Joumal of Counseling Psychology 2012, Vol. 59. No. 2, 262-273
© 2012 American Psychological Association 0022-0167/12/$ 12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0027770
Development of the Coping Flexibility Scale: Evidence for the Coping Flexibility Hypothesis Tsukasa Kato Toyo University Coping flexibility was defined as the ability to discontinue an ineffective coping strategy (i.e., evaluation coping) and produce and implement an altemative coping strategy (i.e., adaptive coping). The Coping Hexibility Scale (CFS) was developed on the basis of this definition. Five studies involving approximately 4,400 Japanese college students and employees were conducted to test the hypothesis that flexible coping produces more adaptive outcomes. Studies 1, 2, and 3 provided evidence of the reliability of the CFS scores as well as of its convergent and discriminant validity for Japanese samples. Study 4 further demonstrated that flexible coping was positively associated with improved psychological health, including reduced depression, anxiety, and distress. In Study 5, coping fiexibility as measured by the CFS was associated with reduced future depression, even after controlling for the effects of other coping flexibility measures and popular coping strategies. Overall, these results suggest that a valid approach for assessing coping fiexibility has been developed and that flexible coping can contribute to psychological health. The implications of these findings for clinical practice are discussed. Keywords: coping behavior, coping flexibility, meta-coping, psychological flexibility, psychological adjustment
Existing Studies on Coping Flexibility
According to the transactional theory proposed by Lazarus and his colleagues (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), coping is defined as "constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforís to manage specific extemal and/or intemal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person" (p. 141). This theory hypothesizes that coping behavior affects wellbeing and adaptation, and its validity and utility have heen supporíed by numerous studies (see Lazarus, 1999). As a result, coping research has received considerable attention in clinical research and practice. Current conventional coping research is limited by the failure to consider the diversity and fluidity of coping. In other words, so far, only how a specific coping strategy affects mental health and adaptation has been estimated. However, the transactional theory presumes that coping can change over time and in accordance with the demands of a paríicular stressful situation, which is consistent with previous research (see Lazarus, 1999). The research on coping flexibility focuses on such changeability. Coping flexibility refers to one's ability to effectively modify coping behavior according to the nature of each stressful situation. Moreover, the transaction theory presumes that more flexible coping will produce more adaptive outcomes. This supposition is generally referred to as the coping fiexibility hypothesis (CFH). In this aríicle, the strength of the CFH was tested.
So far, there have been three main approaches to assessing coping flexibility: the reperíoire, varíation, and fitness approaches. The repertoire approach to coping fiexibility refers to the range of coping strategies available to an individual. In general, studies with this approach operationalize coping flexibility as the total number of coping styles that reach above a sample median or mean on that style (e.g.. Carver et al., 1993; Roussi, Kríkeli, Hatzidimitríou, & Koutrí, 2007). However, these studies do not assess the number of available coping types; instead, they measure the number of coping types used as indicators of coping flexibility. Having a large number of coping types available differs from actually using those coping types. Consequently, many studies using this method have failed to supporí the CFH (e.g.. Carver et al., 1993; Katz, Kravetz, & Grynbaum, 2005). The variation approach to coping flexibility refers to altering a coping strategy depending on either a particular stressful situation or a paríicular time. Coping flexibility in this approach is generally operationalized as the total number of coping styles that an individual uses across different Stressors or different fimes (e.g.. Compas, Forsythe, & Wagner, 1988). It can also be measured by the sum of an individual's standard deviations across different situations for coping styles (e.g.. Fresco, Williams, & Nugent, 2006). These methods have not widely supporíed the CFH (e.g.. Compas et al., 1988; Dolan & White, 1988). One possibility is that merely changing a coping style does not always lead to more adaptive outcomes. For example, assume that a person uses different types of avoidant coping in response to a serious mistake or a final exam. In both instances, the person will probably not receive the desirable outcomes, as the more favorable outcomes can only be obtained by consis-
This research was supported in part by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientist 20730407 and by Grant-in-Aid for Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Fellows 00077 from JSPS awarded to Tsukasa Kato. Correspondence conceming this article should be addressed to Tsukasa Kato, Department of Social Psychology, Toyo University, 5-28-20 Hakusan, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-8606. E-mail:
[email protected] 262
COPING FLEXIBILITY HYPOTHESIS
