5 - Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation To Depression

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.
http://0-ovidsp.tx.ovid.com.columbus.uhu.es/spb/ovidweb.cgi
Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression

Rohde, Paul1,4; Lewinsohn, Peter M. 1,2; Tilson, Mark3; Seeley, John R.1 Volume 58(3), March 1990, p 499511 [Personality Processes and Individual Differences] 1990 by the American Psychological Association
1 2 3
DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.3.499 ISSN: 0022-3514 Registro: 00005205-199003000-00011 Texto completo (PDF) 1234 K
Autor(es): Nmero: Tipo de publicacin: Editor:
Oregon Research Institute, Eugene University of Oregon
Tualatin Valley Mental Health Center, Portland, Oregon

4
Correspondence concerning this article should
Instituciones:
be addressed to Paul Rohde, Oregon Research Institute, 1715 Franklin Boulevard, Eugene, Oregon 97403. This project was partially supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grants MH35672 and MH41278. Received August 30, 1988; Revision received June 27, 1989; Accepted July 6, 1989
Abstract
The dimensionality of coping, as measured by 65 items from 3 commonly used instruments, and the relation of coping and stress to concurrent and future depression were studied in a community sample of 742 older (>=50 years old) adults. Measures of coping, stress, and depression were obtained at 2 time points over a 2-year period. Depression was assessed by symptom checklist and by diagnostic interview. Three coping factorsCognitive Self-Control, Ineffective Escapism, and Solace Seekingthat had adequate psychometric properties and accounted for 25% of the total item variance were identified. Ineffective Escapism was associated with current depression and had a direct and interactive effect on future depression, exacerbating the negative impact of stress rather than acting as a buffer. Although Cognitive Self-Control was unrelated to either concurrent or future depression, Solace Seeking significantly buffered the effect of stress in predicting a future diagnosis of depression. Stress and initial depression level predicted both measures of future depression. Gender (being female) predicted the future diagnosis of depression but not the increase of depressive symptoms.
In the last decade, the construct labeled coping has received considerable attention in the psychological literature (e.g., Billings & Moos, 1981; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus, 1981; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978), most frequently as a factor that mediates the relation between stress and physical or mental disorder. Although numerous studies have reported a significant relation between stress and illness (e.g., Antonovsky, 1979; F. Cohen & Lazarus, 1979; B. P. Dohrenwend, 1979; Johnson & Sarason, 1978; Rabkin & Streuning, 1976) and more specifically, between stress and depression (Billings & Moos, 1982, 1984; B. S. Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1981; Folkman & Lazarus, 1986;
1 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Paykel, 1979), the predictive ability of stress on future disorder has generally been quite modest. Thus, the hypothesis that coping is a mediator variable between stress and disorder is attractive, because it potentially explains the persistent and theoretically troubling low magnitude of association between stress and disorder. It is hypothesized that, given the same degree of stress, people who use more effective coping strategies will experience less disrupted behavior and subsequently will experience less distress. An extensive literature has attempted to address this question with mixed, often positive, results (e.g., Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Mitchell, Billings, & Moos, 1982; Mitchell, Cronkite, & Moos, 1983; Pearlin, Lieberman, Menagham, & Mullan, 1981). In addition to the term coping, a number of conceptually similar constructssuch as competence(Goldfried & D'Zurilla, 1969), problem-solving ability(D'Zurilla & Nezu, 1982; Heppner & Peterson, 1982), hardiness(Kobasa, 1979), antidepressive behaviors(Rippere, 1976), and learned resourcefulness(Meichenbaum, 1977; Rosenbaum, 1980)have also been introduced. As may be assumed from the variety of terms in this area, little agreement exists regarding the optimal conceptualization of coping. Although many issues are still being actively debated, these terms have been used by and large to describe behavioral and cognitive patterns used by people in the face of difficult and problematic situations and will be considered in this article to represent the general domain of coping. Although several interview protocols have been developed to measure coping (e.g., Brown & Harris, 1978; Folkman & Lazarus, 1986), it most often has been measured with self-report questionnaires, such as the Problem Solving Inventory (Heppner & Peterson, 1982), the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980), the Self-Control Scale (Rosenbaum, 1980), the Coping Strategies Inventory (Tobin, Holroyd, & Reynolds, 1982), and the MeansEnds Problem-Solving Procedure (Platt & Spivack, 1975). Although some effort has gone into verifying the validity of these coping measures, such as the Self-Control Scale (Courey, Feuerstein, & Bush, 1982; Frankel & Merbaum, 1982; Rosenbaum 1980; Rosenbaum & Rolnick, 1983), it may be suggested that in general, more effort is needed to establish the construct validity of the numerous coping measures. In addition, the degree to which these instruments measure the same underlying construct has received little study. An important assumption of the present investigation is that many of the currently available instruments are indeed measures of a single underlying construct (which may have several dimensions) and therefore that the combined use of items from various measures would facilitate the assessment of the coping construct. In summary, although several self-report instruments have been developed, numerous questions remain regarding the optimal measurement of coping. In spite of the unidimensionality implied by the term coping, researchers have recognized the potential factors of this construct and have subsequently proposed various dimensions of coping. Several classifications of the distinguishing factors or dimensions of coping have been suggested on theoretical grounds, such as problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and approach versus avoidance coping (Roth & Cohen, 1986; Suls & Fletcher, 1985). For instance, Billings and Moos (1982)distinguished between appraisal-focused coping (e.g., reminding oneself that things could be worse), problem-focused coping (e.g., destroying an alcoholic spouse's liquor supply), and emotion-focused coping (e.g., meditating). A second approach, which generally has used factor-analytic procedures, addresses the issue of dimensionality on more empirical grounds (e.g., Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Frank et al., 1987). Using factor analysis, Parker and Brown (1982)identified six coping factors, which they labeled Recklessness(e.g., break things), Socialization(e.g., spend time with friends), Distraction(e.g., busy oneself with work), Problem Solving(e.g., think through the problem), Passivity(e.g., read), and Self-Consolation(e.g., spend money on oneself). Thus, in addition to the role of coping as a mediator of stress on disorder, the dimensionality and specific nature of coping clearly deserve attention. Clarifying the dimensionality of coping is important in developing a better understanding of what people do under stressful conditions. The most parsimonious assumption, perhaps, is that coping can be represented best as a single factor. If that were the case, the mediator hypothesis would predict that people strong on this single factor would be less affected by stressful events. On the other hand, if, as suggested by many, coping were best represented by more than one dimension, the picture would become more complicated. In this second scenario, the various coping dimensions might well differ in their relation between stress and disorder, with some dimensions having a strong mediator role and others being irrelevant to that association. Such distinctions, if they exist, would greatly clarify our theoretical understanding of the relation between stress and disorder and would be useful in developing clinical interventions for use by individuals in high-stress situations.
2 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
As with the construct coping, many questions remain in the conceptualization and measurement of stress. Although stress was measured initially primarily by life-change event scales (e.g., Holmes & Rahe, 1967), a number of concepts such as daily hassles(Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981), life strains(Pearlin & Schooler, 1978), and microstressors(McLean, 1976; Monroe, 1983) have been used in attempting to assess ongoing strains and everyday frustrations, in addition to major life events. The measurement of both discrete stressful events and ongoing strains might provide the most comprehensive measure of stress. In addition, one increasing concern is the potential confound between concurrent measures of stress and measures of psychological distress (B. S. Dohrenwend, Dohrenwend, Dobson, & Shrout, 1984; Lazarus, DeLongis, Folkman, & Gruen, 1985; Lloyd & Lishman, 1975). Dohrenwend and colleagues (B. S. Dohrenwend et al., 1984) reported that several measures of stress assess not only stressful events but also psychopathology, thus confounding a dependent variable (stress) with an independent variable (psychological symptoms). In their review of this literature, Lazarus and his colleagues (Lazarus et al., 1985) concluded that although some of the fusion between measures of stress and psychopathology most likely reflects the true nature of these constructs, a longitudinal approach is required to clarify any temporal relation between stress and disorder. In regard to depression, we expected that individuals who reported more effective coping behaviors would function more effectively and experience fewer depressive episodes. Several studies have reported that depressed and nondepressed individuals differ in the frequency and types of coping behaviors they use. For example, depressed individuals are reported to use less problem solving and more emotional discharge (Billings & Moos, 1984), wishful thinking, avoidance, and emotional support seeking (Coyne, Aldwin, & Lazarus, 1981). Because of the potential confound among concurrent measures of stress, coping, and depression, we were particularly interested in the ability of stress and coping to predict future depression. Lewinsohn and Alexander (1983)found that scores on the Self-Control Scale (a measure of learned resourcefulness; Rosenbaum, 1980) predicted future occurrence of depression. People who reported low levels of learned resourcefulness and who were not depressed at the first observation were more likely to develop an episode of depression at a later point during the course of the study. Interestingly, in that study, learned resourcefulness had a direct impact on future depression; that is, this measure of coping predicted a person's becoming depressed independent of his or her reported level of stress. In conclusion, we expected that poor coping would be associated both with current depression and with the future occurrence of depression in a nondepressed group.
The Present Study

