by participants, added incrementally to the variance already accounted for by select

MMPI-2-RF scales. Similarly, when entered into the first block of the regression

analyses, the participant-rated situational characteristics do not significantly predict the

situational coping response of fantasizing, and the pattern of results with regard to the

MMPI-2-RF scales remained unchanged.

Regarding the analyses including the situational characteristics rated by judges,

the RC7, SAV, RC6, DISC, MLS, and RC2 scales accounted for 24% of the variance and

confrontability accounted for 2% of variance incrementally, for a total of 26%, in

predicting scores on the RSI-S Fantasizing scale. A somewhat different pattern of results

was present when the order of entry of the independent variables was reversed. In

particular, the results demonstrated that the judges’ situational ratings of confrontability,

important decisions, and job stress accounted for 8% of the variance when entered into

the first block of the regression analyses. The results also showed that the MMPI-2-RF

scales of RC7, RC6, MLS, RC2, and DISC incrementally contributed 20% of the

variance, for a total of 28% of the variance, in predicting the situational coping response

of fantasizing.

134


Fantasizing Scores


1

MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, SAV, RC6,

DISC, MLS, RC2 .49 .24 .22 12.87 6, 241 .001

.28*, -.11, .22*, -.15*,

.25*, -.22*

2

situational

characteristics (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1

situational

characteristics (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2

MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, SAV, RC6,

DISC, MLS, RC2 .49 .24 .22 12.87 6, 241 .001

.28*, -.11, .22*, -.15*,

.25*, -.22*

1

MMPI-2-RF scales; RC7, SAV, RC6,

DISC, MLS, RC2 .49 .24 .22 12.52 6, 243 .001

.28*, -.12, .21*, -.15*,

.25*, -.23*

2

situational

characteristics (J) confrontability (J) .51 .26 .24 .03 12.32 7, 242 .001 8.73 .003

.28*, -.12, .20*, -.16*,

.24*, -.20*, .17*

1

situational

characteristics (J)

confrontability (J),

important decisions

(J), job stress (J) .28 .08 .07 6.75 3, 246 .001 .15*, -.17*, -.13*

2

MMPI-2-RF scales

RC7, RC6, MLS,

RC2, DISC .53 .28 .26 .02 11.76 8, 241 .001 6.14 .01

.14*, -.12*, -.13*, .26*,

.19*, .25*, -.25*, -.14*

Variables entered



135

With regard to the RSI-S Avoidance scale, the results are conveyed in Table 42.

The results illustrated that the RC9, SHY, and INTR scales collectively accounted for 6%

of the variance and duration, as rated by participants, accounted for an additional 5% of

unique variance in predicting the coping response of situational avoidance. The

combination of RC9, SHY, INTR, and participant-rated duration accounted for a total of

11% of the variance. A similar pattern of results was demonstrated when the participant-

rated situational characteristics were entered into the first block of the regression

analyses. Specifically, duration accounted for 3% of the variance and the RC9, SHY, and

INTR scales added incrementally to the prediction of scores on the RSI-S Avoidance

scale by accounting for another 8% of the variance, for a total of 11%.

The results of the regression analyses also illustrated that the RC9, SHY and

INTR scales accounted for 9% of the variance and the situational characteristics, as rated

by judges, did not incrementally contribute to the prediction of scores on the RSI-S

Avoidance scale. When the blocks of independent variables were reversed, the results of

the regression analyses were identical, as they demonstrated that the RC9, SHY, and

INTR MMPI-2-RF scales accounted for 9% of the variance in predicting scores on the

RSI-S Avoidance scale.

136


Avoidance Scores


1 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, SHY, INTR .30 .09 .08 8.04 3, 245 .001 .10, .25*, -.23*

2 Situational

Variables (P) duration (P) .33 .11 .09 .02 7.36 4, 244 .001 4.95 .03 .11, .23*, -.21*, .14*

1 Situational

Variables (P) duration (P) .16 .03 .02 6.61 1, 247 .01 .16*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, SHY, INTR .33 .11 .09 .03 7.36 4, 244 .001 8.15 .01 .14*, .11, .23*, -.21*

1 MMPI-2-RF scales; RC9, SHY, INTR .30 .09 .08 7.99 3, 247 .001 .11, .25*, -.21*

2 Situational

Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 Situational

Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, SHY, INTR .30 .09 .08 7.99 3, 247 .001 .11, .25*, -.21*

Variables entered



137

The regression analyses exploring the situational coping response of passive

acceptance are displayed in Table 43. The results indicated that the INTR, PSYC, and

JCP scales collectively accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-

S Passive Acceptance scale. However, the results also demonstrated that none of the

participant-rated situational characteristics added incrementally to the prediction, beyond

the select MMPI-2-RF scales. The same pattern of results was demonstrated when the

situational characteristics, as rated by participants, were entered into the first block of the

regression analyses. Thus, the situational characteristics did not significantly predict or

add incrementally to the prediction of situational passive acceptance.

In examining the situational characteristics, as rated by judges, the results

conveyed that the MMPI-2-RF scales of PSYC, INTR, and JCP accounted for 7% of the

variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Passive Acceptance scale and the stressful

situations of “other” problems and job stress added incrementally to the prediction by

accounting for 4% of the variance. The combination of PSYC, INTR, JCP, “other”

problems and job stress, collectively accounted for 11% of the variance. Furthermore,

when entered into the first block, the stressful situations of “other” problems and job

stress, as rated by judges, accounted for 4% of the variance, and select MMPI-2-RF

scales, including INTR, PSYC, and JCP, accounted for an additional 7% of the

variance above and beyond that accounted for by the types of stressful situations, for a

total of 11%, in predicting the situational coping response of passive acceptance.

138

Table 43. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Passive

Acceptance Scores


1 MMPI-2-RF scales INTR, PSYC, JCP .27 .07 .06 6.57 3, 245 .001 -.19*, .20*, -.14*

2 Situational

Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 Situational

Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 MMPI-2-RF scales INTR, PSYC, JCP .27 .07 .06 6.57 3, 245 .001 -.19*, .20*, -.14*

1 MMPI-2-RF scales; PSYC, INTR, JCP .27 .07 .06 6.25 3, 247 .001 .21*, -.18*, -.13*

2 Situational

Variables (J)

other problems (J),

job stress (J) .33 .11 .09 .02 5.89 5, 245 .001 4.94 .03

.20*, -.19*, -.13*,

.15*, .14*

1 Situational

Variables (J)

other problems (J),

job stress (J) .19 .04 .03 4.49 2, 248 .01 .14*, .14*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales INTR, PSYC, JCP .33 .11 .09 .02 5.89 5, 245 .001 4.59 .03

.15*, .14*, -.19*,

.20*, -.13*

F chg Analysis

Variables entered

F test



139

In examining scores on the RSI-S Minimization scale, the results, which are

shown in Table 44, demonstrated that a single MMPI-2-RF scale, namely IPP, accounted

for 2% of the variance. However, the participant-rated situational characteristics did not

add incrementally to the prediction the situational coping response of minimization.

When entered into the first block of the regression analyses, the same pattern emerges,

which indicated that the situational characteristics, as rated by participants, do not add

incrementally to or significantly predict scores on the RSI-S Minimization scale.

The results of the regression analyses incorporating the situational characteristics,

as rated by judges, showed that the IPP scale accounted for 2% of the variance and the

stressful situation of job stress accounted for 2% of unique variance, for a total of 4%, in

predicting scores on the RSI-S Minimization scale. The results further indicated that the

stressful situation of job stress accounted for 2% of the variance, when entered into the

first block of the regression analyses, and the IPP scale accounted for 2% of the variance,

above and beyond that accounted for by job stress. In sum, the stressful situation of job

stress and the IPP scale collectively accounted for 4% of the variance in predicting the

situational coping response of minimization, regardless of the order the variables were

entered into the regression analyses.

140


Minimization Scores


1 MMPI-2-RF scales IPP .13 .02 .01 4.22 1, 247 .04 .13*

2 Situational

Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 Situational

Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 MMPI-2-RF scales IPP .13 .02 .01 4.22 1, 247 .04 .13*

1 MMPI-2-RF scales; IPP .13 .02 .01 4.56 1, 249 .03 .13*

2 Situational

Variables (J) job stress (J) .20 .04 .03 .02 5.12 2, 248 .01 5.60 .02 .13*, .15*

1 Situational

Variables (J) job stress (J) .16 .02 .02 6.17 1, 249 .01 .16*

2 MMPI-2-RF scales IPP .20 .04 .03 .02 5.12 2, 248 .01 3.99 .05 .15*, .13*

F chg Analysis

Variables entered

F test



141

The results of the regression analyses exploring situational over-reaction are

illustrated in Table 45. The results indicated that the RCd, NEGE, and EID scales

collectively accounted for 18% of the variance and the participant-rated duration

accounted for 1% of unique variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Over-Reaction

scale. In sum, the RCd, NEGE, and EID scales, as well as duration, collectively

accounted for 19% of the variance. Additionally, the results indicated that the participant-

rated situational characteristics did not significantly predict scores on the RSI-S Over-

Reaction scale when entered into the first block of the regression analyses. Furthermore,

the same pattern of results emerged with regard to the MMPI-2-RF scales, as the RCd,

NEGE, and EID scales accounted for 18% of the variance.

The results further illustrated that the scales of RCd, NEGE, and EID accounted

for 18% of the variance in predicting the situational coping response of over-reaction, and

confrontability and the stressful situations of money and sex-related problems, as rated by

judges, added incrementally to the prediction by accounting for 4% of unique variance,

for a total of 22% of the variance. However, a different pattern of results emerged when

the order of entry of the independent variables was reversed. In particular, the results

showed that the stressful situations of significant life changes and interpersonal problems,

as rated by judges, significantly predicted scores on the RSI-S Over-Reaction scale by

accounting for 5% of the variance. The RCd, NEGE, and EID scales also accounted for

15% of the variance, above and beyond that accounted for by the two types of stressful

situations, for a total of 20%, in predicting the situational coping response of over-

reaction.

142

Table 45. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting

RSI-S Over-Reaction Scores


1 MMPI-2-RF scales RCd, NEGE, EID .42 .18 .17 17.55 3, 245 .001 .46*, .28*, -.31*

2 Situational

Variables (P) duration (P) .44 .19 .18 .02 14.50 4, 244 .001 4.59 .03

.46*, .28*, -.30*,

-.12*

1 Situational

Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 MMPI-2-RF scales RCd, NEGE, EID .42 .18 .17 17.55 3, 245 .001 .46*, .28*, -.31*

1

MMPI-2-RF scales; RCd, NEGE, EID .42 .18 .17 17.69 3, 247 .001 .47*, .27*, -.31*

2 Situational

Variables (J)

confrontability (J),

money problems (J),

sex-related issues (J) .47 .22 .21 .02 11.75 6, 244 .001 4.85 .03

.47*, .29*, -.35*,

-.14*, -.13*, -.13*

1 Situational

Variables (J)

significant life changes

(J), interpersonal

problems (J) .21 .05 .04 5.78 2, 248 .004 .21*, .16*

2

MMPI-2-RF scales RCd, NEGE, EID .45 .20 .19 .01 12.57 5, 245 .001 4.26 .04

.17*, .12, .47*,

.26*, -.32*

F chg Analysis

Variables entered

F test



143

Although none of the H-O, RC, SP, or PSY-5 scales were previously

demonstrated to significantly predict scores on the RSI-S Spirituality scale, regression

analyses were conducted to explore whether the situational characteristics, as rated by

participants and judges, were significantly associated with the situational coping response

of spirituality. The results of the analyses indicated that the situational characteristics,

whether rated by participants or judges, did not significantly predict or incrementally

improve the prediction of scores on the RSI-S Spirituality scale.

In conclusion, incorporating the situational variables into the regression analyses

significantly improved the prediction of situational coping responses. In particular,

adding the situational variables to the analyses accounted for additional variance and

improved the prediction of scores on all of the RSI-S scales, beyond the variance

accounted for by the personality and psychopathology constructs. However, the

situational Self-Reassurance and Spirituality scales were the exceptions to the general

pattern, as none of the situational variables improved the prediction of scores on these

scales. It should be noted that none of the MMPI-2-RF scales significantly predicted

situational spirituality, as demonstrated by the initial set of regression analyses conducted

to address research question # 4. Furthermore, situational variables rated by both

participants and judges improved the prediction of five of the RSI-S scales, including

Problem Analysis, Seeking Advice, Seeking Emotional Support, Emotional Suppression,

and Over-Reaction. Participant ratings of the stressful situation improved the prediction

of scores on the Problem Confrontation and Avoidance RSI-S scales, but incorporating

the judges’ ratings of the situational variables did not add significantly to the prediction

144

of scores. Also, the judges’ ratings of the situational variables added significantly in

predicting scores on the Self-Examination, Denial, Fantasizing, Passive Acceptance, and

Minimization RSI-S scales; while, the participant ratings did not significantly improve

the prediction. The pattern of results also indicated that judges’ classifications of the

types of stressful situations were the most salient situational variables, as compared to the

confrontability, timing, or duration of the situation, with regard to improving the

prediction of situational coping responses.