tently using active coping styles' (e.g., taking active steps to cover up the mistake or preparing for the exam). The fitness approach to coping flexibility involves selecting a coping strategy that is dependent on changes in the appraisal of a stressful situation. The CFH in this approach, known as the goodness-of-fit hypothesis, asserts that problem-focused coping is effective and emotion-focused coping is ineffective when a Stressor is appraised as controllable. Conversely, when a Stressor is appraised as uncontrollable, problem-focused coping is ineffective and emotion-focused coping is effective. In testing this hypothesis, many studies have estimated the interaction effects of a coping mode and controllability on coping outcomes (e.g., Conway & Terry, 1992; Park, Folkman, & Bostrom, 2001; Zakowski, Hall, Klein, & Baum, 2001). Some studies have measured each coping mode with a controllable and an uncontrollable Stressor as indicators of coping flexibility (e.g., Vitaliano, DeWolfe, Maiuro, Russo, & Katon, 1990). Most recently, coping flexibility has been measured using the Coping Flexibility Questionnaire (CFQ; Cheng, 2001). Specifically, by using a cluster analysis on the data obtained by the CFQ, researchers extracted a flexible group that reported a good fit between appraised controllability and choice of coping modes. More recent studies by Cheng (Cheng, 2009; Cheng, Yang, Jun, & Hutton, 2007) measured the extent of coping flexibility by the number of good fits between appraised controllability and the choice of coping modes. Individuals described several controllable and uncontrollable stressful episodes and then chose a coping mode for each of the described episodes fi-om both problemfocused and emotion-focused coping. Furthermore, the fitness approach has shown inconsistent support for the CFH (e.g.. Compas, Malcame, & Fondacaro, 1988; Conway & Terry, 1992; Park et al., 2001; Vitaliano et al., 1990; Zakowski et al., 2001). This is possibly because it is not valid to measure coping flexibility only by combining two modes of coping and control. For example, several researchers have recommended that problem-focused and emotion-focused coping no longer be used as higher order categories, because more complex models of coping have since been presented (see Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003). In summary, the three approaches do not offer any sound method or measure for assessing coping flexibility. In addition, previous studies have provided only inconsistent evidence for the CFH. Therefore, the measurements based on the existing approaches are inadequate for testing the CFH. A new approach for testing the CFH is therefore in order.
My Definition of Coping Flexibility I focused on the changeability of coping, a concept common across the three coping flexibility approaches. For present purposes, coping fiexibility is defined as the ability to discontinue an ineffective coping strategy and produce and implement an alternative coping strategy. This definition encompasses two reciprocal processes: evaluation coping and adaptive coping. A person who encounters a stressful event will attempt to deal with the problem. However, the coping strategy used may not always produce favorable outcomes. If the person continues to use an ineffective coping strategy, the situation is unlikely to improve and may worsen. Evaluation coping occurs when a person begins to abandon the coping strategy that producs the undesirable outcomes. Evaluation coping includes various strategies, such as comprehending one's
263
environment, monitoring and evaluating coping outcomes, and abandoning an ineffective coping strategy if the outcomes are unfavorable. However, the person needs to not only abandon the ineffective strategy but also consider using an alternative coping strategy. This process is termed adaptive coping, and it involves strategies such as creating available alternatives, as well as implementing them. A person must have many available coping strategies for producing alternatives. In that sense, this coping process includes aspects of repertoire coping. If adaptive coping produces unfavorable outcomes, the process of evaluation-adaptive coping is repeated until favorable outcomes are obtained. The definition of coping fiexibility in the present study has several perspectives that, in contrast to existing approaches to coping fiexibility, are based on several distinct theories. First, the present definition more strongly emphasizes coping as a process. This is based on the transactional theory, particularly the revised model proposed by Folkman (1997, 2008). The revised model introduced the concept of meaning-focused coping, which works when a situation is not favorably resolved. This process promotes continued attempts to resolve one's problem until a favorable outcome is produced. Similar to the revised model, the present definition also focuses on the coping processes that lead to a favorable outcome. Second, the present definition of coping flexibility includes aspects of meta-coping, such as grasping a situation, monitoring ' during coping efforts, and evaluating coping outcomes. The existing approaches do not consider meta-coping. This perspective is based primarily on the dual-process model of coping (Brandstädter & Renner, 1990; Brandstädter & Rothermund, 2002) and social problem-solving theory (D'Zurilla, 1986; Nezu, 2004). The dualprocess model was proposed to explain how self-regulation negotiates the conflicting demands of ensuring a stable pursuit of goals while adjusting to changes that affect the attainability of these goals. This model has two basic modes. The first is accommodative coping, which involves fiexibly relinquishing unachievable goals, acknowledging and accepting unchangeable circumstances, and flexibly adjusting goals. The second is assimilative coping, which refers to the efforts to manage Stressors while eliminating an ineffective coping strategy. Our definition partially overlaps with these two coping modes. In particular, accommodative coping is similar to evaluation coping in terms of eliminating ineffective strategies and fiexibly dealing with changing situations. Several studies have provided evidence that assimilative and accommodative coping are associated with good psychological functioning (see Brandstädter & Rothermund, 2002, for a review), indicating that self-regulation in this model serves to sustain well-being. This association with psychological health provides preliminary support for the process of coping fiexibility. Social problem solving, which consists of two components (problem orientation and problem-solving style), is defined as a cognitive-behavioral process that attempts to identify effective solutions to the stressful problems encountered in daily life (Nezu,
' Although several studies have reported that avoidant coping is associated with positive adaptation in the short run, a recent meta-analysis shows that various strategies, such as distancing, avoidance, and wishful thinking, were generally negatively correlated with overall health outcomes in nonclinical adult samples (see Penley, Tomaka, & Wiebe, 2002).