The present study is an attempt to address several of the previously mentioned issues. As part of a longitudinal, prospective study aimed at the identification of risk factors for nonbipolar depression in the elderly (Lewinsohn, Tilson, Rohde, & Seeley, 1988), 65 items assembled from three commonly used coping instruments were administered to a cohort of 742 persons who were 50 years of age or older at two points of time (T1 and T2) over approximately a 2-year period. In addition to the assessment of coping, measures of demographic and stress variables were gathered (a variety of other measures were also assessed but are not presented in the current report). Stress was assessed both by major life events and by daily hassles. The presence of depression was assessed by a self-report questionnaire and a diagnostic interview at T1 and T2 and at an intermediate casefinding phase (post-T1) of the study. On the basis of diagnostic criteria, 96 subjects were judged to be depressed at T1, and 139 subjects were identified who, although not clinically depressed at T1, developed a depressive episode during the course of the study. We referred to the latter as Cases. With this data set, we were able to examine a number of important questions. First, we used factoring procedures to explore the dimensionality of coping as measured by the 65 items. Second, we examined the relation of coping (as measured both by the original scales and by newly developed factors) with demographic variables and concurrent depression. Third, because of the longitudinal design of the study, we were able to investigate the direct versus interactive effects of coping and stress in predicting the future occurrence of depression.
Method
Participants
Subjects were recruited between May 1982 and November 1983 through announcements inviting participation in psychological research. A total of 4,133 individuals over the age of 50 residing in EugeneSpringfield, Oregon (N= 34,633) were randomly selected from a list of licensed drivers and were sent a letter that described the general nature
3 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
of the study (i.e., psychological research regarding life satisfaction, health, and aging) and that informed them that they would be telephoned and given further information. Follow-up phone calls were made within 2 weeks of the date of the original mailing, to a randomly selected sample of 2,662. Of those called, 259 (9.7%) either were ill or had moved out of the area, 849 (31.9%) declined to participate, and 1,554 (58.4%) agreed to participate in the study. Those who agreed to participate were asked to complete an extensive self-report questionnaire and come to the University of Oregon Psychology Clinic for a diagnostic interview within 2 weeks of returning the questionnaire. A total of 1,008 subjects completed both procedures. (The remaining 546 chose to complete either the questionnaire or the interview, and we do not discuss them in the present study). Of the 1,008 subjects, 742 (73.6%) continued with complete participation in the entire study until its conclusion in March 1986. These 742 individuals constituted the reference sample for the present study. Inspection of the demographic characteristics of the 742 subjects revealed that individuals who participated in the study differed somewhat from the U.S. Census Bureau data for the Eugene Springfield area. Compared with the general population, participants were better educated and more likely to be women. Comparison of the initial 1,008 subjects with the 742 who completed the entire study revealed that older individuals were more likely to discontinue participation; no other assessed demographic differences were associated with attrition. Subjects received no financial reimbursement for participating in the study (except for occasional reimbursement of transportation costs) and signed a statement of informed consent, which assured confidentiality.
Longitudinal Design
Data were collected on psychopathology, depressive symptomatology, demographic characteristics, and the psychosocial variables of interest at multiple assessments. T1 occurred between May 1982 and November 1983 and was defined as the date on which the subject completed both the questionnaire and the diagnostic interview. Subjects were interviewed within approximately 2 weeks after returning the questionnaire, so that self-report data and interview-based data essentially were obtained concurrently. T2 occurred between November 1984 and March 1986 and was defined as the date that the subject was readministered the self-report questionnaire and was reinterviewed. The average time that elapsed between T1 and T2 was 2.4 years. Additionally, to identify subjects who became depressed between T1 and T2, we implemented case-finding procedures, as described in the next section.
Case Finding
Our goal was to record all episodes of depression and other psychopathology that occurred between T1 and T2. To identify individuals who became depressed after T1, subjects were mailed the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CESD; Radloff, 1977) approximately every 2 months. The CESD is a self-report measure that assesses the frequency of occurrence of 20 depressive symptoms. Completion rates were high, averaging 80% (of the 1,008 T1 subjects) across the nine mailings. Any subject who was not diagnosed as depressed at T1 and scored above 11 on any CESD administrations in the post-T1 phase was considered for a post-T1 follow-up interview to determine whether they had become depressed. Twenty-five percent of the returned CESD questionnaires had scores above 11. Because of administrative and financial constraints, not all subjects with elevated CESD scores were interviewed during the post-T1 phase. Higher priority was given to subjects with higher CESD scores. Six hundred post-T1 interviews were conducted with 386 subjects (38.3%) from the T1 sample (55.4% of the 386 subjects had multiple post-T1 interviews). The mean CESD score for the 386 subjects was 18.97 (SD= 5.99, range-1247). These procedures identified 105 Cases, who were judged to have experienced a diagnosable episode of depression that began after T1. During the T2 phase of the study, 749 of the T1 subjects (74.2%) again were interviewed and were administered the self-report measures that were assessed at T1. Resource constraints prevented follow-up of the entire T1 sample. Therefore, highest priority for T2 interviews was given to subjects (a) who had been depressed at T1, (b) who had become depressed at any time during the post-T1 period (i.e., Cases), (c) who had a past history of depression, or (d) who reported an elevated level of depressive symptoms on the final post-T1 CESD questionnaire. These criteria identified 391 subjects. A random sample of 358 (66.3%) of the 540 T1 subjects who had reported no evidence of past or current depression were also reinterviewed as control subjects. This resulted in a total of 749 subjects who were assessed at T2. It is important to note that the mean T1 and T2 CESD scores were not significantly different. Data for 7 subjects were excluded from analyses because of missing data, evidence of organic disorder, or evidence of deviant or random responding to questionnaire items; thus, 742 subjects were left as the reference sample. In addition to the 105 Cases identified in the post-T1 phase, T2 interview procedures identified 41 Cases. Seven Cases from the post-T1 phase were lost before T2 follow-up (2 were deceased, 1 refused to participate, and 4 could not be located). Therefore, complete data for 139 individuals who became depressed after T1 were available for subsequent analyses.
4 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Note that only a few of the 139 Cases developed their first depressive episode during the course of this study; the majority of these subjects had a past history of depression. The important fact is that all of the Cases were not clinically depressed at T1.
Diagnostic Classifications
The diagnosis of depression and other psychopathological syndromes was based on information gathered from participants in 2-hr semistructured interviews, using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and SchizophreniaLifetime (SADSL; Endicott & Spitzer, 1978) for T1 and using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and SchizophreniaChange (SADSC; Spitzer & Endicott, 1977) for post-T1. At T2, the Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation (LIFE; Shapiro & Keller, 1979) was conducted. The LIFE interview provided detailed information about the longitudinal course of psychiatric symptoms and disorders since the last (T1 or post-T1) interview, with rigorous criteria for recovery from a disorder. Decision rules specified by the Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC; Spitzer, Endicott, & Robins, 1978) were used to combine information obtained through the interviews into specific RDC nosological categories. Diagnostic interviewers were a carefully selected group of graduate and advanced undergraduate students enrolled in a yearlong didactic and experiential diagnostic interviewing course. The training procedure was an extension and modification of the training model proposed by Gibbon, McDonald-Scott, and Endicott (1981), with additional training regarding the interviewing of elderly subjects. The SADSRDC procedure has been shown to be a relatively reliable and valid method of making retrospective diagnoses of psychiatric disorders for both psychiatric patients and nonpatient samples, with measures of reliability generally exceeding .80 (Mazure & Gershon, 1979; Spitzer et al., 1978). Interviewers were unaware of questionnaire data, subject selection procedure, and the specific hypotheses under investigation. Interrater reliability of diagnosis was evaluated by means of the kappa statistic (J. Cohen, 1960). On the basis of joint ratings, the kappa coefficient was .81 for 193 T1 SADSL interviews, .81 for 101 post-T1 SADSC interviews, and .82 for 147 T2 LIFE interviews. All kappas indicated an acceptable level of reliability for the diagnoses. Four subject groups were of interest in the present study. First, we were interested in the general sample of individuals who participated in the entire study. Three additional groups were also of interest on the basis of information gathered in the diagnostic interviews: individuals who were depressed at T1; individuals who became depressed after T1 (Cases); and control group individuals, who reported no past or current depressive episodes at both T1 and T2. Table 1 contains demographic information for the four groups of subjects.
5 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Table 1 No caption available.
Assessment of Sociodemographic Variables