A Fisher’s r-to-z transformation was applied to each of the statistically significant

correlations that were previously calculated to address the first and third research

questions. Then, the Fisher z statistics for dispositional coping and the Fisher z statistics

for situational coping were compared using a z-test (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2008). Table

46 provides the results of the z-tests. Due to the large number of tests conducted, a

Bonferroni correction was applied, and the level of statistical significance required for

interpretation was set at .001 (i.e., .05/42).

The results of many of the z-tests were statistically significant, but only two z

statistics reached the more stringent statistical significance level required for

interpretation. Specifically, the results demonstrated that dispositional Problem

Confrontation scale was preferentially associated with the MMPI-2-RF AXY scale, as

compared to the situational Problem Confrontation scale. In addition, the results showed

145

Table 46. Results of Z-Tests comparing RSI-D and RSI-S Z-Scores by MMPI-2-RF Scale

MMPI-2-RF


H-O Scales

EID -1.88* -- 2.29** -1.74* -- -- -- -.22 .90 1.13 -- -- 1.17 --

THD -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.11 -.11 1.77* -- -- -.72 --

BXD -- -- -- -- -- -1.02 -- -- -- -- -2.57**

RC Scales

RCd -1.98* -- 1.23 -2.14* -- -- -- -.33 .11 1.13 -- -- -.12 --

RC1 -2.42** -- 1.95* -- -- -- -- -.11 -.11 2.16** -- -- -.32 --

RC2 -- -- 2.96** -.55 -- -- -- -- 1.23 -- -- -- 1.38 --

RC3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.40 .95 230** 1.33 -- .53 --

RC4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.12* -- -- -- -1.83*

RC6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.57 -.22 .64 -- -- -1.59 --

RC7 -1.95* -- 1.12 -1.33 -- -- -- -.12 .35 1.58 -- -- .81 --

RC8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .65 .21 1.98* -- -- .10 --

RC9 -- -- -- -- -1.93* -- -- .31 -1.02 -.31 -- -- -1.74* --

SP Scales

Somatic Scales

MLS -2.26** -- -- -1.86* -- -- -- .11 -.22 .83 -- -- -.21 --

GIC -2.82** -- -- -- -- -- -- .63 1.91* 2.35** -- -- .62 --

HPC -- -1.71* -- -- -1.91 -- -- -.92 -.63 -- -- -- .10 --

NUC -2.12* -- 1.72* -- -- -- -- .42 -.11 2.33* -- -- -1.04 --

COG -1.66* -- -- -- -- -- -- .88 1.17 1.24 -- -- .21 --

Z Statistics

* = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .1; *** = p ≤ .001; Bold = preferential association with RSI-D

147

146


MMPI-2-RF


SUI -- -- -- -2.25** -- -- -- -2.25** .10 -- -- -- .72 --

HLP .10 -- -- .00 -- -- -- -.21 -.21 -- -- -- .32 --

SFD -1.88* -1.62* 2.12** -1.49 -- -- -- -.63 .65 -- -- -- .56 --

NFC -1.17 -- 1.94* -1.74* -- -- -- .48 1.38 1.58 1.02 -- 1.26 --

STW -1.52 -- 1.12 -1.83* -- -- -- -1.18 -.44 .62 -- -- 1.72* --

AXY -3.09*** -- 1.25 -2.03* -- -- -- -.22 1.00 2.29** -- -- .44 --

ANP -2.64** -3.22*** -- -1.02 -- -- -- .33 -.43 1.74* -- -- .11 --

BRF -- -- 1.92* -- -- -- -- 1.14 1.91* -- -- -- -- --

MSF .10 -- -- -- -- -- -- .94 1.84* -- -- -- -- .72

JCP -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

SUB -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -2.71**

AGG -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.31 -.41 -- -- -- -.72 --

ACT -- -- -- -- .21 -- -.82 1.66* -.21 -- -- -- -.10 --

FML -2.49** -- -- -.82 -- -- -- .93 2.36** 1.87* -- -- 1.28 --

IPP -1.02 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.02 --

SAV -- 2.56** 3.06** 1.22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

SHY -- -- -- -1.56 -- -- -- .62 1.56 -- -- -- 2.72** --

DSF -- -- -- -- -.92 -1.70* -1.02 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

PSY-5 Scales

AGGR-r -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

PSYC-r -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.23 .00 1.36 .00 -- -.21 --

DISC-r -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -2.60**

NEGE-r -1.63* -- 1.13 -1.43 -- -- -- -.12 .11 1.36 -- -- 1.09 --

INTR-R -- -- 3.06** .21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

* = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .1; *** = p ≤ .001; Bold = preferential association with RSI-D




147

a statistically significant z statistic when the dispositional and situational Problem

Analysis scales and their respective associations with the MMPI-2-RF ANP scale were

compared. Specifically, the results illustrated that the Problem Analysis RSI-D scale was

preferentially associated with the ANP scale of the MMPI-2-RF. The results also

indicated that the situational RSI scales were not preferentially associated with any of the

MMPI-2-RF scales at the statistical significance level required for interpretation.

As a supplemental analysis, those z statistics that were statistically significant at p

≤ .05 were also examined and the results demonstrated that 56 z statistics were

statistically significant. The results also showed that 53 of the z-tests indicated that select

MMPI-2-RF scales were preferentially associated with dispositional coping scales of the

RSI-D; while, only three of the z-tests demonstrated preferential associations between

select MMPI-2-RF scales and situational coping, as assessed by the RSI-S. Therefore, the

overall pattern of results suggests that dispositional coping is preferentially associated

with the personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales,

as compared to situational coping.

148

DISCUSSION

The overall purpose of this study was to explore univariate and multivariate

associations between personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the

MMPI-2-RF scales, and dispositional and situational coping, measured by the RSI-D and

RSI-S scales. Coping research to date has largely focused the Five Factor Model (FFM)

for conceptualizing and measuring personality constructs. The coping literature has

examined only a limited group of psychopathology constructs (e.g., distress) or particular

psychological disorders (e.g., PTSD). The MMPI-2-RF was used in this study because it

assesses a broad range of personality and psychopathology constructs. Furthermore,

psychometric limitations have been identified with several of the instruments most

commonly used in coping research (e.g., the COPE). To address these limitations, the

RSI-D and RSI-S scales were incorporated in this study, as these instruments include

validity scales to address the test taker’s approach to completing the instrument and the

coping scales have also demonstrated adequate reliability. Thus, the study aimed to

further investigate personality and psychopathology constructs and situational and

dispositional coping, while also utilizing broader and more psychometrically sound

instruments.

149

Research Questions and Findings



by the RSI?

Five research questions were generated and examined to explore the associations

between personality and psychopathology constructs and dispositional and situational

coping. The first research question aimed to determine which personality and

psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF, were associated with the

dispositional coping styles assessed by the RIS-D. Correlational analyses were conducted

to address this research question. Table 47 summarizes the hypotheses that were

supported by the results of this study. Overall, the results are consistent with previous

research, which indicated that dispositional coping responses are strongly associated with

personality traits, such as those contained within the FFM and the PSY-5 model of

personality (McWilliams, Cox, & Enns, 2003; Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-Leger,

2004; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Windover, 2001). In this study, dispositional

coping responses were also significantly associated with various symptoms of

psychopathology, which also parallels previous research (Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski,

1996; Vollrath, Alanes, & Torgersen, 1996; Punamaki, et. al, 2008; Haisch & Meyers,

2004; Segal, et. al, 2001).

In particular, three of types of dispositional coping, denial, fantasizing, and over-

reaction were significantly associated with a large number of constructs assessed by

several sets of MMPI-2-RF scales, including the EID, THD, and BXD scale hierarchies,

150

Table 47. Supported Hypotheses about Associations Between the MMPI-2-RF Scales

and Dispositional Coping.

MMPI-2-RF


H-O Scales

EID * * * − * − *

THD * * −

BXD −

RC Scales

RCd * − * − * − *

RC1 − − − − − −

RC2 − − * − *

RC3 − * − * − −

RC4 − −

RC6 * * −

RC7 − − − * * * *

RC8 * − −

RC9 −

SP Scales

Somatic Scales

MLS − − − − − −

GIC − − * − −

HPC −

NUC − − − −

COG − * * − −

Internalizing

Scales

SUI − −

HLP − − −

SFD * − * − * *

NFC * − − * * * − *

STW − − − − − − *

AXY * − − * * * *

ANP − − * − − −

BRF − − *

MSF − *

Note: * = hypothesis that was supported; − = partially supported hypothesis (ES ≥ .2); PC =

Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-

Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional

Suppression; D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance;

MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.

RSI-D Scales

151


MMPI-2-RF


Externalizing

Scales

JCP

SUB *

AGG

ACT −

Interpersonal

Scales

FML * − − * − *

IPP − −

SAV − −

SHY − − − *

DSF − * *

PSY-5 Scales

AGGR-r

PSYC-r * * −

DISC-r *

NEGE-r − − − * * − *

INTR-R − −

Note: * = hypothesis that was supported; − = partially supported hypothesis (ES ≥ .2); PC =

Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-

Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional

Suppression; D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance;

MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.

RSI-D Scales

152

as well as somatic and interpersonal scales. These findings provide support for a large

number of the proposed hypotheses and represent the strongest pattern of correlational

results in this investigation. Although a few of the hypotheses were not fully supported,

many of the remaining correlations approached a medium effect size. Interpretation of the

results suggested that emotional/internalizing difficulties and problems with disordered

thinking were more strongly linked to coping with stress across situations by denying the

existence of the stressor, pretending the stressor will simply disappear, and becoming

overly distressed. Somatic and interpersonal problems, as well as behavioral/

externalizing difficulties, were also significantly associated with dispositional denial,

fantasizing, and over-reaction, but to a lesser degree than emotional/internalizing and

thought dysfunction problems.

These results parallel prior research, as dispositional coping responses aimed at

distracting oneself from the stressors or denying the existence of the stressors were also

associated with select personality traits, such as FFM Neuroticism, as well as PSY-5

Psychoticism and Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart,

2007; Windover, 2001). These findings are also consistent with previous research that

demonstrated significant associations between dispositional behavioral and mental

disengagement, denial, and distraction and symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

(PTSD) and depression, which were assessed by the emotional/internalizing MMPI-2-RF

scales in this study (Haisch & Meyers, 2004; Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996;

Vollrath, Anales, & Torgersen, 1996). Previous research also illustrated associations

between dispositional distraction and disengagement and thought and delusional

153

disorders, as well as Cluster A and B Personality Disorder symptoms (Vollrath, Anales,

& Torgersen, 1996; Segal et. al, 2001). Thus, the finding that emotional/internalizing,

thought dysfunction, and behavioral/externalizing difficulties are associated with

dispositional denial and disengagement are consistent with prior research. However, this

study also found that somatic complaints are associated with dispositional denial and

disengagement, which suggests that somatoform psychopathology may also be related

with dispositional coping responses.

Significant associations were also present between two types of dispositional

coping, problem confrontation and avoidance, and constructs measured by the several

scales from the EID hierarchy, as well as the interpersonal scales, and these findings were

also consistent with the proposed hypotheses. It should be noted that emotional/

internalizing difficulties and interpersonal problems were inversely associated with

dispositional problem confrontation and positively associated with dispositional

avoidance. Although several of the hypotheses were not fully supported because several

associations did not reach a medium effect size, the overall pattern of findings was

consistent with the results just described. It should also be noted that two small

magnitude correlations were found between constructs assessed by the THD scale set and

dispositional avoidance; however, the hypotheses regarding associations between the

constructs assessed by the BXD and THD scale sets and dispositional problem

confrontation were not supported. Thus, emotional/internalizing difficulties, but not

behavioral/externalizing and thought dysfunction difficulties and somatic complaints,

were strongly linked to dispositional problem confrontation and avoidance.