KATO
264
2004). Problem orientation refers to the cognitive schémas that represent one's beliefs about problems and the ability to successfully cope with these problems. Problem-solving style involves the skills that are designed to increase the probability of finding effective solutions for problems. This includes skills related to meta-strategies, such as the specification of realistic goals, a costbenefit analysis of each altemative, and an evaluation of its effectiveness. Moreover, previous studies have provided evidence that effective problem solving attenuates the distress engendered by stressful situations (see Nezu, 2004, for a review). In shorí, social problem-solving theory supporís the idea that meta-strategies affect the solving of stressful situations.
Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Coping Flexibility Because the CFH was tested in this study using Japanese samples, several cultural differences related to coping flexibility need to be descríbed. Tríandis (1995) indicated that Westemers, who are characterízed by individualism, tend to have consistent beliefs and values and tend to follow them, whereas the Japanese, who are characterízed by cultural collectivism, tend to act flexibly according to situational changes. In fact, contrary to individuals from Westem cultures, individuals from Asian cultures engage in more secondary control coping, which includes changing one's feelings and thoughts to adjust to the objective environment (see Yeh, Arora, & Wu, 2006, for a review). For example, in a study by Lam and Zane (2004) with a sample of university students, Asian Amerícans engaged in more secondary control coping with interpersonal Stressors than White Amerícans did. Several researchers (e.g., Heppner, 2008) have indicated that most coping studies have been based on Westem or Amerícan culture, with Amerícan scholars often overlooking or ignoríng the cultural context of coping. The three approaches to coping flexibility are also notably based in Westem culture. This is relevant because Westemers probably do not cope with situations as flexibly as Asians fiom collectivistic cultures do. This is possibly why the research on coping flexibility has not been more substantially developed. Testing the CFH from a different cultural perspective, paríicularly that of a more collectivistic culture, may thus provide for a more sensitive and appropríate test of the theory.
Overview of the Present Research Five studies were conducted to test the CFH. Study 1 descríbed the development of the Coping Flexibility Scale (CFS) to quantify coping flexibility, and an initial examination of its factor structure was performed. Studies 2 and 3 confirmed the factor structure and investigated its psychometríc properíies—intemal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and críteríonrelated validity— with Japanese paríicipants. For Study 4, the CFH was tested by examining the association between coping flexibility measured by the CFS and poor psychological functioning, such as depression, anxiety, and distress. Finally, the CFH was tested by comparíng the approach I developed with existing approaches to coping flexibility.
Study 1 For Study 1, items regarding the CFS were generated and refined using a factor analysis. In addition, the content validity of refined items was estimated with people from Japan.
Method Participants and procedure. Paríicipants comprísed Japanese samples of college students and full-time employees. Three hundred twenty-seven students (202 women and 125 men; mean age 19.80, SD = 1.94) were recmited through introductory psychology classes. Moreover, 328 employees (137 women and 191 men; mean age 44.98, SD = 7.65) were recruited through five labor unions. Both sets of paríicipants voluntaríly completed the questionnaires. The administration of the questionnaires was overseen by research assistants; paríicipants were not rewarded for their time. Measures. To assess coping flexibility, 10 items per subscale (Evaluation Coping and Adaptive Coping) were created by an experí in coping and item development, a male Japanese psychologist with a doctorate degree. The items were pilot-tested among 30 Japanese college students, whose feedback was used to modify item wording. The paríicipants rated the extent to which each item applied to them on a 4-point scale (with 0 = not applicable, 1 = somewhat applicable, 2 = applicable, and 3 = very applicable). The instmctions are presented in the Appendix. All items and instructions were wrítten in Japanese and translated into English (in order to prepare this article for publication) by a native English speaker. They were then translated back into Japanese by a native Japanese speaker. Both translators were experís and worked at a reputable translation firm. The translation firm was paid 10,000 yen (approximately $125 U.S.) for their work.