Subjects reported their sex, age, marital status (married, divorced/ separated, widow/widower, or never married), educational level (eighth grade, high school, some college/vocational school, college degree, or professional degree), and employment status (employed, unemployed and seeking, or retired).
Assessment of Coping Behaviors

Several frequently used measures of coping were inspected by three psychologists (P. M. Lewinsohn, M. Hautzinger, and L. Teri). Items were selected from the various measures in an attempt to represent a wide variety of coping behaviors but at the same time to avoid redundancy and excessive length. Self-control behaviors Because of its extensive prior use and reported psychometric soundness, the entire Self-Control Scale (Rosenbaum, 1980) was selected. This instrument was developed as a measure of learned resourcefulness (Meichenbaum, 1977; Rosenbaum, 1980), which refers to the acquired repertoire of behavioral and cognitive skills used by people to regulate internal events, such as emotions and cognitions, that might otherwise interfere with the smooth execution of a target behavior (Rosenbaum, 1980). The measure consists of 36 items that describe (a) use of cognitions and self-statements to control emotional and physiological responses, (b) application of problem-solving strategies, (c) ability to delay immediate gratification, and (d) perceived self-efficacy. Each item consists of a statement used to describe people. Subjects were asked to describe yourself according to these characteristics, by checking the description which best applies to you using a 6-point scale. Testretest reliability from T1 and T2 of the Self-Control Scale was .76 (p<= .001), and coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) at T1 was .80. Effective and ineffective antidepressive behaviors A second set of items were selected from measures, developed by Rippere and Parker and Brown, that attempted to describe the behaviors that people reported initiating to deal with depression. Rippere (1976, 1977)developed an empirically derived checklist of activities reported by individuals as the thing to do when feeling depressed. In her Antidepressive Activity Questionnaire, subjects are asked to rate the frequency of use and perceived helpfulness of 100 coping activities. In the present study, we only assessed changes in frequency of behavior use. Parker and Brown (1979)defined coping behaviors as the behaviors that prevented or controlled a depressed affect. They expanded on Rippere's work and developed two questionnaires, one that assessed the degree to which an individual was likely to change his or her behavior on 35 activities in response to two potentially depressing situations and a second questionnaire that assessed the effectiveness of 51 behaviors in reducing stress. A total of 23 items were selected from these three questionnaires to measure antidepressive behaviors. Two sets of items were selected: (a) 12 items measuring effective antidepressive behaviors (e.g., Thinking through the problem; Plan something pleasant) and (b) 11 items measuring ineffective antidepressive behaviors (e.g., Do something rather dangerous; Stay in bed). Subjects were asked to think of a stressful situation they had faced and rate on a 6-point scale whether they were likely to do each of the 23 behaviors and how their behavior would change. For the effective antidepressive behaviors at T1, coefficient alpha was .79, and testretest reliability was .53 (p<= .001); for the ineffective antidepressive behaviors at T1, coefficient alpha was .81, and testretest reliability was .58 ( p<= .001). Passivity behaviors We selected 6 items that assessed passive behaviors in response to stressful situations (e.g., Wait to see what will happen; Daydream about a better time or place) from the original 68-item Ways of Coping Questionnaire (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). The Ways of Coping Questionnaire was developed to assess a broad range of coping and behavioral strategies that people use to manage internal and external demands in a stressful encounter. For the present study, instructions were identical to those for the antidepressive behaviors, with participants rating on a 6-point scale how their behavior would most likely change in the presence of a stressful situation. T1 coefficient alpha was .50, and testretest reliability was .48 (p<= .001).
Assessment of Stress
Measures of both major life events and ongoing hassles were seen as relevant to the prediction of depression. Thus, we constructed a single measure of stress that was based on the summation of macrostressors and
6 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
microstressors. This measure, called total stress, was developed so that the final numbers of analyses would not be overwhelming; it is described later in this article. Macrostress We measured macrostressors, or major life events, at T1 and T2 with a subset of 18 items from the Social Readjustment Rating Scale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). The 18 items were selected on the basis of applicability to an older sample. In addition, items were deleted from the original scale if they represented a symptom of depression (e.g., Change in eating or sleeping habits). Individuals rated whether they had experienced each of the 18 events during the past 6 months, and a total macrostress score was computed that was based on the average frequency of the 18 events. The measure of item homogeneity was seen as inappropriate, given the nature of the items. Microstress We assessed microstressors, or ongoing hassles, at T1 and T2 with 44 items from the Unpleasant Events Schedule (Lewinsohn, Mermelstein, Alexander, & MacPhillamy, 1983). Items were selected on the basis of applicability to an older sample and previously reported association with depression (Lewinsohn et al., 1983). The items describe aversive experiences that are part of everyday life (e.g., Having arguments with spouse; Having to do things I do not like to do). Subjects rated these events on a 3-point scale in terms of frequency of occurrence during the past 30 days. A total microstress score, which was based on the average frequency of all 44 events, was computed. Coefficient alpha at T1 was .85, and the T1T2 correlation was .68 ( p<= .001). The correlation of macrostress and microstress at T1 was .22 ( p<= .001). Total stress A single comprehensive measure of stress was computed by standardizing and summing the macrostress and microstress scores into a single score for each subject. This total stress score was used for subsequent analyses. Individual items within the macrostress and microstress scales are available from Paul Rohde on request.
Results
Dimensionality of Coping
A correlation matrix of the 65 coping items assessed at T1 was computed and submitted to a number of factoring procedures. On the basis of principal-components factor analysis with varimax rotation (FACTOR, SPSS-X, 1986), three psychologically meaningful factors were extracted, each of which accounted for at least 5% of the item variance and contained a minimum of 6 items (Cyr & Atkinson, 1986). In combination, the three factors accounted for 25.3% of the total item variance. This three-factor structure was replicated using data collected at T2 and was selected as the optimal solution. Of the 65 coping items, 48 had a substantial (>= .40) loading on one of the three factors and subsequently were retained in computing the factors. Factor scores were computed from the unweighted averages of item responses. Items that constitute the three factors are listed in the Appendix. Factor 1, which contained 21 items and accounted for 10.9% of the total item variance, was labeled Cognitive Self-Control. All of the items in this factor were from the Self-Control Scale. Items that loaded highest on Factor 1 included the following: When I am faced with a difficult problem, I try to approach its solution in a systematic way (.56); I usually plan my work when faced with a number of things to do (.54); In order to overcome bad feelings that accompany failure, I often tell myself that it is not so catastrophic and that I can do something about it (.54); If I find it difficult to concentrate on a certain job, I divide the job into smaller segments (.54); and When I am depressed, I try to keep myself busy with things that I like (.52). Internal consistency at T1 and T2 was .85 and .87, respectively. The testretest reliability was .67 (p<= .001). Factor 2, which contained 17 items and accounted for 8.6% of the total item variance, was labeled Ineffective Escapism. Nine of the items in this factor were from the ineffective antidepressive behaviors, 2 were from the passivity behaviors, and 6 were from the Self-Control Scale. Items that loaded highest on Factor 2 included the following: Keep away from people (.63), Do something reckless (like driving a car fast) (.62), Do something rather dangerous (.61), Wait for someone to help (.58), and Stay in bed (.57). Internal consistency at T1 and T2 was .83 and .84, respectively, and testretest reliability was .68 ( p<= .001). Factor 2 was orthogonal to Factor 1 (r=
7 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
.04, ns). Factor 3, which contained 10 items and accounted for 5.8% of the total item variance, was labeled Solace Seeking. All of the items in this factor were from the effective antidepressive behaviors. Items that loaded highest on Factor 3 included the following: Plan something pleasant (.69), Spend time with friends (.67), Do something enjoyable (.64), Spend time with a relative or a close friend (.60), and Do something to restore your pride (.59). Internal consistency at T1 and T2 was .80 and .83, respectively, and testretest reliability was .53 (p<= .001). Factor 3 had a slight negative correlation with Factor 2 (r= -.07, p<= .05) and a positive correlation with Factor 1 (r= .32, p<= .001). Although factoring procedures were unable to account for the majority of item variance, the three factors appeared to be consistent and cohesive. Internal consistency and testretest scores were all quite acceptable. Coping behaviors that appeared to be helpful clustered within their original scales (many items from the Self-Control Scale loaded on Factor 1, and items from the effective antidepressive behaviors loaded solely on Factor 3). Conversely, coping behaviors that appeared to be nonconstructive, from three original scales (ineffective antidepressive behaviors, passivity behaviors, and the Self-Control Scale), loaded on Factor 2. Note that whereas the factor labels were not definitive, these labels tended to accurately describe the majority of items contained in each factor.
Relation of Coping Factors and Demographics