154

The findings in this study are congruent with previous research, as the personality

traits of FFM Neuroticism and PSY-5 Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism were

negatively associated with dispositional coping focused on problem solving and

positively associated with dispositional avoidance (Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-

Leger, 2004; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Windover, 2001). These results are also

consistent with previous research that found that dispositional coping focused on problem

solving or taking direct action to address the stressor was associated with overall lower

levels of psychopathology and fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety (McWilliams,

Cox, & Enns, 2003; Vollrath, Alanes, & Torgersen, 1996; Flett, Blankstein, &

Obertynski, 1996). Similarly, dispositional avoidance was previously demonstrated to be

associated with symptoms of PTSD, depression, and Cluster A and B Personality

Disorders, and that research parallels the results of this study (Haisch & Meyers, 2004;

Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996; Segal, Hook, & Coolidge, 2001). Therefore, the

patterns of emotional/internalizing difficulties being negatively associated with

dispositional coping focused on addressing the stressor or problem-solving, as well as

emotional/internalizing and behavioral/externalizing problems being positively associated

with dispositional avoidance, are consistent across studies. However, it should also be

noted that the results of this study expand previous research, as constructs linked to

interpersonal functioning were also found to significantly predict dispositional problem

confrontation and avoidance, and such associations have not yet been demonstrated in the

existing coping literature.

155

Although the hypotheses for the RSI-D Problem Analysis scale were not fully

supported in this study, the overall pattern of results was consistent with that of the

problem confrontation scale just discussed. In particular, several significant inverse

associations were found with personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the

EID hierarchy of scales, as well as interpersonal scales, but these associations were small

in magnitude. The findings may suggest that emotional/internalizing difficulties are

associated with a decreased likelihood of coping by employing solution-focused

strategies, such as generating potential options for responding to the stressor, and this

general notion is consistent with previous research.

Similarly, the hypothesized associations between dispositional passive acceptance

and constructs measured by the EID and interpersonal scales were not fully supported.

However, dispositional passive acceptance was linked to personality and

psychopathology constructs contained within the EID and interpersonal scale sets, similar

to the results for dispositional problem confrontation, avoidance, and problem analysis.

Specifically, two noteworthy associations were present between such constructs and

dispositional passive acceptance, but they were small in magnitude. Personality and

psychopathology constructs measured by one EID scale, NFC, and one interpersonal

scale, RC3, were associated with the dispositional coping response of passive acceptance.

The findings may indicate that beliefs about being indecisive and distrusting others, as

well as having a generally low opinion of them, is linked to coping with stressful

situations by accepting the stressors without attempting to resolve them.

156

Only one study to date examined associations between dispositional passive

acceptance and personality constructs. The results of Windover’s (2001) research found

that passive acceptance was not associated with any of the PSY-5 personality constructs,

but was rather inversely associated with a broad disposition to experience positive

emotions. Therefore, the findings from this study are consistent with Windover’s (2001)

investigation. This suggests that, across situations, individuals who experience

emotional/internalizing difficulties, such as anxiety, fear, and anhedonia, may be less

likely to accept stressors without making any effort to address the stressors.

Several other types of dispositional coping, namely self-examination and self-

reassurance, demonstrated significant associations with constructs assessed by the EID

hierarchy of scales, as anticipated. More specifically, positive associations were found

between personality and psychopathology constructs and dispositional self-examination;

however, inverse associations were identified between these constructs and dispositional

self-reassurance. Several of the remaining hypotheses were not fully supported, as the

correlations did not reach a medium effect size. Regardless, the overall pattern of results

indicated that associations were strongest between many of the constructs assessed by the

EID scale set and the dispositional coping responses of self-examination and self-

reassurance. Indeed, significant associations were not present between the dispositional

coping responses and personality and psychopathology constructs contained within the

THD and BXD scale hierarchies, contrary to the proposed hypotheses. These findings

suggest that the presence of emotional/internalizing problems means individuals may be

more inclined to cope with stressful situations by exploring their role in the creation of

157

the stressor and be less inclined to reassure themselves about their ability to cope with

stress.

The findings in this study are congruent with previous research, which illustrated

that the personality trait of Extraversion was positively associated with dispositional

coping focused on cognitive restructuring (e.g., dispositional self-reassurance), but

Neuroticism was negatively associated with dispositional cognitive restructuring

(Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). Windover’s (2001) study also demonstrated that

PSY-5 Introversion and Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism were negatively associated

with dispositional self-reassurance, and Introversion was also positively associated with

dispositional self-examination. Similar associations were found here, with the addition of

a positive association between Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism and dispositional self-

examination. However, regarding psychopathology, previous research has not

specifically explored the relation between psychopathology constructs and dispositional

coping focused on exploring one’s own role in the creation of the stressor or by

reassuring oneself about their ability to handle the stressor. The results of this study

indicate that coping by examining one’s role in the creation of the stressor across stressful

situations may be linked to experiencing emotional/internalizing problems, such as

anxiety and depression; while, reassuring oneself about their ability to handle stressors is

inversely associated with emotional/internalizing problems.

Only one type of dispositional coping, spirituality, was significantly predicted by

personality and psychopathology constructs contained within the BXD hierarchy. In

particular, inverse associations were found between constructs assessed by several of the

158

BXD scales and the dispositional coping response of spirituality. Several other significant

associations were found between constructs contained within the BXD MMPI-2-RF

scales and dispositional spirituality, but they were of a small effect size. None of the

proposed hypotheses predicting significant associations between personality and

psychopathology constructs, assessed by the EID and THD scale hierarchies, and

dispositional spirituality were supported. The findings indicate there is likely a stronger

inverse link between externalizing and behavioral difficulties and coping with stress by

relying on spiritual beliefs compared to internalizing/emotional difficulties and problems

with thought dysfunction.

Fewer studies have examined dispositional coping responses focused on using

religion to deal with stressful situations and personality and psychopathology constructs.

A study by Windover (2001) demonstrated that dispositional religious-based coping was

associated inversely with PSY-5 Disconstraint, and that finding was replicated with the

revised PSY-5 DISC-r scale in this study. This suggests that exhibiting problematic

behavior may decrease the likelihood that an individual will turn to spiritually-based

resources to cope with stress across stressful situations. Thus, the results of this study are

important, as they explored a coping response (i.e., spirituality) that has been largely

under researched by the existing coping studies.

The dispositional coping responses of seeking emotional support and emotional

suppression were significantly predicted by personality and psychopathology constructs

assessed by the interpersonal scales, which are linked to emotional/internalizing

difficulties. In particular, a single interpersonal scale, DSF, was inversely associated with

159

dispositional seeking emotional support and positively associated with dispositional

emotional suppression. Although this particular finding was consistent with the proposed

hypotheses, several of the other hypotheses were not supported. For example, inverse

associations were anticipated between personality and psychopathology constructs,

assessed by the BXD scale hierarchy, as well as THD and other EID scales, and

dispositional seeking emotional support. Similarly, positive associations were also

anticipated between constructs, assessed by the BXD and THD scale hierarchies, as well

as other EID scales, and the dispositional coping strategy of emotional suppression.

Therefore, the findings suggest that coping with stress across situations by seeking

comfort from others and suppressing one’s emotional reactions to stressors may be more

strongly linked to interpersonal factors, such as an individual’s view of others, as

opposed to symptoms of psychopathology.

The results of this study demonstrated fewer associations with dispositional

coping responses focused on addressing negative emotions, compared to the findings of

previous research. In particular, previous research demonstrated significant associations

between dispositional coping aimed at reducing or addressing negative emotions and

personality constructs, such as FFM Neuroticism and Extraversion (Connor-Smith and

Flachsbart, 2007; Jang et. al, 2007). Previous research also demonstrated associations to

be present between dispositional emotion-focused coping and increased levels of

psychopathology (McWilliams, Cox, & Enns, 2003; Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski,

1996), as well as increased symptoms of PTSD (Haisch & Meyers, 2004), depression

(Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996), anxiety, somatoform, and thought disorders

160

(Vollrath, Anales, & Torgersen, 1996). However, the findings in this study suggest

dispositional emotion-focused coping responses are more strongly linked to interpersonal

relationships, particularly disliking others. Therefore, these findings expand upon

previous research, as interpersonal factors and their impact on coping responses has been

largely ignored in the existing literature. One explanation for these findings is that

interpersonal factors may mediate the links between personality and psychopathology and

dispositional seeking emotional support and emotional suppression.

The dispositional coping response of seeking advice had few significant

associations with personality and psychopathology constructs. Although many of the

hypotheses generated for dispositional seeking advice were not fully supported, at least

one of the associations was conceptually similar to the associations present for

dispositional seeking emotional support and dispositional emotional suppression. In

particular, two noteworthy correlations were present, one with a behavioral/externalizing

dysfunction construct, assessed by the ACT scale, and another with interpersonal

constructs, measured by the DSF scale. These findings indicated that dispositional coping

by seeking input from others regarding how to respond to stressors may be positively

associated with heightened excitation and energy and negatively associated with disliking

people and being around them. Thus, having increased energy may motivate an

individual to seek input from others about how to address stressors. The association

between dispositional seeking advice and disliking others is consistent with the

dispositional seeking emotional support and emotional suppression scales just discussed,

as people who dislike others are not likely to seek their input from others when faced

161

with a stressful situation. Therefore, although not linked to previous research, these

findings are consistent with other associations with dispositional coping from this study

and they likely expand upon the existing coping literature, as interpersonal difficulties

have been largely ignored in coping research to date.

Finally, the dispositional coping response of minimization did not demonstrate

any significant associations with personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by

the MMPI-2-RF scales. Therefore, the hypothesized associations were largely

unsupported for dispositional minimization. This result is consistent with one study that

also demonstrated dispositional minimization was not significantly associated with

personality constructs (Windover, 2001). Therefore, the findings suggest personality and

psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, may not be strongly

linked to coping with stress across situations by attempting to minimize the significance

of stressors.

Summary. In conclusion, several types of dispositional coping responses

measured by the RSI-D scales were significantly predicted by constructs assessed by the

EID, THD, BXD, somatic, and interpersonal scale sets. The remaining types of

dispositional coping were associated were with fewer sets of constructs, typically two. In

particular, dispositional coping responses were most often associated with constructs

assessed by the EID scale hierarchy. Similarly, personality and psychopathology

constructs contained within the interpersonal scales were also frequently associated with

many of the dispositional coping responses. Thus, the overall pattern of findings indicates

emotional/internalizing and interpersonal difficulties were frequently linked to emotion-

162

focused and avoidance dispositional coping responses. Some significant (inverse)

associations were also present between problem-focused types of dispositional coping

responses, but to a lesser degree than the other types of responses just described.




The second objective of the study was to investigate multivariate associations

between personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scale

sets, and dispositional coping responses of the RSI-D. These analyses also determined

which combination of personality and psychopathology constructs optimally predicted

each of the various dispositional coping responses. Because these analyses were

exploratory in nature, no specific hypotheses were offered; however, the results provided

meaningful information about the types of constructs that best predict the dispositional

coping strategies of the RSI-D. In particular, nearly all of the various types of

dispositional coping responses were significantly predicted by some combination of

constructs from across the EID, BXD, and THD, as well as Somatic, MMPI-2-RF scale

hierarchies. There was one exception to this general pattern, as the dispositional coping

response of problem analysis was optimally predicted by constructs assessed by a single

MMPI-2-RF scale set.

Exploration of the results conveyed that two types of dispositional coping, namely

fantasizing and denial, were significantly predicted by four different sets of constructs,

including those contained within the EID, THD, and BXD hierarchies, as well as the

163

interpersonal scales. Specifically, constructs assessed by the scales of EID, THD, BXD,

RC7, NFC, MSF, FML, NEGE, DISC, and PSYC significantly predicted dispositional

fantasizing. The results also showed that the combination of constructs contained within

the THD, BXD, NFC, MSF, and FML scales optimally predicted the dispositional coping

response of fantasizing by accounting for 34% of the variance in the prediction. It should

be noted that this is the strongest pattern of results demonstrated with regard to the ability

of personality and psychopathology constructs to predict dispositional coping responses.

Further exploration of the results indicated that both lower- and higher-level constructs

optimally predicted dispositional fantasizing. The results demonstrated that individuals

having problems with disordered thinking, believing they are indecisive and

inefficacious, having specific fears, and having family problems are more inclined to

cope with stressful situations by imagining the stressor will disappear. In contrast,

individuals experiencing problems associated with under-controlled behavior, such as

that associated with impulsivity or aggression for example, are less inclined to cope with

stressful situations by pretending that a stressor will simply disappear. These findings are

largely consistent with the univariate analyses for dispositional fantasizing, with the

exception that somatic problems were also linked to dispositional fantasizing at the

univariate level. Therefore, it appears somatic problems do not significantly predict

dispositional fantasizing, beyond the EID, BXD, THD, and interpersonal constructs when

combinations of the constructs are examined.