The correlation of the three coping factors with age, gender, marital status, education, and employment status was computed; planned contrasts were used as needed. Gender was associated with all three coping factors; women reported more use of Cognitive Self-Control ( r= .17, p<= .001) and Solace Seeking (r= .22, p<= .001), but men reported more use of Ineffective Escapism (r = -.10, p<= .001). In addition, nonmarried individuals reported more use of Cognitive Self-Control (r= .10, p< .001), and those with less formal education reported more use of Ineffective Escapism (r = -.09, p<= .01). Age and employment status were unrelated to coping, as it was measured in this study.
Relation of Coping Factors and Concurrent Depression

Although we were most interested in the ability of coping to predict future depression, the relation of coping to concurrent depression was also of interest. Two measures of depression at T1 were available: the CESD score assessed at T1 and a dummy variable that was based on the T1 interview diagnosis (0 = never mentally ill, 1 = currently depressed). Neither Cognitive Self-Control nor Solace Seeking was significantly associated with either measure of concurrent depression. Conversely, Ineffective Escapism was positively associated with both an elevated number of depressive symptoms (r = .32, p<= .001) and a diagnosis of current depression (r= .25, p<= .001). Thus, Ineffective Escapism clearly represented a concomitant of depression.
Role of Coping in Predicting an Increase of Depression Symptoms

The ability of coping, as measured by the four original scales and the three newly developed factors, to predict an increase in future CESD scores was evaluated by a series of multiple regressions. Hierarchical multiple regressions using a standard progression of variable entry were performed separately for each measure of coping. Gender was entered as the first predictor, to control for its significant association with the three coping factors. CESD and total stress scores assessed at T1 were entered next into the regression. On the basis of previous research, we anticipated that each of these three variables would predict an increase in future depressive symptoms. Next, the main effect of a particular coping measure was entered, followed by the Coping Total Stress interaction. Results appear in Table 2.
8 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Table 2 No caption available. Unexpectedly, gender was not predictive of an increase in reported depression symptoms. Conversely, CESD at T1 was highly predictive of the final CESD score, as was the main effect of T1 total stress. Individuals who reported more symptoms of depression or stressful events and hassles at T1 were more likely to report an increase in depressive symptoms at the future assessment. Of the three coping factors, only Ineffective Escapism significantly predicted an increase in symptoms of depression. This coping factor had both a significant main effect and significant interaction with stress, although the use of Ineffective Escapism was not a buffer against stress. Instead, the use of these avoidant, passive, and reckless coping behaviors represented a vulnerability. Individuals who reported more use of behaviors within this factor were more likely to be negatively affected by stress. Corroborating results were obtained in regressions using the four original coping scales. The Self-Control Scale had a significant main effect in predicting future CESD scores. Although items from the Self-Control Scale had loaded on both Factors 1 and 2, one may assume that only the apparently unhelpful items of this scale that were contained in Factor 2 (e.g., I cannot avoid thinking about mistakes I have made in the past and If I had the pills with me, I would take a tranquilizer whenever I felt tense and nervous) contributed to the scale's ability to predict future depression symptoms, because Factor 1 (which contained many apparently helpful Self-Control Scale behaviors) was unrelated to increased future CESD scores. Both ineffective antidepressive behaviors and passivity behaviors had additive and interactive effects in predicting an increase in future CESD scores. Again, instead of acting as a buffer, frequent use of these coping behaviors represented a vulnerability that exacerbated the negative impact of stress. Effective antidepressive behaviors at T1 were unrelated to increased depressive symptoms.
Role of Coping in Predicting a Diagnosis of Depression

We used similar hierarchical multiple regression procedures to predict the development of a depression diagnosis after T1. Gender, CESD scores, and total stress scores at T1 were entered first, followed by one of the coping measures and its interaction with total stress. Results appear in Table 3.
9 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Table 3 No caption available. As anticipated, gender, T1 CESD scores, and total stress scores each were highly predictive of the future diagnosis of depression. Such results replicate the generally accepted findings that women, individuals reporting subclinical dysphoria, and those reporting high levels of stress are at elevated risk for a future diagnosis of depression. In addition to gender, T1 CESD scores, and total stress scores, both Ineffective Escapism and Solace Seeking significantly contributed to predicting the future diagnosis of depression. As it did in predicting future CESD scores, Ineffective Escapism represented a vulnerability, especially in the presence of increased levels of stress. Use of these coping behaviors increased the likelihood of a person's being diagnosed as depressed, especially when the individual had reported high levels of stress. On the other hand, Solace Seeking significantly mediated the impact of stress, decreasing the likelihood of a person's becoming depressed. Individuals who reported spending time with others and engaging in enjoyable activities were less likely to be diagnosed as depressed later, given high levels of stressful events in their lives. Regression procedures using the four original coping measures provided further insight into the role of coping. Although the Self-Control Scale did not mediate the impact of stress, it was independently predictive of future depressive episodes. We assumed that primarily the apparently bad coping behaviors of the Self-Control Scale were most predictive of future depressive episodes, rather than was the entire scale, because Factor 1 had no significant relation to the future diagnosis of depression. Review of the other two original scales that constituted Factor 2 indicated that ineffective antidepressive behaviors had a significant main effect and that passivity behaviors had a significant interaction with stress. As seen before, reported use of these coping behaviors represented an increased vulnerability to stress, rather than a buffer. Use of effective antidepressive behaviors did not predict subsequent depression, which is noteworthy because the Solace Seeking factor (formed exclusively of items from effective antidepressive behaviors) had significantly mediated the impact of stress in relation to future depressive episodes. Because the three-factor solution accounted for only 25% of the total item variance, we computed a fourth, residual factor from the 17 items that had not been assigned to one of the other three factors. As expected, the
10 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
coefficient alpha of the residual factor was somewhat low (.54), and it was significantly correlated with each of the other three factors, especially with Factor 2. Although the residual factor had a significant main effect for predicting future increases in CESD score, F(4, 759) = 4.68, p= .031, and future diagnosis, F(4, 626) = 8.84, p= .003, when it was entered in combination with Ineffective Escapism, the residual factor accounted for no additional variance.
Further Analysis of Maladaptive Escapism in Predicting Depression