The dispositional coping response of denial was also predicted by personality and

psychopathology constructs from across four groups of MMPI-2-RF scales, particularly

164

those assessed by the EID, THD RC3, RC7, NFC, ACT, NEGE, PSYC, DISC, and INTR

scales significantly predicted the dispositional coping response of denial. The results also

indicated the combination of constructs from the THD, RC3, NFC, DISC, and INTR

scales optimally predicted dispositional denial and accounted for 29% of the variance in

the prediction. It was determined that the dispositional coping response of denial was

optimally predicted by a combination of both higher- and lower-level constructs,

particularly those contained within the H-O, RC, SP, and PSY-5 scales. It should be

noted that this was the second strongest pattern of results that emerged, following that of

dispositional fantasizing just described. Overall, the results indicated that individuals

experiencing difficulties with disordered thinking, distrusting others, and believing they

are indecisive and inefficacious may be more inclined to cope by repeatedly denying that

a stressor exists across multiple stressful situations. On the contrary, individuals who

endorse particular internalizing and externalizing difficulties, including exhibiting under-

controlled behavior and being socially disengaged and lacking positive experiences, may

be less inclined to cope by denying that a stressor exists. These findings are quite similar

to the results illustrated in the univariate analyses for dispositional fantasizing, with the

exception that somatic problems were also linked to dispositional denial at the univariate

level. Therefore, it appears somatic problems do not significantly predict dispositional

denial, beyond the EID, BXD, THD, and interpersonal constructs when combinations of

the constructs are examined.

Further exploration of the results demonstrated that one type of dispositional

coping, spirituality, was significantly predicted by constructs from across three MMPI-2-

165

RF scale sets, including the EID, BXD, and Somatic scale sets. The results indicated that

constructs assessed by the BXD, RC4, SUB HPC, MLS, MSF, and DISC scales

significantly predicted the dispositional coping response of spirituality. It was also

determined that a combination of constructs, including those measured by the SUB, HPC,

MSF, and MLS scales, optimally predicted dispositional spirituality and accounted for

24% of the variance in the prediction. However, it should be noted that the constructs

associated with the MSF scale functioned as a suppressor variable. The results also

illustrated that lower-level constructs optimally predicted the dispositional coping

response of spirituality. Furthermore, individuals with particular somatic and

internalizing problems, particularly having head and neck pain and specific fears, are

more likely to cope with stress by relying on spiritual beliefs. On the other hand,

individuals with externalizing difficulties, particularly those who misuse alcohol and/or

illicit drugs, are less inclined to rely on their spiritual beliefs as a way to cope with

various stressful situations. The finding that dispositional spirituality was significantly

predicted by various behavioral/externalizing constructs is consistent with the univariate

analyses. The multivariate analyses also expand upon the univariate analyses for

dispositional spirituality, as emotional/internalizing and somatic constructs were also

significant predictors. This indicates that individuals having specific fears and physical

pain may also rely on spirituality as a way to cope when faced with stressful situations.

Nine different dispositional coping responses were optimally predicted by

constructs from two MMPI-2-RF scale sets. For example, constructs contained with the

EID and BXD scale hierarchies best predicted the dispositional coping responses of over-

166

reaction and self-reassurance. In particular, dispositional over-reaction was predicted by

constructs contained with the EID and BXD MMPI-2-RF scale hierarchies. The results

conveyed that the constructs assessed by the EID, RC7, STW, NFC, IPP, NEGE, and

AGGR scales significantly predicted dispositional over-reaction. It was also determined

that the combination of constructs measured by the NEGE and AGGR scales optimally

predicted the dispositional coping response of over-reaction by accounting for 24% of the

variance in the prediction. Furthermore, dispositional over-reaction was optimally

predicted by higher-level constructs. The results demonstrated that individuals

experiencing significant negative emotions, such as anxiety, insecurity, worry, and fear,

were more inclined to engage in coping characterized by being overly distressed across

situations. However, it was also determined that individuals exhibiting instrumental,

goal-directed aggression were less inclined to cope with stressful situations by being

overly distressed by stressful situations. These findings are consistent with the univariate

analyses, which indicated dispositional over-reaction was significantly associated with

emotional/internalizing difficulties. However, the multivariate analyses revealed that a

particular behavioral/externalizing construct, Aggressiveness, also significantly predicted

dispositional over-reaction. Thus, the multivariate analyses provided additional

information regarding the prediction of dispositional over-reaction and they indicate

behavioral/externalizing constructs are also important predictors of dispositional over-

reaction.

Another type of dispositional coping, self-reassurance, was predicted by

constructs assessed by constructs from the EID, BXD, and interpersonal scales, including

167

by the EID, RCd, RC8, SFD, ACT, SHY, INTR, and NEGE scales. The results

determined the combination of constructs assessed by the RCd and ACT scales optimally

predicted dispositional self-reassurance, as they accounted for 17% of the variance. The

results also indicated that both lower- and higher-level constructs optimally predicted the

dispositional coping response of self-reassurance. Further examination of the results

illustrated individuals endorsing general unhappiness and dissatisfaction were less likely

to utilize a coping response involving reassuring themselves about their ability to deal

with stressful situations. This finding was generally consistent with the univariate

analyses in this study, as emotional/internalizing constructs were associated with

dispositional self-reassurance. However, the results of the multivariate analyses also

demonstrated individuals with heightened excitation and energy were more inclined to

cope with stressful situations by reassuring themselves about their ability to handle a

stressful situation. This finding expands the univariate analyses and may indicate that

having heightened energy and excitation may promote the confidence and/or provide

motivation for an individual to cope by reassuring themselves about their ability to

handle stressors.

Several other types of dispositional coping responses, including problem

confrontation, avoidance, self-examination, and passive acceptance, were predicted by

constructs from the EID scale hierarchy and the interpersonal scales. Dispositional

problem confrontation was significantly predicted by constructs contained within the

EID, RCd, AXY, FML, SAV, IPP, and NEGE scales. The results illustrated that a

combination of constructs assessed by the AXY, FML, SAV, and IPP scales optimally

168

predicted the dispositional coping response of problem confrontation by accounting for

21% of the variance. It should be noted that the constructs measured by the SAV scale

functioned as a suppressor. In this case, lower-level constructs optimally predicted

dispositional problem confrontation. Further interpretation of the results indicated that

individuals experiencing pervasive anxiety and frights, conflictual family relationships,

and who are unassertive and submissive are less inclined to cope with stressful situations

by taking actions to directly confront a stressor. These findings are congruent with the

univariate analyses, which demonstrated significant associations to be present between

emotional/internalizing constructs and dispositional problem confrontation. However,

these results provide more specific information about the emotional/internalizing and

interpersonal difficulties, which are less likely to promote coping with stressful situations

by taking direct action to address stressors. Indeed, when combinations of constructs are

considered, interpersonal difficulties become more salient than other

emotional/internalizing difficulties in predicting dispositional problem confrontation.

Avoidance is another type of dispositional coping strategy that was predicted by

constructs assessed by the EID and the interpersonal MMPI-2-RF scale sets. The results

indicated that dispositional avoidance was significantly predicted by constructs contained

within the THD, RC1, RC3, AXY, FML, SAV, SUI, NFC, PSYC, and NEGE scales. It

was determined that a combination of constructs from the AXY, FML, SAV, SUI, and

NFC scales optimally predicted the dispositional coping response of avoidance by

accounting for 20% of the variance in the prediction. However, it should be noted that the

constructs associated with the SAV and SUI scales functioned as suppressors in the

169

prediction of dispositional avoidance. The overall pattern of results was similar to that of

dispositional problem confrontation, as dispositional avoidance was also optimally

predicted by lower-level constructs and the pattern of constructs was similar as well. The

results identified individuals experiencing pervasive anxiety, conflictual family

relationships, and believes they are indecisive and inefficacious are more likely to

employ a coping strategy that involves circumventing the stressor across multiple

stressful situations. The multivariate analyses were consistent with the univariate

analyses that demonstrated that emotional/internalizing and interpersonal constructs were

significantly associated with dispositional avoidance. Also, in the univariate analyses,

several correlations were present between thought dysfunction and somatic problems, but

they were small in magnitude. Those constructs also significantly predicted dispositional

avoidance at the multivariate level, but they were not optimal predictors of dispositional

avoidance.

Another dispositional coping strategy, namely self-examination, was also

predicted by constructs contained within the EID and interpersonal MMPI-2-RF scale

sets, including the EID, RC2, SAV, AXY, DSF, INTR, and NEGE scales. The results

illustrated that a combination of constructs from across the SAV, DSF, and INTR scales

optimally predicted the dispositional coping response of self-examination by accounting

for 14% of the variance. It should be noted that the constructs assessed by the DSF scale

functioned as a suppressor in the prediction of dispositional self-examination. Thus, both

lower- and higher-level constructs optimally predicted dispositional self-examination.

Further exploration of the results indicated that individuals who are socially disengaged,

170

do not enjoy social events, and who lack positive emotional experiences are more

inclined to cope with stressful situations by exploring his/her own role in the creation of

the stressor. These results are similar to the univariate analyses, which demonstrated that

dispositional self-examination was associated with emotional/internalizing difficulties.

Similarly, both the univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated (small) associations

between interpersonal constructs and the dispositional coping response of self-

examination; however, when all of the constructs are considered together,

emotional/internalizing difficulties emerge as the most significant predictors.

Passive acceptance is the final type of dispositional coping predicted by

constructs affiliated with the EID and interpersonal MMPI-2-RF scale sets, including

RC3, NFC, STW, and PSYC scales. The results showed that a combination of constructs

assessed by the RC3, NFC, and STW scales optimally predicted dispositional passive

acceptance by accounting for 11% of the variance in the prediction. It was also

determined that a combination of lower- and higher-level constructs optimally predicted

the dispositional coping response of passive acceptance. Furthermore, individuals who

believe they are indecisive and inefficacious and who are also cynical and distrustful of

others are more likely to cope with stressful situations by accepting the stressor without

attempting to resolve it. The results also indicated that individuals who are preoccupied

with disappointments and difficulties with time pressure are not likely to simply accept

their stressors. These findings are nearly identical to the univariate analyses for

dispositional passive acceptance. In particular, significant correlations were demonstrated

between constructs assessed by the RC3 and NFC scales and dispositional passive

171

acceptance, but the associations were small in magnitude. The multivariate analyses

expand upon those associations by demonstrating that preoccupation with

disappointments and difficulties with time pressure also significantly predict a lack of

engagement in dispositional passive acceptance. Therefore, the multivariate analyses

provide additional information about the prediction of dispositional passive acceptance,

beyond that provided by the univariate analyses.

Further exploration of the results determined that two types of dispositional

coping strategies, including seeking advice and emotional suppression, were predicted by

a combination of constructs from the BXD and interpersonal MMPI-2-RF scale sets,

including DSF, ACT, and INTR. More specifically, the constructs assessed by the DSF

and ACT scales optimally predicted dispositional emotional suppression and accounted

for 18% of the variance in the prediction. The results also illustrated that lower-level

constructs, such as those contained within the SP scales, optimally predicted the

dispositional coping response of emotional suppression. Interpretation of the results

indicated that individuals who dislike people and being around them are more inclined to

cope with stressful situations by suppressing or hiding their emotions. On the contrary,

individuals having heightened excitation and energy are less inclined to employ coping

strategies focused on suppressing their emotions. The multivariate analyses are identical

to the univariate analyses, which showed the constructs measured by DSF and ACT were

significantly associated with the dispositional coping response of emotional suppression.

This information is particularly useful because the specific coping response of

dispositional emotional suppression has not been explored in the coping literature to date.

172

Similar to emotional suppression, the dispositional coping response of seeking

advice was significantly and optimally predicted by constructs assessed by the BXD and

interpersonal MMPI-2-RF scale sets, namely DSF and ACT. The constructs contained

within the DSF and ACT scales accounted for 7% of the variance in the prediction. It was

also determined that dispositional seeking advice was optimally predicted by lower-level

constructs, such as those contained within the SP scales. Further exploration of the results

indicated that individuals who dislike others and being around people are less inclined to

cope with stressful situations by seeking input from others about how to respond to a

stressor. On the other hand, individuals with heightened excitation and energy levels are

more likely to seek input from others regarding how to respond to stressful situations.