Of the three coping factors in the present study, Ineffective Escapism (Factor 2) was most strongly associated with becoming depressed. For this reason, we used stepwise multiple regression procedures to examine the specific items within Factor 2 that were most predictive of future depression. Using the criteria of a significant (p<= .05) change in F value, we considered individually the 17 T1 items contained in Ineffective Escapism for entry into multiple regressions that predicted an increase in future CESD scores and the development of a depression diagnosis. Five individual items were entered in predicting future CESD scores, resulting in R= .44. The five selected items (in order of entry) were the following: Quite often I cannot overcome unpleasant thoughts that bother me; Stay in bed; I cannot avoid thinking about mistakes I have made in the past; I often find it difficult to overcome my feelings of nervousness and tension without any outside help; and If I had the pills with me, I would take a tranquilizer whenever I felt tense and nervous. Four of these items were originally contained in the Self-Control Scale; Stay in bed was originally an ineffective antidepressive behavior. In the stepwise multiple regression that predicted a future diagnosis of depression, three items were entered, with R= .22. The three selected items were the following: Take tablets or medicine (ineffective antidepressive behaviors); I often find it difficult to overcome my feelings of nervousness and tension without any outside help (self-control behaviors); and Wish that you were a stronger personmore forceful and optimistic (passivity behaviors).
Discussion
With the present study, we attempted to answer two main questions. First, we used factoring procedures to explore the dimensionality of coping as measured by items from a variety of established instruments. The analyses suggested that coping was best represented as a multidimensional construct, a finding that is consistent with previous research in this area (e.g., Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Parker & Brown, 1979, 1982). Three factors emerged in this study, which were labeled Cognitive Self-Control, Ineffective Escapism, and Solace Seeking. The second goal was to examine the relation of coping to concurrent and future depression, both as a direct effect and as a mediator of stress. The longitudinal aspects of this study provided an examination of the temporal relation between coping and depression. Of the three coping factors, Ineffective Escapismwhich consisted of avoidant, helpless, passive, and reckless coping behaviorswas most strongly related to both current and future dysphoria and diagnosed depression. The reported use of apparently adaptive coping behavior contained in Cognitive Self-Control and Solace Seeking was unrelated to current depression, although Solace Seeking significantly buffered the impact of stress in predicting a future diagnosis of depression. Before we discuss these results in detail, various limitations of the present study must be noted. The accuracy of subjects' self-reports was one potential limitation. As with most studies of coping, our results depended on the subjects' ability to accurately remember, correctly describe, and honestly report how they dealt with stressful situations. The extent to which subjects are inaccurate in self-reporting limits the generalizability of findings. Studies establishing the predictive (or criterion-related) validity of the Self-Control Scale (Rosenbaum & Rolnick, 1983), however, provide some reassurance in this regard. Because the initial selection of coping items constrained the results of factor analyses, the representativeness of items used in the present study, in relation to the total universe of coping behaviors, constituted a second potential limitation to the generalizability of our findings. In selecting the 65 items for analysis, we tried to comprehensively sample the range of behaviors discussed in the literature while avoiding redundancy. Clearly, many potentially beneficial coping behaviors may not have been included in the present study. On the other hand, the selected items were chosen from well-known, psychometrically sound instruments, and the final item pool was quite large, thus increasing our confidence in its representativeness.
11 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Much debate has focused on the adequate measurement of stress. In the present study, we measured stress by frequency counts of major stressful life events and daily microstressors. Some researchers have argued that measures of stress should quantify the perceived impact or cognitive appraisal of threat, in addition to the simple fact of occurrence (Hammen, Marks, Mayol, & deMayo, 1985). Others have noted the possible confound between events and psychopathologynamely, that psychopathology may be a cause, as well as a consequence, of adverse life events (Depue & Monroe, 1986). For example, varying degrees of depression might bias an individual's report of stress, particularly the report of more ongoing hassles. One interpretation of the high internal consistency of microstress in the present study is that the measure was confounded with psychopathology. Because stress could have been confounded with concurrent depression, the longitudinal design of the present study was especially important. Measuring coping and stress at T1, before the occurrence of future depression, greatly reduced this potential confound. In addition, the fact that total stress at T1 predicted both measures of future depression after we controlled for T1 depression level represented a strong argument for the construct validity of the stress measure. We were therefore quite confident in our measurement of stress. A final limitation to the generalizability of our findings involved the nonrandom selection of subjects because of voluntary participation. Although our situation was not ideal, the study sample was large, participation rates were high, and the demographic distribution was roughly similar to the general over-age-50 population. Attrition in the study was generally low and tended to be random, with the one noted exception that older individuals were more likely to discontinue. Therefore, the sample was judged to be more than adequate for testing the hypotheses of interest, with the caveat that results may not be as readily generalizable to younger or less well educated samples. Although we have acknowledged several limitations, the present study had several important positive features. The large sample of community residents enhanced the generalizability of results, as compared with clinical or student samples. The prospective, longitudinal design allowed a truly predictive analysis of coping and future depression; data regarding coping and stress at T1 were uncontaminated by future depression. In addition, the readministration of T1 measures at T2 allowed for cross-validation of the factor analyses. Finally, depression was not measured solely by a self-report symptom scaleas is often truebut was additionally assessed by rigorous diagnostic criteria. This provided a comparison of results with the two different outcome measures, thus increasing our confidence when results were the same for both measures of depression. The data set was seen as impressive for a number of reasons and as quite adequate to address the present issues.
Dimensionality of Coping
The three factors identified by our analyses were psychometrically robust and meaningful. The factors were reasonably independent and had good internal consistency (item homogeneity). They showed considerable stability over time and were consistent under cross-validation at T2. The factors were also psychologically interpretable, falling into three broad domains: (a) problem solving and cognitive self-control, (b) passivity and avoidant behaviors, and (c) spending time with others and engaging in enjoyable activities. Although not ideal, the three-factor solution appeared optimal. All three coping factors were associated with gender (women used more Cognitive Self-Control and Solace Seeking, but men used more Ineffective Escapism); none were related to age. In comparison, Parker and Brown (1982)reported that women used more self-consolation which is related to Solace Seeking in the present study. They also reported several age differences: Younger people reported more reckless behaviors and less use of distraction and passivity. The meaning of the various gender differences in the current study is unclear; results need to be replicated. One explanation for the lack of age effects in the present study is that only older subjects (50 or more years old) were involved, thus restricting the age range. Results of the present study were broadly consistent with the results of other factor-analytic studies of coping. Although specific factor solutions varied across studies, the dimensions of coping that have been identified thus far include various forms of cognitive self-control (e.g., reappraisal, self-distraction, cognitive problem solving, and positive self-talk); social support seeking (e.g., emotional support, social activity, and help seeking); instrumental problem-solving behavior; seeking compensatory relief; and relatively maladaptive responses (e.g., wishful thinking, self-blame, escapism, catastrophic thinking, and self-denigration). The coping factors variously reported by Folkman and Lazarus (1988), Parker and Brown (1979), Billings and Moos (1982), and Aldwin and Revenson (1987)generally
12 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
consisted of subsets of these many dimensions. Of course, the different coping factors obtained depended on, among other things, the initial items included in analyses, the response formats, and the situations addressed by the subjects (e.g., a specific stressful event, general personality descriptions, and interpersonal stress events). Clearly, although a good deal of consensus exists regarding the dimensionality of coping, it would be premature to suggest that a definitive answer has been reached. We had assumed that the three selected instruments measured the same underlying construct. However, this assumption was not supported by the results. Cognitive Self-Control (Factor 1) and Solace Seeking (Factor 3) were constructed exclusively from self-control behaviors and effective antidepressive behaviors, respectively. On the other hand, Ineffective Escapism (Factor 2) contained items from self-control behaviors, ineffective behaviors, and passivity behaviors. Thus, Factor 2 appeared to assess an underlying factor contained within all the instruments, namely, poor coping. Both the present findings and work by other researchers suggest that coping is a multidimensional construct that is not adequately represented by a single score. This is true even if one ignores variance that is due to varying item pools and differing targets of coping (e.g., stressful situations vs. stressful interpersonal encounters). One concern is that only 25% of the total item variance was accounted for by the three factors; 13 coping factors would have been required to account for 50% of the item variance. The total item pool was thus quite heterogeneous. In conclusion, our factor results appeared to be relatively consistent with other reported findings in suggesting that coping behaviors consist of a somewhat heterogeneous pool of behaviors.
Coping and Concurrent Depression

The three T1 coping factors were examined in relation to T1 depression, as assessed with two measures of depression: T1 CESD score and T1 diagnosis (0 = never mentally ill, 1 = depressed at T1). Ineffective Escapism was significantly associated with both measures of T1 depression; more use of the behaviors in this factor was associated with higher levels of depression. Neither Cognitive Self-Control nor Solace Seeking was significantly associated with either measure of T1 depression. The nonsignificant results for these two factors were somewhat unexpected, although not completely inconsistent with previous research. Several studies have reported similar findings that relate coping to concurrent depression. Coyne et al. (1981)reported that depressed individuals used more wishful thinking and avoidance (both related to Ineffective Escapism) in addition to more emotional support seeking (in relation to Solace Seeking). Folkman and Lazarus (1986)compared depressed adults (on the basis of five CESD scores) to nondepressed controls. The depressed subjects in their study tended to use more escapeavoidance, confrontive coping, responsibility acceptance, self-control, and social supportseeking behaviors. The depressed group did not differ from controls on coping behaviors labeled distancing, planful problem solving, and positive reappraisal. It is interesting that most studies (including the present) found more coping behaviors that increased the likelihood of depression (as opposed to behaviors that decreased the likelihood of, or prevented, depression). Exceptions to this pattern include Billings and Moos (1984), who reported more emotional discharge and less problem solving for depressed individuals, and Parker and Brown (1982), who reported less socialization and distraction seeking for depressed individuals, along with more passivity. As can be seen, the coping behaviors reported by other researchers to increase with concurrent depression tended to be similar or identical to behaviors contained within Ineffective Escapism in the present study.
Coping and Future Depression