These multivariate analyses are identical to the univariate analyses, which showed the

constructs measured by DSF and ACT were significantly associated with the

dispositional coping response of passive acceptance. Therefore, these findings provide

new information about the types of personality and psychopathology that are linked to

dispositional emotional suppression because this particular coping response has not been

explored in prior coping research.

Another type of dispositional coping that was significantly predicted by constructs

assessed by two MMPI-2-RF scale sets, particularly somatic and interpersonal scales,

was seeking emotional support. Constructs contained within the BXD, RC8, DSF, SHY,

MLS, INTR, and DISC scales significantly predicted dispositional seeking emotional

support. It was also determined that a combination of constructs from the DSF, SHY, and

MLS scales optimally predicted the dispositional coping response of seeking emotional

173

support by accounting for 16% of the variance. It should be noted that the constructs

assessed by the SHY and MLS scales functioned as suppressors. It was also determined

that lower-level constructs, such as those contained within the SP scales, optimally

predicted dispositional seeking emotional support. Interpretation of the results indicated

that individuals who dislike people and being around them were not inclined to seek

comfort from other people as a method to cope with stressful situations. This finding is

identical the correlational analyses for dispositional seeking emotional support, and this

suggests there is a significant interpersonal difficulty, namely disliking others, that

strongly discourages coping by seeking support from others when faced with stressful

situations.

A single type of dispositional coping, problem analysis, was predicted by

constructs contained within a single set of MMPI-2-RF scales, specifically the EID scale

hierarchy. It was determined that constructs assessed by the SAV, SFD, ANP, and INTR

scales significantly predicted dispositional problem analysis. The results also indicated a

combination of constructs from across the SFD and ANP scales optimally predicted the

dispositional coping response of problem analysis by accounting for 12% of the variance

in the prediction. It was also determined that lower-level constructs, particularly those

contained within the SP scales, optimally predicted dispositional problem analysis.

Therefore, individuals lacking in self-confidence, experiencing feelings of uselessness,

and who are impatient or easily angered are not likely to cope with stressful situations by

generating options that could be used to respond to the stressor. Consistent with

multivariate analyses, the correlations indicated that small associations were present

174

between dispositional problem analysis and constructs assessed by the EID hierarchy of

scales, as well as one interpersonal scale. Therefore, these findings indicate that when the

constructs are considered in the context of one another, the emotional/internalizing

constructs emerge as the significant predictors of dispositional problem analysis.

Finally, it was determined that personality and psychopathology constructs did

not significantly predict dispositional minimization. This result is consistent with the

univariate analyses for dispositional minimization. As previously noted, dispositional

minimization has not been explored in the existing coping literature. Therefore, two

potential explanations for the lack of findings emerge. First, it is possible that the

personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales are

simply not associated to coping with stress by minimizing the significance of the stressor.

Another potential explanation is that individuals may not typically employ this particular

coping response across stressful situations, as use of this coping mechanism may be

largely dependent on specific characteristics of a stressful situation.

Summary. In summary, a majority of the various types of dispositional coping,

assessed by the RSI-D scales, were significantly predicted by combinations of personality

and psychopathology constructs from multiple domains. Similar to the univariate

analyses, dispositional coping responses were most often predicted by constructs linked

to emotional/internalizing difficulties. Indeed, nine of the fourteen types of dispositional

coping strategies were optimally predicted by some combination of personality and

psychopathology constructs that included emotional/internalizing difficulties.

Furthermore, dispositional coping responses were most often optimally predicted by

175

lower-level personality and psychopathology constructs, such as those contained within

the Specific Problems Scales. This finding indicates the dispositional coping responses of

the RSI-D are not optimally predicted by broad, over-arching constructs, but rather by

more narrow ones. Therefore, more narrowly focused emotional/internalizing constructs

are the most salient predictors of dispositional coping responses in this study.



the RSI?

The third research question examined associations between personality and

psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, and situational coping

strategies, which were measured by the RSI-S scales. It should be noted that the overall

pattern of correlational results for situational coping was generally similar to that of

dispositional coping. However, the pattern illustrated for dispositional coping was

generally stronger, and this is consistent with previous research (c.f. Connor-Smith &

Flachsbart, 2007). Table 48 provides a summary of the hypotheses that were supported

by the findings in this study. Specifically, the results from this study are consistent with

prior findings indicating that situational coping responses are associated with personality

traits, such as those contained within the FFM and the PSY-5 model of personality

(Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-Leger, 2004; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007;

Windover, 2001). Situational coping responses in this study were also associated with

various symptoms of psychopathology, which parallels previous research (Catanzaro,

176

Table 48. Supported Hypotheses About Associations between the MMPI-2-RF Scales and

Situational Coping

MMPI-2-RF


H-O Scales

EID − * − *

THD ≈ ≈ −

BXD

RC Scales

RCd * * *

RC1 − − −

RC2 −

RC3 − −

RC4

RC6 ≈ ≈ ≈

RC7 * * *

RC8 − −

RC9 − −

SP Scales

Somatic Scales

MLS − − −

GIC

HPC − −

NUC − − −

COG − − −

Internalizing

Scales

SUI −

HLP − − −

SFD − − *

NFC * * *

STW * * −

AXY * * −

ANP − − −

BRF

MSF

Note: * = hypothesis that was supported; − = partially supported hypothesis (ES ≥ .2); ≈ =

unanticipated but significant association; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem

Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES =

Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV =

Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR =

Spirituality.

RSI-S Scales

177


MMPI-2-RF


Externalizing

Scales

JCP

SUB

AGG − − −

ACT

Interpersonal

Scales

FML

IPP

SAV −

SHY

DSF *

PSY-5 Scales

AGGR-r

PSYC-r ≈ ≈

DISC-r

NEGE-r * * *

INTR-R −

Note: * = hypothesis that was supported; − = partially supported hypothesis (ES ≥ .2); ≈ =

unanticipated but significant association;PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem

Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES =

Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV =

Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR =

Spirituality.

RSI-S Scales

178

Horaney, & Creasy, 1995; Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996; Punamaki, et. al, 2008).

The correlational analyses demonstrated that three types of situational coping,

including denial, fantasizing, and over-reaction, were associated with a number of

personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the EID and THD MMPI-2-RF

scale sets. These were the three strongest patterns of correlational results for situational

coping. The results supported several of the proposed hypotheses; however, there were

also a large number of correlations that did not achieve a medium effect size. Indeed,

nearly all of the constructs assessed by the somatic scales, as well as a few

behavioral/externalizing constructs, were associated with situational denial, fantasizing,

and over-reaction, but they were small in magnitude. Therefore, the overall pattern of the

correlations was consistent with the anticipated findings, but there were fewer

associations than anticipated with constructs from the BXD scale hierarchy, as well as the

interpersonal scales. These findings indicate that emotional/internalizing difficulties and

problems with disordered thinking may be linked to coping with stress by denying the

existence of the stressor, pretending a stressor will simply disappear, and becoming

overly distressed.

These findings are consistent with the results for dispositional coping in this study

and are also congruent with prior research. In particular, situational coping responses

aimed at distracting oneself from the stressors or denying the existence of the stressors

was also associated with select personality traits, such as FFM Neuroticism (Bouchard,

Guillemette, & Landry-Leger, 2004; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007) and Extraversion

(Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007) , as well as PSY-5 Psychoticism and Negative

179

Emotionality/Neuroticism (Windover, 2001). Furthermore, these findings are also

consistent with previous research that demonstrated significant associations between

situational denial and general psychological distress (Punamaki, et. al, 2008) and between

situational distancing and symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Fairbank,

Hansen, & Fitterling, 1991). Thus, the pattern of emotional/internalizing difficulties

being associated with situational denial and disengagement tended to be consistent across

studies.

Also, there were several unanticipated findings of associations between constructs

assessed by the THD hierarchy and dispositional denial, fantasizing, and over-reaction.

Although previous research had not demonstrated associations between constructs

measuring problems with thought dysfunction and other psychotic-like symptomatology

and situational coping, these results are consistent with the correlational findings for

dispositional denial and fantasizing in this study, as well as previous research. For

example, prior research found associations between dispositional distraction and

disengagement and thought and delusional disorders (Vollrath, Anales, & Torgersen,

1996). Therefore, the associations demonstrated for dispositional coping extend to

situational denial, fantasizing, and over-reaction in this case. Thus, these findings

collectively indicate emotional/internalizing and problems with unusual thinking are

linked to coping by denying a stressor exists, pretending that a stressor will disappear, or

by becoming overly distressed in specific situations.

One type of situational coping, namely emotional suppression, was significantly

associated with a personality and psychopathology construct assessed by the DSF

180

interpersonal scale. This finding provided support for a single hypothesis; however, the

remaining hypotheses were largely unsupported, as situational emotional suppression was

not linked to specific emotional/internalizing, thought, behavioral, or somatic difficulties.

The finding also suggests that disliking other people is linked to coping with stressful

situations by suppressing emotional reactions to the stressor in particular stressful

situations. Despite the fact that previous coping research has not routinely explored

emotional suppression as a coping response, the findings from this study are consistent

across both dispositional and situational coping. More specifically, this finding is

consistent with the correlational analyses conducted to address the first research question,

as constructs contained within the DSF scale were positively associated with

dispositional emotional suppression. Thus, this indicates that individuals who dislike

others and being around them may be likely to address stressful situations by quashing

one’s emotional reaction.

There were also a number of situational coping findings that did not fully support

the hypotheses, but demonstrated clear patterns consistent with the hypotheses. For

example, dispositional self-reassurance demonstrated a number of associations with

personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the EID hierarchy of scales, as

well as interpersonal scales; however, the correlations only approached a medium effect

size. Thus, emotional/internalizing constructs may be associated with dispositional self-

reassurance. These findings are congruent with results demonstrated for dispositional

self-reassurance in this study. In addition, the results of this study are supported by

previous research, which illustrated that the personality traits of Extraversion was

181

positively associated with situational coping focused on cognitive restructuring (e.g.,

situational self-reassurance), but Neuroticism was negatively associated with situational

cognitive restructuring (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). Similar findings were present

with the PSY-5 model and situational self-reassurance, as Windover (2001) demonstrated

Introversion was negatively associated with situational self-reassurance. With regard to

psychopathology, previous research has not specifically explored the relations between

psychopathology constructs and situational coping focused on reassuring oneself about

one’s ability to handle the stressor. Collectively, the results of this study and previous

research may indicate that reassuring oneself about their ability to handle a particular

stressor is less likely to be associated with emotional/internalizing problems.

Associations were also found between a number of constructs from the BXD

hierarchy of scales, as well as somatic scales, and the situational coping strategies of

seeking advice and avoidance, but the associations were of a small effect size. In

particular, having heightened activation and energy, as well as physical pain in the head

and neck, may be positively associated with situational seeking advice. These results are

incongruent with previous research by Windover (2001), which identified that situational

seeking advice was associated with emotional/internalizing difficulties, such as PSY-5

Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism and Psychoticism.

Personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by three of the interpersonal

scales may be inversely associated with the dispositional coping response of problem

confrontation. The associations did not reach a medium effect size, as initially

anticipated, but these results are consistent with the anticipated findings. Similarly,

182

situational problem analysis may be meaningfully associated with personality and

psychopathology constructs measured by the HPC scale; however, the correlation was

small in magnitude. Previous research, such as that conducted by Connor-Smith and

Flachsbart (2007) determined that coping focused on problem solving, such as generating

options that could potentially be used to address the stressor, were negatively associated

with FFM Neuroticism and positively associated with FFM Extraversion. However, the

results of Windover’s (2001) study demonstrated more mixed results, as no associations

were present between situational problem analysis and PSY-5 personality constructs, but

situational problem confrontation was negatively associated with PSY-5 Introversion. In

addition, Windover’s (2001) study demonstrated that situational characteristics, such as

confrontability, timing, and duration, were better predictors of problem-focused than

emotion-focused coping. Therefore, these findings indicate that situational problem-

focused coping may be associated to a smaller degree with personality constructs, as

compared to coping aimed at addressing the negative emotions associations with the

stressor.

There was one unanticipated finding of associations between personality and

psychopathology constructs from the THD hierarchy of scales, particularly the PSYC

scale, and situational passive acceptance, but the correlation was of a small effect size.

The finding suggests that individuals experiencing a disconnection from reality may tend

to cope by accepting a stressor without attempting to resolve it in certain situations.

Regarding previous research, Windover (2001) found that situational passive

acceptance was not significantly linked to any of the PSY-5 personality constructs.