We examined the relations of gender, stress, and coping to future depression, as measured both by an increase in reported depressive symptoms and by a diagnosis of depression. The independent effects of coping on future depression were assessed by first entering gender, T1 CESD, and total stress into a series of multiple regressions, followed by the direct effect of coping and the interaction of coping and total stress. The longitudinal design provided an examination of the causal directionality of coping and depression (i.e., whether coping had a direct or interactive impact on future depression, independent of prior depression level). Although not of primary concern in the present study, several interesting findings deserve mention. First, the present results add to the small but growing number of prospective studies in which stress predicts future depression (e.g., Kaplan, Roberts, Camacho, & Coyne, 1987; Lewinsohn, Hoberman, & Rosenbaum, 1988; O'Hara, Neunaber, &
13 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Zekoski, 1984). Second, we wish to highlight the finding that mild depression (elevated CESD score without a diagnosable depressive disorder) at T1 clearly predicted the future increase in CESD score and the development of a diagnosed episode of depression. These findings provide additional support to the growing recognition of chronic subsyndromal dysthymia as a risk factor for depressive episodes (Anashensel, 1985; Depue & Monroe, 1986; Lewinsohn, Hoberman, & Rosenbaum, 1988). Finally, female gender predicted the future development of a diagnosis of depression but did not predict an increase in depression symptoms, as measured by the CESD, a finding that replicates results reported from our earlier work (Lewinsohn, Hoberman, & Rosenbaum, 1988). This rather intriguing finding, if replicated by other investigators, deserves further study aimed at clarifying the precise nature of the vulnerability that predisposes women to diagnosable episodes of depression (Weissman & Klerman, 1977). The two measures of depression (CESD and diagnosis) were included to measure the same underlying construct (i.e., depression), providing a multimethod crossvalidation of findings. That gender predicted only one of the depressive measures underscores the fact that formal interviewer-derived diagnoses using rigorous criteria and self-report symptom scales measure the use of similar but not identical constructs. Of the three coping factors, Ineffective Escapism (Factor 2) had the strongest association with future depression, both directly and interactively predicting future depression. Subjects who reported greater use of the passive, avoidant, or reckless behaviors within this factor were more likely to become depressed, as measured both by increased self-reported dysphoria and interview diagnosis. The interactive impact of this factor was significant but did not represent a buffer. Instead, given an elevated amount of stress, subjects who reported more use of Ineffective Escapism behaviors were more likely to become depressed. Thus, use of the behaviors in Factor 2 exacerbated one's vulnerability to stress, instead of acting as a stress buffer. In general, the items within Ineffective Escapism that were most associated with future depression reflected a feeling of helplessness, uncontrollable negative ruminations, and nervousness. All of these behaviors suggested that feeling inadequate about one's personal resources increased the likelihood of both being and becoming depressed. We had assumed that some subset of coping behaviors would represent a buffer against stress; however, support for this supposition was weak. Cognitive Self-Control (Factor 1) had no significant relation to either measure of future depression. On the other hand, Solace Seeking was unrelated to increases in CESD scores but did significantly buffer the impact of stress on developing a future diagnosis of depression. These findings were somewhat consistent with the results of other studies in which positive coping behaviors had both direct effects (Felton & Revenson, 1987; Felton, Revenson, & Hinrichsen, 1984; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983) and interactional or buffer effects (Martin & Lefcourt, 1983; Pearlin et al., 1981). One possible interpretation for the weak or nonsignificant effects of positive coping in the present study is that engagement in behaviors that are generally negatively valued (e.g., behaviors in the Ineffective Escapism factor) constitutes a vulnerability but engagement in positive-valued behaviors (e.g., Cognitive Self-Control and Solace Seeking) does not confer an immunity. In other words, the presence of maladaptive coping behaviors in the person's repertoire is much more relevant to predicting depression than the presence of those behaviors that have traditionally been used to define coping. Of the original coping scales, most of our attention is directed to the Self-Control Scale, which was used in its entirety. Although this measure did not mediate the impact of stress, the Self-Control Scale had a direct effect in predicting both future increases in depressive symptoms and the diagnosis of depression. It was assumed that the apparently unhelpful items within this scale were most strongly predictive of future depression because the positive items (which generally loaded on the Cognitive Self-Control factor) were predictive neither of increased CESD scores nor of depressive diagnoses. The findings in this study suggest that currently depressed individuals use more negative or maladaptive coping behaviors and that these same coping behaviors are predictive of future depression. Findings such as these support Felton and Revenson's (1984)suggestion that a mutually reinforing causal cycle exists between poor mental health and maladaptive coping; poor mental health predicts maladaptive coping as maladaptive coping predicts poor mental health. Perhaps such ineffective coping behaviors are partially responsible for the increased likelihood of formerly depressed individuals, compared with neverdepressed controls, to become depressed in the future (Amenson &
14 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Lewinsohn, 1981; Keller, Shapiro, Lavori, & Wolfe, 1982). Coping research has been used in attempts to understand which behaviors decrease the negative impact of stress, but what has more frequently been found are behaviors that exacerbate the effects of stress. Results of the present study only provide marginal support for the buffer hypothesis that good coping protects one against the depressogenic effects of stress. In only one of four analyses did positive coping behaviors (Solace Seeking) mediate the effects of stress on future depression. Much stronger evidence suggested that higher levels of Ineffective Escapism (Factor 2) amplified the relation between higher stress levels and future depression (as measured by both self-reported dysphoria and diagnosed depression). In contrast to a buffer effect, Ineffective Escapism thus seems to create an increased vulnerability to the effects of stress. Perhaps poor coping behaviors are more easily measured, in comparison with the assessment of effective coping. A second possibility is that no consistently effective coping behaviors truly exist. Pearlin and Schooler (1978)suggested that a varied coping repertoire was much more important than any one particular coping strategy. Another possible explanation for the negative findings in regard to Cognitive Self-Control and the weak findings for Solace Seeking may be that a more precise match is required between the positive coping behaviors executed by an individual and the specific types of coping demanded by the specific stressful situation (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). In the present study, as in other similar studies, coping behaviors were measured as if they represented a general skill that facilitates the person's ability to deal with any stressful situation. It is possible that a more specific detailing of the type of situation (or stressor) with which the person has to cope is required, to illuminate the relation between the positive aspects of coping and stress. For instance, research on how patients cope with chronic pain (Copp, 1974; Tan, 1982; Turk & Genest, 1979) has shown that a number of successful cognitive and behavioral strategies, such as attempting to ignore or to reinterpret pain sensations or involving one-self in a distracting activity, are present. Therefore, many of the coping behaviors measured in the present study would be unrelated to effectively dealing with this specific type of stressor. It seems reasonable to assume the same of other stressful events. If this assumption were correct, future research might be directed at people who have recently, or who will soon, experience a specific stressor (e.g., loss of a job, birth of a baby, or recovery from a heart attack). Attempts could then be made to sample and measure the specific types of coping behaviors that people engage in, with the goal of identifying those behaviors that serve to increase or to decrease the likelihood of the person's developing a disorder in the situation. As is often the case in science, questions that initially appear to be reasonably straightforward become increasingly more complex as they are examined.
References
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, 337348. [Context Link] Amenson, C. S., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1981). An investigation into the observed sex difference in prevalence of unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 113. Texto Completo OVID [Context Link] Anashensel, C. S. (1985). The natural history of depressive symptoms: Implications for psychiatric epidemiology. In J. R. Greenley (Ed.), Research in community and mental health (Vol. 5, (pp. 4575). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. [Context Link] Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Context Link] Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139157. [Context Link] Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1982). Psychosocial theory and research on depression: An integrative framework and review. Clinical Psychology Review, 2, 213237. Texto Completo [Context Link] Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1984). Coping, stress, and social resources among adults with unipolar depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 877891. [Context Link]
15 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Brown, G., & Harris, T. (1978). Social origins of depression: A study of psychiatric disorder in women. New York: Free Press. [Context Link] Cohen, F., & Lazarus, R. S. (1979). Coping with the stresses of illness. In G. C. Stone, F. Cohen, & N. E. Adler (Eds.), Health psychology (pp. 217254). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Context Link] Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 20, 3746. [Context Link] Copp, L. A. (1974). The spectrum of suffering. American Journal of Nursing, 74, 491495. [Context Link] Courey, L., Feuerstein, M., & Bush, C. (1982). Self-control and chronic headache. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 26, 519526. Texto Completo Enlaces Bibliograficos [Context Link] Coyne, J., Aldwin, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Depression and coping in stressful episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 439447. Texto Completo OVID [Context Link] Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika , 16, 297334. [Context Link] Cyr, J. J., & Atkinson, L. (1986). Selection of appropriate number of factors: A case of questionable dimensions. Psychological Reports, 58, 251256. Enlaces Bibliograficos [Context Link] Depue, R. A., & Monroe, S. M. (1986). Conceptualization and measurement of human disorder and life stress research: The problem of chronic disturbance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3651. Texto Completo OVID Enlaces Bibliograficos [Context Link] Dohrenwend, B. P. (1979). Stressful life events and psychopathology: Some issues of theory and method. In J. E. Barrett & R. M. Rose (Eds.), Stress and mental disorders (pp. 115). New York: Raven. [Context Link] Dohrenwend, B. S., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (Eds.). (1981). Stressful life events and their contexts. New York: Neale Watson. [Context Link] Dohrenwend, B. S., Dohrenwend, B. P., Dobson, M., & Shrout, P. E. (1984). Symptoms, hassles, social supports, and life events: The problem of confounded measures. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 222230. Texto Completo OVID [Context Link] D'Zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. (1982). Social problem solving adults. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitivebehavioral research and therapy (Vol. 1, (pp. 202275). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. [Context Link] Endicott, J., & Spitzer, R. L. (1978). A diagnostic interview: The schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 837844. Texto Completo Otros recursos Texto Completo [Context Link] FACTOR. (1986). In SPSS-X users' guide (2nd ed., (pp. 714730). Chicago: SPSS Inc. [Context Link] Felton, B. J., & Revenson, T. A. (1984). Coping with chronic illness: A study of illness controllability and the influence of coping strategies on psychological adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 343353. [Context Link] Felton, B. J., & Revenson, T. A. (1987). Age differences in coping with chronic illness. Psychology and Aging, 2, 164170. [Context Link] Felton, B. J., Revenson, T. A., & Hinrichsen, G. A. (1984). Stress and coping in the explanation of psychological adjustment among chronically ill adults. Social Science and Medicine, 18, 889898. [Context Link]
16 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 21, 219239. [Context Link] Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: A study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150170. [Context Link] Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1986). Stress processes and depressive symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 107113. Texto Completo OVID [Context Link] Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 466475. [Context Link] Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986). The dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 9921003. [Context Link] Frank, R. G., Umlauf, R. L., Wonderlich, S. A., Askanazi, G. S., Buckelew, S. P., & Elliot, T. R. (1987). Differences in coping styles among persons with spinal cord injury: A cluster-analytic approach. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 55, 727731. [Context Link] Frankel, M. J., & Merbaum, M. (1982). Effects of therapist contact and a self-control manual on nail-biting reduction. Behavior Therapy, 13, 125129. [Context Link] Gibbon, M., McDonald-Scott, P., & Endicott, J. J. (1981). Mastering the art of research interviewing. Archives of General Psychiatry, 38, 12591262. Texto Completo Otros recursos Texto Completo Enlaces Bibliograficos [Context Link] Goldfried, M. R., & D'Zurilla, T. J. (1969). A behavioral-analytic model for assessing competence. In C. D. Speilberger (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology (pp. 151196). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. [Context Link] Hammen, C., Marks, T., Mayol, A., & deMayo, R. (1985). Depressive self-schemas, life stress, and vulnerability to depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 308319. Texto Completo OVID [Context Link] Heppner, P. P., & Peterson, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal problem-solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 6675. [Context Link] Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Psychosomatic Medicine, 11, 213218. Otros recursos Texto Completo [Context Link] Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. (1978). Life stress, depression and anxiety: Internalexternal control as a moderator variable. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 23, 205208. [Context Link] Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparisons of two models of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139. [Context Link] Kaplan, G. A., Roberts, R. E., Camacho, T. C., & Coyne, J. C. (1987). Psychosocial predictors of depression: Prospective evidence from the Human Population Laboratory studies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 125, 206220. Texto Completo Enlaces Bibliograficos [Context Link] Keller, M. B., Shapiro, R. W., Lavori, P. W., & Wolfe, N. (1982). Recovery in major depressive disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 905910. [Context Link] Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality
17 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
and Social Psychology, 37, 111. [Context Link] Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The stress and coping paradigm. In C. Eisdorfer, D. Cohen, A. Kleinman, & P. Maxim (Eds.), Models in clinical psychopathology (pp. 117214). New York: Spectrum. [Context Link] Lazarus, R. S., DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Gruen, R. (1985). Stress and adaptational outcomes: The problem of confounded measures. American Psychologist, 40, 770779. Texto Completo OVID [Context Link] Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. [Context Link] Lewinsohn, P. M., & Alexander, C. (1983). Learned resourcefulness and depression.Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon, Eugene. [Context Link] Lewinsohn, P. M., Hoberman, H. M., & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). A prospective study of risk factors for unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 251264. Texto Completo OVID [Context Link] Lewinsohn, P. M., Mermelstein, R. M., Alexander, C., & MacPhillamy, D. J. (1983). The Unpleasant Events Schedule: A scale for the measurement of aversive events. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 483498. [Context Link] Lewinsohn, P. M., Tilson, M., Rohde, P., & Seeley, J. (1988). Risk factors for the occurrence of nonbipolar depression in the elderly.Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon, Eugene. [Context Link] Lloyd, G. G., & Lishman, W. A. (1975). Effect of depression on the speed of recall of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. Psychological Medicine, 5, 173180. [Context Link] Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation between stressors and mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 13131324. [Context Link] Mazure, C., & Gershon, E. S. (1979). Blindness and reliability in lifetime psychiatric diagnosis. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 521525. Texto Completo Otros recursos Texto Completo [Context Link] McLean, P. (1976). Depression as a specific response to stress. In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 3, (pp. 297323). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. [Context Link] Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach. New York: Plenum Press. [Context Link] Mitchell, R. E., Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1982). Social support and wellbeing: Implications for prevention programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 3, 7798. Texto Completo [Context Link] Mitchell, R. E., Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1983). Stress, coping, and depression among married couples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 433448. Texto Completo OVID [Context Link] Mitchell, R. E., & Hodson, C. A. (1983). Coping with domestic violence: Social support and psychological health among battered women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 629654. Texto Completo [Context Link] Monroe, S. M. (1983). Major and minor life events as predictors of psychological distress: Further issues and findings. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 189205. Enlaces Bibliograficos [Context Link] O'Hara, M. W., Neunaber, D. J., & Zekoski, E. M. (1984). Prospective study of postpartum depression: Prevalence, course, and predictive factors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 158171. Texto Completo OVID [Context Link] Parker, G., & Brown, L. B. (1979). Repertoires of responses to potential precipitants of depression. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 13, 327333. [Context Link]
18 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Parker, G. B., & Brown, L. B. (1982). Coping behaviors that mediate between life events and depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 13861391. Texto Completo Otros recursos Texto Completo Enlaces Bibliograficos [Context Link] Paykel, E. S. (1979). Recent life events in the development of depressive disorders. In R. A. Depue (Ed.), The psychobiology of the depressive disorder: Implications for the effects of stress.Orlando, FL: Academic Press. [Context Link] Pearlin, L. I., Lieberman, M. A., Menagham, E. G., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 22, 337356. [Context Link] Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 19, 221. [Context Link] Platt, J. J., & Spivack, G. (1975). Manual for the Means-Ends Problem-Solving Procedure (MEPS): A measure of interpersonal cognitive problem-solving skill. Philadelphia, PA: Hahnemen Community Mental Health/Mental Retardation Center. [Context Link] Rabkin, J. G., & Struening, E. L. (1976). Life events, stress, and illness. Science, 194, 10131020. Texto Completo Enlaces Bibliograficos [Context Link] Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CESD Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 358401. [Context Link] Rippere, V. (1976). Antidepressive behaviour: A preliminary report. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 14, 289299. [Context Link] Rippere, V. (1977). What's the thing to do when you're feeling depressed?:A pilot study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 15, 185191. [Context Link] Rosenbaum, M. (1980). A schedule for assessing self-control behaviors: Preliminary findings. Behavior Therapy, 11, 109121. [Context Link] Rosenbaum, M., & Rolnick, A. (1983). Self-control behaviors and coping with seasickness. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 9397. [Context Link] Roth, S., & Cohen, L. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist , 41, 813819. Texto Completo OVID [Context Link] Shapiro, R., & Keller, M. (1979). Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation (LIFE). Boston: Massachusetts General Hospital. [Context Link] Spitzer, R., & Endicott, J. (1977). The schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia-change (SADSC) interview. New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute. [Context Link] Spitzer, R. L., Endicott, J., & Robins, E. (1978). Research diagnostic criteria: Rationale and reliability. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 773782. Texto Completo Otros recursos Texto Completo [Context Link] Suls, J., & Fletcher, B. (1985). The relative efficacy of avoidant and non-avoidant coping strategies: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 4, 249288. [Context Link] Tan, S. Y. (1982). Cognitive and cognitive-behavioral methods for pain control: A selective review. Pain, 12, 201208. Texto Completo Enlaces Bibliograficos [Context Link]
19 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
Tobin, D. J., Holroyd, K., & Reynolds, R. (1982). The assessment of coping: Psychometric development of the Coping Strategies Inventory.Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Los Angeles, CA. [Context Link] Turk, D. L., & Genest, M. (1979). Regulation of pain: The application of cognitive and behavioral techniques for prevention and remediation. In P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral intervention: Theory, research, and procedures (pp. 286318). New York: Academic Press. [Context Link] Weissman, M. M., & Klerman, G. L. (1977). Sex differences and the epidemiology of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 34, 98111. [Context Link]
Appendix
Individual Items (With Factor Loadings) Constituting Each of the Three Coping Factors
Factor 1: Cognitive Self-Control 1. When I am faced with a difficult problem, I try to approach its solution in a systematic way. (.56) 2. I usually plan my work when faced with a number of things to do. (.54) 3. In order to overcome bad feelings that accompany failure, I often tell myself that it is not so catastrophic and that I can do something about it. (.54) 4. If I find it difficult to concentrate on a certain job, I divide the job into smaller segments. (.54) 5. When I am depressed, I try to keep myself busy with things that I like. (.52) 6. When I find it difficult to settle down to do a certain job, I look for ways to help me settle down. (.51) 7. When I have to do something that is anxiety-arousing for me, I try to visualize how I will overcome my anxieties while doing it. (.51) 8. When I am feeling depressed, I try to think about pleasant things. (.51) 9. When I do a boring job, I think about the less boring parts of the job and the reward that I will receive once I am finished. (.51) 10. When I try to get rid of a bad habit, I first try to find out all the factors that maintain this habit. (.48) 11. When I feel that I am too impulsive, I tell myself Stop and think before you do anything. (.48) 12. When I find that I have difficulties in concentrating on my reading, I look for ways to increase my concentration. (.48) 13. When an unpleasant thought is bothering me, I try to think about something pleasant. (.48) 14. First of all I prefer to finish a job that I have to do and then start doing the things I really like. (.48) 15. My self-esteem increases once I am able to overcome a bad habit. (.46) 16. When I plan to work, I remove all the things that are not relevant to my work. (.46) 17. When I am in a low mood, I try to act cheerful so my mood will change. (.45) 18. Often by changing my way of thinking I am able to change my feelings about almost everything. (.43) 19. Even when I am terribly angry at someone, I consider my actions very carefully. (.43) 20. When I am short of money, I decide to record all my expenses in order to plan more carefully for the future. (.41) 21. When I feel pain in my body, I try to divert my thoughts from it. (.40) Factor 2: Ineffective Escapism 1. Keep away from people. (.63) 2. Do something reckless (like driving a car fast). (.62) 3. Do something rather dangerous. (.61) 4. Wait for someone to help. (.58) 5. Stay in bed. (.57) 6. Take tablets or medicine. (.53) 7. Avoid other people. (.50) 8. Quite often I cannot overcome unpleasant thoughts that bother me. (.49) 9. Wish that you were a stronger personmore forceful and optimistic. (.48) 10. Do nothing in particular. (.48) 11. Daydream about a better time or place. (.46) 12. I often find it difficult to overcome my feelings of nervousness and tension without any outside help. (.46) 13. When I am faced with a difficult decision, I prefer to postpone making a decision even if all the facts are at my disposal. (.45)
20 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29
14. I cannot avoid thinking about mistakes I have made in the past. (.45) 15. Try to get the attention of others. (.43) 16. Although it makes me feel bad, I cannot avoid thinking about all kinds of possible catastrophes. (.41) 17. If I had the pills with me, I would take a tranquilizer whenever I felt tense and nervous. (.40) Factor 3: Solace Seeking 1. Plan something pleasant. (.69) 2. Spend time with friends. (.67) 3. Do something enjoyable. (.64) 4. Spend time with a relative or a close friend. (.60) 5. Do something to restore your pride. (.59) 6. Do something to distract yourself from the problem. (.54) 7. Do something to get your mind off the situation. (.54) 8. Busy yourself in your usual work. (.48) 9. Talk over your problem with someone you know. (.47) 10. Take on some new and challenging work or activity. (.43) [Context Link]
Copyright (c) 2000-2008 Ovid Technologies, Inc. Versin: OvidSP_UI02.00.05.102, SourceID 37775
21 de 21
20/01/2009 23:29

5 - Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation To Depression

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 - Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation To Depression

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression

Autor(es): Nmero: Tipo de publicacin: Editor:

Oregon Research Institute, Eugene University of Oregon

Tualatin Valley Mental Health Center, Portland, Oregon

Correspondence concerning this article should

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

The Present Study

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Table 1 No caption available.

Assessment of Sociodemographic Variables

Assessment of Coping Behaviors

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Relation of Coping Factors and Demographics

Relation of Coping Factors and Concurrent Depression

Role of Coping in Predicting an Increase of Depression Symptoms

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Role of Coping in Predicting a Diagnosis of Depression

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Further Analysis of Maladaptive Escapism in Predicting Depression

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Coping and Concurrent Depression

Coping and Future Depression

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

Ovid: Dimensionality of Coping and Its Relation to Depression.

You might also like