183

Similarly, in this study, the pattern of results for dispositional passive acceptance was

generally weak as well, as only two small associations were present with personality and

psychopathology constructs. Thus, the findings collectively indicate that situational

passive acceptance is not likely to be linked to the personality and psychopathology

constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales.

Finally, select situational coping responses did not demonstrate significant

associations with personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the EID, THD,

BXD, or somatic MMPI-2-RF scale sets. The correlations calculated between the various

personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, and

situational coping responses of seeking emotional support, minimization, self-

examination, and spirituality were not statistically significant. However, it should be

noted that dispositional seeking emotional support and minimization also demonstrated

few to no associations with personality and psychopathology constructs in this study.

Some of these findings are congruent with research conducted by Windover

(2001), which illustrated situational minimization and self-examination were not

significantly associated with personality constructs. Furthermore, the post hoc

multivariate analyses provide some additional information about these findings, as the

prediction of these types of situational coping responses, with the exception of

spirituality, were significantly influenced by specific characteristics of the situation. This

suggests the characteristics of a given situation influence whether situational seeking

emotional support, minimization, and self-examination are used to cope with stress.

Regarding spirituality, the findings indicate the coping response of spirituality may be

184

more likely to be a dispositional-type coping response, which is consistent with the

findings from the first research question. This indicates individuals may be inclined to

turn to religion to cope with stress across different situations, rather than suddenly turning

to religion as a way to cope.

Summary. In conclusion, the overall patterns of correlations between personality

and psychopathology constructs and dispositional and situational coping were quite

similar. In general, a wide array of constructs assessing emotional/internalizing and

interpersonal problems appear to be linked to a majority of the various types of

dispositional and situational coping strategies. As expected and previously noted, these

constructs tended to be more strongly associated with dispositional, rather than

situational, coping.




The fourth objective of the study was to explore the extent to which personality

and psychopathology constructs predicted various types of situational coping strategies.

The results also determined which combination of personality and psychopathology

constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scale sets, optimally predicted each of the

situational coping responses of the RSI-S. Since these analyses were exploratory in

nature, no specific hypotheses were offered. However, the results provide meaningful

information about the types of constructs that best predict situational coping responses as

measured by the RSI-S.

185

Nearly all of the various types of situational coping responses were significantly

predicted by some combination of constructs from across the EID, BXD, and THD scale

hierarchies, as well as somatic scales. Only one type of situational coping, fantasizing,

was best predicted by constructs assessed by all four of the MMPI-2-RF scale sets,

including EID, THD, RC1, RC2, RC6, RC7, STW, MLS, SAV, NFC, NEGE, PSYC,

INTR, and DISC. The constructs that optimally predicted situational fantasizing included

those assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales of RC2, RC6, RC7, MLS, SAV, and DISC, and

that combination of constructs accounted for 24% of the variance in the prediction. The

results also demonstrated that the situational coping response of fantasizing was

optimally predicted by a combination of both higher- and lower-level constructs. It

should be noted that this was the strongest pattern of results that emerged with regard to

the ability of personality and psychopathology constructs to predict situational coping

responses. Overall, the results indicated that individuals who experience significant

negative emotions, such as anxiety, anger, irritability, a poor overall sense of physical

health, and believe that others may pose a personal threat to them are likely to utilize

fantasizing as a method to cope with a particular stressful situation. Also, individuals who

experience few positive emotions are not likely to engage in situational fantasizing.

These findings are consistent with the correlational analyses for situational fantasizing.

However, they also provide meaningful information about which constructs optimally

predict fantasizing, as they examine multiple constructs simultaneously to determine

those that optimally predict situational fantasizing.

186

Six types of situational coping responses were best predicted by constructs

assessed by three of the four MMPI-2-RF scale sets. Consistent with the univariate

analyses, the situational coping response of denial was predicted by a combination of

constructs assessed by scales from the EID and THD hierarchies, as well as the

interpersonal SP scales, namely the THD, RC6, RC7, NFC, AXY, SAV, NEGE, and

PSYC scales. It was also determined that the combination of constructs measured by the

RC6, RC7, and SAV scales optimally predicted situational denial, as these constructs

accounted for 22% of the variance. However, the SAV scale functioned as a suppressor

variable. The results also indicated that a combination of higher-level MMPI-2-RF

constructs optimally predicted the situational coping response of denial. Further

interpretation of the results indicated that individuals experiencing negative emotions,

such as anger, irritation, and anxiety, and possessing self-referential beliefs that other

people pose threats to their safety are likely to engage in situational denial.

A combination of constructs assessed by the EID, BXD, and interpersonal SP

scales best predicted the situational coping responses of seeking advice, avoidance, and

seeking emotional support. Situational seeking advice was best predicted by the

constructs assessed by the BXD, RC9, ACT, AXY, DSF, IPP, NEGE, and INTR scales.

The combination of constructs that optimally predicted the situational coping response of

seeking advice included those assessed by the RC9, AXY, and DSF scales, and those

constructs accounted for 9% of the variance in the prediction. Thus, both higher- and

lower-level constructs optimally predicted the situational coping response of seeking

advice. Generally consistent with the univariate analyses, the results indicated that

187

individuals experiencing behavioral and emotional difficulties, such as being over-

activated, aggressive, impulsive, as well as pervasive anxiety, were likely to solicit input

from other people regarding how to cope with a given stressful situation. On the other

hand, individuals who generally dislike others and being around other people are not

likely to seek input from others regarding how to respond to a particular stressful

situational.

Another combination of constructs incorporated in the EID, BXD, and

interpersonal scale sets, including RC9, SHY, SAV, PSYC, and INTR, significantly

predicted the situational coping response of avoidance, which was similar to the

associations demonstrated by the univariate analyses. In particular, situational avoidance

was optimally predicted by the constructs contained within the RC9, SHY, and INTR

scales and accounted for 9% of the variance in the prediction. However, it should be

noted that the beta weight for the RC9 scale was not statistically significant and the

construct of Introversion functioned as a suppressor. Further exploration of the results

conveyed that the situational coping response of avoidance was optimally predicted by

lower-level constructs, including those contained within the SP scale set. The results also

indicated that individuals experiencing interpersonal problems associated with

internalizing, particularly not enjoying and/or avoidance social events, were more likely

to engage in a situational coping response that involves circumventing the particular

stressor.

The situational coping response of seeking emotional support was significantly

predicted by a variety of constructs contained within the EID, BXD, and interpersonal SP

188

scale sets. It was determined that situational seeking emotional support was significantly

predicted by constructs contained within the DSF, HLP, JCP, NEGE, DISC, and INTR

scales. More specifically, the constructs measured by the DSF, HLP, and JCP scales

optimally predicted situational seeking emotional support by accounting for 7% of the

variance in the prediction. Further examination of the results demonstrated that lower-

level constructs optimally predicted the use of situational seeking emotional support. The

results also indicated that individuals with interpersonal and behavioral problems, such as

disliking people and being around others and a history of problems at home and school,

are less likely to utilize seeking emotional support in a given stressful situation. On the

contrary, individuals with emotional difficulties, such as believing that goals cannot be

reached and problems cannot be solved, are more likely to seek the comfort of others in a

given stressful situation. These findings are significant, as they significantly expand upon

the univariate analyses, which demonstrated no associations were present between

personality and psychopathology constructs and situational seeking emotional support.

Thus, interpersonal and intrapersonal factors impact the use seeking comfort from others

in particular stressful situations.

Additionally, constructs assessed by the EID, BXD, and THD scale hierarchies,

including RC8, COG, JCP, SAV, PSYC, and INTR, significantly predicted the situational

coping response of passive acceptance. The results also indicated that a combination of

constructs contained within the JCP, PSYC, and INTR scales optimally predicted

situational passive acceptance by accounting for 7% of the variance in the prediction.

However, it should be noted that the construct of Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality

189

acted as a suppressor in this analysis. As evidenced by the results, a combination of

lower- and higher-level constructs optimally predicted the situational coping response of

passive acceptance. The results also indicated that individuals experiencing problems

with disordered thinking and a disconnection from reality are more inclined to accept a

particular stressor without attempting to resolve it, which parallels the univariate

findings. However, these results also expand upon the univariate analyses by illustrating

that individuals with externalizing proclivities, such as history of experiencing difficulties

at home and/or school, are less likely to cope with particular stressful situations by

accepting the stressor rather than attempting to directly the stressor itself.

Another situational coping response that was significantly predicted by a

combination of constructs from across three scale sets, including the EID, BXD, and

Somatic MMPI-2-RF scale sets, was the situational coping response of problem analysis.

The results demonstrated that constructs measured by the BXD, RC9, HPC, BRF, and

DISC scales significantly predicted situational problem analysis. The results also

conveyed that a combination of constructs, particularly those contained within the HPC,

BRF, and DISC scales, optimally predicted the situational coping response of problem

analysis by accounting for 6% of the variance in the prediction. However, it should be

noted that the DISC scale functioned as a suppressor in the prediction of situational

problem analysis. It was also determined that a combination of both lower- and higher-

level constructs optimally predicted situational problem analysis. Further exploration of

the results indicated that individuals experiencing physical health problems, particularly

head and neck pain, were more likely to employ a situational coping response

190

characterized by generating options that could potentially be used to respond to the

stressor, and this finding mirrored the results of the correlational analyses. However, the

univariate findings were expanded upon, as individuals experiencing internalizing

difficulties, such as having fears that significantly restrict their normal activities, were

also demonstrated to be less likely to generate ideas about how to address a stressor in a

given stressful situation in these analyses.

The results also indicated that two types of situational coping were best predicted

by a combination of constructs assessed by only two sets of MMPI-2-RF scales.

Specifically, constructs assessed by a combination of EID and Somatic scales, including

EID, RC1, RC2, SAV, HLP, and INTR, significantly predicted the situational coping

response of self-reassurance. The results also showed that the combination of constructs

contained within the RC1 and RC2 scales optimally predicted situational self-reassurance

by accounting for 9% of the variance. It was also demonstrated that higher-levels of

constructs optimally predicted the situational coping response of self-reassurance. Similar

to the univariate analyses, the findings indicated individuals experiencing internalizing

emotional difficulties, particularly lacking positive emotional experiences, are not

inclined to cope with a particular stressful situation by reassuring themselves about their

ability to cope with the stressful situation. On the other hand, the results of the

correlational analyses were expanded upon, as the multivariate analyses also indicated

that individuals who experience a wide range of physical health complaints do not cope

by being confident in their ability to address a stressful situation.

191

The situational coping response of emotional suppression was also significantly

predicted by constructs assessed by the EID and interpersonal SP scale sets. In particular,

constructs measured by the MMPI-2-RF scales of BRF, FML, DSF, NEGE, INTR, and

DISC predicted situational emotional suppression. The results further illustrated that

constructs contained within the DSF and NEGE scales optimally predicted the situational

coping response of emotional suppression by accounting for 13% of the variance. It was

also determined that a combination of both lower- and higher-level constructs optimally

predicted situational emotional suppression. The results indicated that, similar to the

univariate analyses, individuals who dislike people and being around others are more

inclined to utilize a situational coping response focused on suppressing one’s emotional

reactions to a given stressor. Further expanding upon the univariate analyses, it was also

demonstrated that individuals who exhibit higher levels of neuroticism and experience

significant anxiety, insecurity, worry, and fear are less likely to attempt to repress their

own emotional reactions to a particular stressor.

Finally, there were four types of situational coping that were optimally predicted

by constructs measured by a single MMPI-2-RF scale set. Similar to univariate analyses,

constructs from both the EID and BXD scale hierarchies, including EID, RCd, RC9,

NFC, AXY, and NEGE significantly predicted situational over-action. However, some

specificity was provided by the multivariate analyses, as it was determined that a

combination of constructs assessed by scales contained within the EID scale hierarchy

optimally predicted the situational coping response of over-reaction. Specifically,

constructs contained within the EID, RCd, and NEGE scales optimally predicted

192

situational over-reaction by accounting for 18% of the variance. However, it should be

noted that constructs measured by the EID scale functioned as a suppressor in this case.

Furthermore, the results indicated that a combination of higher-level constructs optimally

predicted the situational coping response of over-reaction. The results also illustrated that

individuals experiencing higher levels of negative emotionality, such as anxiety, worry,

and fear, as well as emotional/internalizing difficulties, such as feeling significant anxiety

and a sense of general unhappiness and dissatisfaction with their current situation, are

inclined to be overly distressed by a given stressful situation. These findings also suggest

that emotional/internalizing difficulties are more strongly linked to situational over-

reaction, as compared to behavioral/externalizing difficulties.

Situational problem confrontation was significantly predicted by constructs

assessed by the EID and BXD scale sets, including the NFC, ANP, and DISC scales.

However, only scales contained with the EID hierarchy, particularly the NFC and ANP

scales, optimally predicted the situational coping response of problem confrontation by

accounting for 6% of the variance. The results also indicated that lower-level constructs

optimally predicted situational problem confrontation. Thus, consistent with the

univariate analyses, individuals experiencing internalizing types of difficulties,

particularly believing they are indecisive and inefficacious, are not likely to utilize a

situational coping response focused on taken action to directly confront a given stressor.

On the other hand, individuals who become easily angered and are impatient with others

are more inclined to directly confront a given stressor as a means to cope with a specific

stressful situation. The latter finding expands upon the correlational analyses and

193

indicates behavioral/externalizing difficulties, in addition to emotional/internalizing

problems, are linked to situational problem confrontation.

Another type of situational coping that was significantly predicted by a construct

contained within the EID scale set, namely the AXY scale, was self-examination.

Although none of the correlational analyses for self-examination were significant, the

results for these analyses indicated that the constructs assessed by the RC6 and AXY

scales were significant predictors. However, when considered in combination, constructs

linked to the AXY scale were demonstrated to optimally predict the situational coping

response of self-examination by accounting for 2% of the variance. Therefore, lower-

level constructs optimally predicted situational self-examination. Further interpretation of

the results conveyed that individuals reporting problems with pervasive anxiety, fears,

and frequent nightmares were likely to explore their own role in the creation of the

stressor as a means to cope with a particular situation.

Similarly, the situational coping response of minimization was also optimally

predicted by a construct measured by a single MMPI-2-RF scale, namely the

interpersonal IPP scale, which accounted for 2% of the variance in the prediction. Thus,

lower-level constructs optimally predicted the situational coping response of

minimization. The results expanded the univariate analyses, which indicated none of the

associations between situational minimization and personality and psychopathology

constructs were significant. Therefore, it was also determined that individuals who are

unassertive and submissive are likely to employ a situational coping response focused on

reducing the significance of the stressor.

194

Finally, the situational coping response of spirituality was not significantly

predicted by personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF

scales, and this finding parallels the univariate analyses previously discussed. This

suggests that spirituality, as a coping response, is more likely to be dispositional in

nature, as opposed to being utilized in specific stressful situations. As such, individuals

are likely to turn to religion to cope with stress across different situations, rather than

suddenly turning to religion as a way to cope.

Summary. In conclusion, a majority of the various types of situational coping

strategies, assessed by the RSI-S scales, were significantly predicted by combinations of

personality and psychopathology constructs from multiple domains. Similar to the

univariate analyses, situational coping responses were most often predicted by constructs

linked to emotional/internalizing difficulties. Indeed, twelve of the fourteen types of

situational coping strategies were optimally predicted by some combination of

personality and psychopathology constructs that included emotional/internalizing

difficulties. Furthermore, situational coping responses were most often optimally

predicted by lower-level personality and psychopathology constructs, such as those

contained within the Specific Problems Scales, or combinations of constructs that

included the SP scales. This finding indicates the situational coping responses are not

optimally predicted by broad, over-arching constructs, but rather by more narrow ones.

Therefore, more narrowly focused emotional/internalizing constructs are the most salient

predictors of situational coping responses in this study.

195




Expanding upon the results of the fourth research question, this study also

determined whether situational variables, including the confrontability, timing, duration,

and type or category of the stressful situation, significantly predicted or added

incrementally to the prediction of the situational coping responses of the RSI-S. Although

these analyses were exploratory, it was generally hypothesized that including the

situational variables into the analyses would improve the prediction of various types of

situational coping responses, and the overall pattern of results supported this hypothesis.

There were two exceptions to this general pattern, as the situational variables did not

significantly predict or add incrementally to the prediction of the of the Self-Reassurance

and Spirituality RSI-S scales. The results also indicated that the situational variables

accounted for an additional 1% to 15% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S

scales, beyond the variance accounted for by the personality and psychopathology

constructs. Similarly, the situational variables also significantly predicted situational

coping strategies by accounting for a range of 2% to 17% of the variance, and the

personality and psychopathology constructs added incrementally to the prediction of

situational coping responses on the RSI-S. Thus, the situational variables accounted for

comparable amounts of variance whether they were entered into the first or second block

of the analyses.

196

The situational variables rated by participants and judges significantly predicted,

as well as added incrementally to the prediction of, the situational coping scales of

Problem Analysis, Seeking Advice, Seeking Emotional Support, Emotional Suppression,

and Over-Reaction. The participant-rated situational variables also significantly predicted

and added incrementally to the prediction of RSI-S Problem Confrontation and

Avoidance; however, incorporating the judges’ ratings of the situational variables did not

improve the prediction of those particular coping responses. The judges’ ratings of the

situational variables significantly predicted and added incrementally to the prediction of

scores on the RSI-S scales of Self-Examination, Denial, Fantasizing, Passive Acceptance,

and Minimization, but the participant ratings did not. Additionally, the amounts of

variance accounted for by the participant-rated versus judge-rated situational variables is

nearly equitable, but with one exception. The judges’ ratings of the situational variables

accounted for a significantly larger amount of variance, 17% and 15% respectively, in

predicting and adding incrementally to the prediction of the situational coping response

of Self-Examination, as compared to the participant ratings.

The most salient participant rating that significantly predicted or added

incrementally to the prediction of situational coping responses was duration. Specifically,

participant-rated duration was a significant predictor for six different types of situational

coping responses, including problem analysis, seeking advice, seeking emotional support,

emotional suppression, avoidance, and over-reaction. In contrast, the most salient rating

made by the judges was the classification of the type of stressful situation the individual

was coping with, as that variable was a significant predictor for ten of the fourteen

197

different situational coping responses. In particular, interpersonal problems was the most

significant type or category of the stressful situation because it significantly predicted

and/or added incrementally to the prediction of the five situational coping responses of

problem analysis, self-examination, seeking advice, seeking emotional support, and

emotional suppression.

Summary. In sum, the combination of personality and psychopathology

constructs and situational variables, rated by participants and judges, better predicted the

various situational coping responses compared to examining only personality and

psychopathology constructs. Overall, the ratings provided by participants and judges

were similar in their ability to significantly predict and/or add incrementally to the

prediction of situational coping responses. The participant ratings of the duration of the

stressor and the judges’ ratings of the type or category of the stressful situation,

particularly interpersonal problems, were the most salient variables in predicting

situational coping strategies. Furthermore, the results of this study provide meaningful

information about the specific characteristics of the stressful situation that optimally

predict situational coping and significantly expand the existing coping research. In

particular, the findings suggest that more problem-focused types of situational coping

responses, such as problem confrontation and problem analysis, are significantly

impacted by characteristics of the specific situation. The findings from this study also

indicate that more emotionally focused types of coping responses, such as emotional

suppression and seeking emotional support, are significantly impacted by the

characteristics of the particular stressful situation. Thus, this study expands the findings

198

of previous research by demonstrating that the utilization of almost every type of

situational coping response is influenced by specific situational variables.




The sixth research question examined whether personality and psychopathology

constructs are differentially associated with dispositional coping, assessed by the RSI-D

scales, versus situational coping assessed by the RSI-S scales. Because the existing

coping literature has yet to examine differential associations between dispositional and

situational coping, no specific hypotheses were offered and the analyses were exploratory

in nature. The results indicated that a single personality and psychopathology construct,

assessed by the AXY scale, was preferentially associated with the dispositional coping

strategy of problem confrontation. The ANP scale was also preferentially associated with

dispositional problem analysis. It was also determined that none of the personality and

psychopathology constructs, assessed by MMPI-2-RF scales, were preferentially

associated with any of the various types of situational coping. Furthermore, although the

remaining results did not meet the requirements for interpretation, a noteworthy pattern

was present. In particular, 53 of the remaining constructs were likely preferentially

associated with dispositional coping; whereas, only three types of situational coping may

be preferentially associated with personality and psychopathology constructs.

199

General Summary and Implications

The overall pattern of results indicated that emotional/internalizing types of

constructs, such as experiencing dysfunctional negative emotions like anxiety and beliefs

of being indecisive and inefficacious, were most frequently associated with both

dispositional and situational coping strategies across all sets of analyses. Similarly,

interpersonal constructs, such as disliking people and being around them, were also often

significantly associated with coping, whether dispositional or situational. On the other

hand, thought dysfunction, behavioral/externalizing dysfunction, and somatic constructs

were associated with dispositional and situational coping less often. Furthermore, the

findings of this study illustrated the importance of exploring associations beyond the

univariate level. Specifically, this study demonstrated that examining combinations of

personality and psychopathology constructs provided more meaningful information

regarding the prediction of both dispositional and situational coping responses. The

findings of this study indicate particular characteristics of the situation, including the

confrontability, timing, and duration, should also be considered when examining

situational coping responses. Indeed, this study determined that use of the majority of

situational coping responses were associated with situational variables, particularly the

duration and type or category of the stressor. Finally, at the broadest level, the findings in

this study support two of the theories of coping, as different patterns of results emerged

for dispositional versus situational coping strategies. Therefore, the results of this study

determined coping behavior can influenced by the unique conditions within a particular

situation (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), which results in the utilization of situational coping

200

responses. The findings of this study also indicate that individuals are inclined to employ

specific coping styles when faced with a stressful situation, regardless of the situational

characteristics present (Parker & Endler, 1992).

Regarding implications, the findings from this study provide useful information

for clinicians or other mental health treatment providers. Adaptive coping and healthy

coping skills are often a focal point of individual and group therapies. As such, having

information about the links between personality and psychopathology constructs and

particular coping responses will inform clinicians about whether their client or patient

likely employs adaptive or maladaptive coping responses in stressful situations. For

example, knowing that emotional/internalizing and interpersonal problems are linked to

the coping response of emotional suppression can be helpful for treatment planning. This

information allows the clinician to facilitate the development of healthier coping

mechanisms, such as problem confrontation for example, which has been shown to be

inversely associated with mental health problems and positively linked to adaptive

functioning (Vollrath, Anales, & Torgersen, 1996). Furthermore, the MMPI-2-RF is used

widely in clinical settings, thus, clinicians can obtain useful information about coping

styles and responses from an instrument they already frequently administer to their

clients. That is not to suggest that a clinician can simply administer the MMPI-2-RF and

have all the information they need to know about how their client copes with stress.

Rather, the results from the MMPI-2-RF, such as elevations on scales assessing

emotional/internalizing problems can provide the clinician with hypotheses about coping

201

responses, which they can then use to gather additional information about and explore

further during treatment.

Limitations and Future Directions

A potential limitation of this study relates to the sample and generalizability of

findings. Although previous coping research has often utilized a college sample to

explore dispositional and situational coping responses (cf. Folkman & Lazarus 1985;

Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989), the types of stressors traditionally experienced by

college students may not be representative of the types of stressful experiences

encountered in other populations. For example, a sample collected from a hospital

setting, where individuals are experiencing serious medical conditions, may be more

likely to experience stressors related to their health, support systems, or finances, as

compared to a college student population. Thus, it would likely be accurate to say that the

two populations are faced with different stressful situations, and they may or may not

employ similar types of coping in response. Similarly, individuals in inpatient psychiatric

facilities may also experience very different stressors, such as having auditory

hallucinations or severe paranoia or loss of liberties, in comparison to college students

taking midterm examinations. Therefore, the generalizability of the results of this study

types may be influenced by the types of stressful situations generally experienced within

a given population.

Another potential limitation of this study was the use of only a single measure of

personality and psychopathology, the MMPI-2-RF, and a single instrument to assess

dispositional and situational coping, the RSI scales. Although these instruments assess a

202

variety of personality and psychopathology constructs, there are alternate personality and

psychopathology constructs and dispositional and situational coping strategies that are

not assessed by these instruments. For example, several personality constructs of the

FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1985), such as Openness and Conscientiousness, were not

directly assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, and coping responses, including resignation,

cognitive restructuring, distraction, and using alcohol and/or drugs, were not assessed by

the RSI scales. Therefore, the personality and psychopathology constructs and coping

responses examined in this study are not all inclusive or exhaustive. As such, it is

possible that important associations between alternate constructs and coping responses

may not have been explored. In other words, the findings from this study are somewhat

limited to the constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF and RSI scales.

One final potential limitation of this study is that the hypotheses were somewhat

broad. In particular, it was hypothesized that dispositional and situational coping

strategies would be associated with personality and psychopathology constructs, which

were categorized into one of three broad domains: emotional/internalizing,

behavioral/externalizing, and thought dysfunction. Previous research has not explored

more narrowly focused personality and psychopathology constructs, such as those

measured by the MMPI-2-RF in this study; therefore, more specific hypotheses could not

be generated. However, one goal of this study was to explore more specific associations

between personality and psychopathology constructs and dispositional and situational

coping responses. In doing so, this study provided data to support associations between

both higher- and lower-level personality and psychopathology constructs and

203

dispositional and situational coping, which will allow for more narrowly focused

hypotheses to be examined in future research.

Future research should explore additional characteristics or facets of stressful

situations and their links to situational coping. For example, having information about

other details of the stressful situation, such as a subjective rating of the level of distress

experienced by the individual, whether this was the first time they encountered a given

stressor, or whether the particular stressful situation precluded the individual from having

access to certain types of coping responses, may help to clarify associations between the

stressful situation and the type of coping response utilized by the individual. Such

information would also expand the results of previous research as well as the current

study, as it would provide greater clarity regarding the associations between personality

and psychopathology and the characteristics of the stressful situation and likely increase

their ability to predict the various types of situational coping responses.

Another area for future research involves examining associations between

personality and psychopathology constructs and dispositional and situational coping

responses using samples from alternate settings, such as medical hospitals, inpatient

psychiatric hospitals, and community-based samples. Thus, it would be important to

replicate the findings of this study using samples exposed to diverse sets of stressful

situations. In addition, it is unclear whether the results of this study would generalize to

other college student samples that may contain more diverse demographic, ethnic, or

cultural factors; therefore, future research should also examine the associations between

204

dispositional and situational coping in ethnically, culturally, or demographically diverse

college student samples.

Finally, future research should also examine the use of other criterion measures to

assess dispositional and situational coping responses. The criterion measures utilized in

this study are not the only self-report measures of dispositional and situational coping

responses, and previous research has utilized a variety of coping assessment instruments.

Thus, research in this area could be strengthened by implementing alternate criterion

measures to examine the links between personality and psychopathology constructs and

alternate types of dispositional and situational coping responses, such as distancing or

cognitive restricting for example. Instruments such as the Ways of Coping Questionnaire

(WCQ; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988), the COPE (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) and

the Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI; Amirkhan, 1990) are examples self-report measures

that may be particularly useful in assessing various dispositional and situational coping

responses. Incorporating additional coping instruments in future research will help to

replicate the current findings and capture a wider range of coping strategies and provide

richer information about their associations with personality and psychopathology

constructs.

205

REFERENCES

Ager, A. & Maclachlan, M. (1998). The psychometric properties of the Coping Strategy

Indicator (CSI) in a study of coping behavior amongst Malawian students.

Psychology and Health, 13(3), 399-409.

Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. A. (1987). Does coping help? A reexamination of the

relation between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 53, 337-348.

Altrocchi, J., Parsons, O. A., & Dickoff, H. (1960). Changes in self-ideal discrepancy in

repressors and sensitizers. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 67-72.

Amirkhan, J. H. (1990). A factor analytically derived measure of coping: The Coping

Strategy Indicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1066- 1074.

Amirkhan, J. H. (1994). Criterion validity of a coping measure. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 62(2), 242-261.

Atkinson, M., & Violato, C. (1993). A factor analysis of the Ways of Coping

Questionnaire based on data from saddening experiences. Psychological Reports,

72, 1159-1164.

Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2001). [The development and standardization of the Reactions to

Stress Inventory-Dispositional]. Unpublished raw data.

Ben-Porath, Y. S. & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory-2-Restructured Form: Technical Manual. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Bond, M. P., & Vaillant, J. S. (1986). An empirical study of the relationship between

diagnosis and defense style. Archives of General Psychiatry, 43, 285-288.

Bouchard, G., Guillemette, A., & Landry-Leger, N. (2004). Situational and dispositional

coping: an examination of their relation to personality, cognitive appraisals, and

psychological distress. European Journal of Personality, 18, 221-238.

Byrne, D. (1961). The Repression-Sensitization Scale: Rationale, reliability, and validity.

Journal of Personality, 29, 334-349.

206

Catanzaro, S. J., Horaney, F., & Creasy, G. (1995). Hassles, coping, and depressive

symptoms in an elderly community sample: the role of mood regulation

expectancies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 423, 259-265.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a

theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

56(2), 267-283.

Cohan, S. L., Jang, K. J., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of a short

form of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 62(3), 273-283.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd

ed.). New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coolidge, F. L. (1993). The Coolidge Axis II Inventory, Manual. Clermont, FL:

Synergistic Office Solutions.

Connor-Smith, J. K. & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping:

a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1080-1107.

Costa, J., & Gouveia, J. P. (2008). Psychometric qualities of a stress life events related

measure: Preliminary adaptation of COPE to Portuguese population.

Psychologica, 48, 125-157.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa,

FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Personality stability and its implications for

clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Review, 6, 407-423.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice:

The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13.

Desmond, D. M., Shevlin, M., & MacLachlan, M. (2006). Dimensional analysis of the

coping strategy indicator in a sample of elderly veterans with acquired limb

amputations. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 249-259.

Endler, N. S. (1983). Interactionism: A personality model, but not yet a theory. Nebraska

Symposium on Motivation, 155-200.

Endler, N. S. (1988). Hassles, health, and happiness. In M. P. Janisse (Ed.), Individual

differences, stress, and health psychology (pp. 24-56). New York: Springer.

207

Endler, N. S., Kantor, L., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). State-trait coping, state-trait anxiety

and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(5), 663-

670.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990a). Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations

(CISS): Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990b). The multidimensional assessment of coping: A

critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1993). The multidimensional assessment of coping:

concepts, issues and measurement. In G. L. VanHeck, P. Bonaiuto, I. Deary, &

W. Nowack (Eds), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 4). Tilburg,

Netherlands: Tilburg University.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: Task,

emotion, and avoidance strategies. Psychological Assessment, 6(1), 50-60.

Eysenck, M. W., & Eysenck, H. J. (1980). Mischel and the concept of personality. British

Journal of Psychology, 71, 191-204.

Fairbank, J. A., Hansen, D. J., & Fitterling, J. M. (1991). Patterns of appraisal and coping

across different stressor conditions among former prisoners of war with and

without Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 59(2), 274-281.

Feifel, H. & Strack, S. (1989). Coping with conflict situations: Middle-aged and elderly

men. Psychology and Aging, 4, 26-33.

Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Obertynski, M. (1996). Affect intensity, coping styles,

mood dysregulation expectancies, and depressive symptoms. Personality and

Individual Differences, 20(2), 221-228.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community

sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.

Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion

and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 48(1), 150-170.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1986). Stress processes and depressive symptomatology.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 107-113

208

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Manual for the Ways of Coping Questionnaire.

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Freud, S. (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. New York: Norton.

Funder, D. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations,

and behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 21-34.

Garvin, B. J., & Kim, C. J. (2000). Measurement of preference for information in U.S.

and Korean cardiac catheterization patients. Research in Nursing & Health, 23,

310-318.

Gordon, J. R. (1959). The stability of the assumed similarity response set in repressors

and sensitizers. Journal of Personality, 27, 362-373.

Graham, J. R. (2006). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Haisch, D. C., & Meyers, L. S. (2004). MMPI-2 assessed post-traumatic stress disorder

related to job stress, coping, and personality in police agencies. Stress and Health,

20, 223-229.

Handel, R. W., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (March 1998). Relations between dispositional

coping styles and personality: Findings with the reactions to stress inventory.

Paper presented at the 33rd

Annual Symposium and Recent Developments in the

Use of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. Clearwater Beach, FL.

Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (1994), The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-

5): Issues from the pages of a diagnostic manual instead of a dictionary. In S.

Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating Normal and Abnormal Personality (pp.

291-315). New York: Springer.

Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (2007, August). Restructured versions of the MMPI-2

personality psychopathology five (PSY-5) scales. Paper presented at the 115th

annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco,

CA.

Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The Personality

Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI-2 scales. Psychological

Assessment, 7, 104-114.

Hatfield, J. (1958). A study of self-concept configurations in relation to forms of ego

functioning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California.

209

Jang, K. L., Thordarson, D. S., Stein, M. B., Cohan, S. L., & Taylor, S. (2007). Coping

styles and personality: A biometric analysis. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20(1),

17-24.

Kallasmaa, T., & Pulver, A. (2000). The structure and properties of the Estonian COPE

inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 881-894.

Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the

person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34.

Kleijn, W. M., VanHeck, G. L., & VanWaning, A. (2000). Experiences with a Dutch

adaptation of the COPE coping questionnaire. Gedrag & Gezondheid: Tijdschrift

voor Psychologie en Gezondheid, 28(4), 213-226.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:

Springer.

McWilliams, L. A., Cox, B. J., & Enns, M. W. (2003). Use of the coping inventory for

stressful situations in a clinically depressed sample: factor structure, personality

correlates, and prediction of stress. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(4), 423-

437.

Miller, S. M. (1980). When is a little information a dangerous thing? Coping with

stressful life-events by monitoring vs. blunting. In S. Levine and H. Ursin (Eds.),

Coping and Health. New York: Plenum Press.

Miller, S. M. (1987). Monitoring and blunting: Validation of a questionnaire to assess

styles of information seeking under threat. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52(2), 345-353.

Miller S. M., & Mangan, C. E. (1983). Interacting effects of information and coping

styles in adapting to gynecologic stress: Should the doctor tell all? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 223-236.

Miller, S. M., & Mischel, W. (1986). A cognitive social learning approach to

information-seeking styles under threat. Unpublished manuscript, Temple

University, Philadelphia, PA.

Mischel, W. (1984). Convergences and challenges in the search for consistency.

American Psychologist, 39, 351-364.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:

Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in

personality structure. Psychological review, 102, 246-268.

210

Mishel, M. H. & Sorenson, D. S. (1993). Revision of the Ways of Coping Checklist for a

clinical population. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15(1), 59-74.

Muris, P., & Schouten, E. (1994). Monitoring and blunting: A factor analysis of the

Miller Behavioral Style Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 17(2), 285-

287.

Nowack, K. M. (1989). Coping style, cognitive hardiness, and health status. Journal of

Behavioral Medicine, 12, 145-158.

Parker, J. D. A., & Endler, N. S. (1992). Coping with coping assessment: a critical

review. European Journal of Personality, 6, 321-344.

Punamaki, R., Salo, J., Komproe, I., Qouta, S., El-Masri, M., & DeJong, J. T. (2008).

Dispositional and situational coping and mental health among Palestinian political

ex-prisoners. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 21(4), 337-358.

Rafnsson, F. D., Smari, J., Windle, M., Mears, S. A., Endler, N. S. (2006). Factor

structure and psychometric characteristics of the Icelandic version of the Coping

Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS). Personality and Individual Differences,

40, 1247-1258.

Rosenthal R., & Rosnow, R. (2008). Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data

analysis (3rd

ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Segal, D. L., Hook, J. N., & Coolidge, F. L. (2001). Personality dysfunction, coping

styles, and clinical symptoms in younger and older adults. Journal of Clinical

Geropsychology, 7(3), 201-212.

Sica, C., Novara, C., Dorz, S., & Sanavio, E. (1997). Coping strategies: Evidence for

cross-cultural differences? A preliminary study with the Italian version of Coping

Orientations to Problems Experienced (COPE). Personality and Individual

Differences, 23(6), 1025-1029.

Smyth, K. A., & Williams, P. D. (1991). Patterns of coping in Black working women.

Behavioral Medicine, 17, 40-46.

Tellegen, A. & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008/2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory-2-Restructured Form: Manual for Administration and Scoring (Revised

Edition). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

211

Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., & Graham, J. R., &

Kaemmer, B. (2003). MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Development,

validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Vollrath, M., Alnaes, R., & Torgersen, S. (1996). Differential effects of coping in mental

disorders: a prospective study in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 52(2), 125-135.

Windover, A. K. (2001). The roles of dispositional coping, personality, and situational

characteristics in situational coping behavior. Dissertation Abstracts

International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(1-B), 555.

Worchel, P. (1957). Adaptability screening of flying personnel. Development of a self-

concept inventory for predicting maladjustment. SAM USAF Randolph AFB,

Texas, No. 56-62.

Zhang, W., Huang, W., & Ye, B. (1998). The identifying analysis of the

multidimensional assessment of coping. Psychological Science (China), 21(1),

29-33.

Date post:	11-Sep-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

examining associations between coping with stress and personality and psychopathology

Documents