Results and Discussion The frequencies of the 20 items were computed for each sample. Five items were deleted because of a low frequency of occunence (90% or more of the sample rated these items as not applicable). For each sample, a príncipal-axis factor analysis was conducted on the remaining 15 items using a two-factor promax rotation, because it was assumed that coping flexibility consists of two reciprocal coping processes. In addition, a parallel analysis (PA; Hom, 1965) and a minimum average paríial (MAP; Velicer, 1976) were performed to determine the number of factors. This follows Zwick and Velicer's (1986) recommendation to accurately determine the number of factors. On the basis of Cota, Longman, Holden, Fekken, and Xinarís' (1993) suggestion, the PA was performed using the mean and the 95th percentile eigenvalues for 1,000 random data sets. The PA and the MAP indicated that a two-factor solution would be appropríate. Five items with factor loadings under ,40 were excluded. The first subscale. Evaluation Coping, consisted of five items and accounted for 28.46% (student sample) and 29.85% (employee sample) of the varíance. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were .91 for the student sample and .90 for the employee sample. The second subscale. Adaptive Coping, consisted of five items and accounted for 19.55% (student sample) and 19.10% (employee sample) of the varíance. The alphas were .86 for the student sample and .88 for the employee sample. Moreover, in order to test for content validity, two Japanese experís on coping research were requested to check whether each item fit the present definition of coping fiexibility. They confirmed the consistency of each item with the present definition.
COPING FLEXIBILITY HYPOTHESIS
Study 2 In Study 2, the two-factor structure of the CFS was tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In addition, the convergent validity of the CFS scores was evaluated by examining the correlation between the CFS and other scales measuring theoretically related constructs: assimilative and accommodative coping, cognitive flexibility, and social problem solving. As discussed, a prediction was made that coping flexibility measured by the CFS would be positively correlated with assimilative and accommodative coping as well as social problem solving. It was predicted that the correlation coefficient between evaluation coping and accommodative coping would be higher than that between adaptive coping and accommodative coping. In addition, there was the expectation that the CFS subscales would be positively related to cognitive flexibility as measured by the Cognitive Flexibility Scale developed by Martin and Rubin (1995). The core component in the definitions of cognitive flexibility is generally the ability to switch cognitive sets to adapt to changing environmental stimuli. Three areas of cognitive flexibility are assessed on the Cognitive Flexibility Scale: awareness of altematives, willingness to adapt to the situation, and self-efficacy in flexible behavior (Dennis & Wai, 2010). Thus, the present definition of coping flexibility is similar to the concept of cognitive flexibility proposed by Martin and Rubin (1995). Moreover, because the present self-report scale may have been influenced by the bias of social desirability, the association between coping flexibility and social desirability was examined to estimate the discriminant validity for the CFS scores. It was predicted that coping flexibility measured by the CFS would not be related to social desirability.
Method Participants and procedure. All participants were Japanese college students enrolled in introductory psychology classes. After providing informed consent, they completed a series of questionnaires and received a course credit. The following six samples were used: Participants in Sample 1 (872 women and 717 men; mean age 19.84, SD = 1.70) completed the CFS to confirm the two-factor structure. Of these, 84 participants (mean age 19.11, SD = 1.41) were randomly selected to be part of Sample 2. They completed the CFS again 6 weeks later to estimate test-retest reliability. Participants in Sample 3 (96 women and 173 men; mean age 19.46, SD = 1.62) completed the CFS and a scale for assessing assimilative and accommodative coping. Participants in Sample 4 (91 women and 49 men; mean age 19.99, SD = 1.57) completed the CFS and another scale for assessing cognitive flexibility. Participants in Sample 5 (110 women and 47 men; mean age 19.84, SD = 1.26) completed the CFS and a scale for assessing social problem solving. Finally, participants in Sample 6 (39 women and 102 men; mean age 20.55, SD = 1.61) completed the CFS and a scale for assessing social desirability. With the exception of Samples 1 and 2, each sample was independent of the other. Measures. Existing Japanese versions of the measures were not used, although there were some existing Japanese versions. Therefore, all measures originally written in English were independently translated into Japanese by three native Japanese psychologists with doctorate degrees. They were then back-translated
265
into English by a native English psychologist with a doctorate degree. After back-translation, the original and back-translated questionnaires were compared for discrepancies. Modifications were made to the translated questionnaires after discussion between the translators. For each scale, all items were rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (disagree) to 3 (strongly agree)? The same item-rating scale was used for all measures to minimize confusion. A higher score reflects more of the measured construct. Individual scores were computed by summing up the scores of each particular subscale. Assimilative and accommodative coping. The Tenacious Goal Pursuit and Flexible Goal Adjustment Scale (Tenflex, 30 items; Brandtstädter & Renner, 1990) was used to measure assimilative and accommodative coping. The English version of the Tenflex was obtained from its creator (personal conmiunication, April 23, 2010). According to Brandtstädter and Renner (1990), the two scales are related to low depression, high life satisfaction, and high control beliefs, with alphas of .80 and .83. Cognitive flexibility. The Cognitive Flexibility Scale (12 items; Martin & Rubin, 1995) was used to measure one's ability to switch cognitive sets to adapt to environmental change. This scale was found to be correlated with conmiunication flexibility, rigidity of attitudes about personal habits, and personality traits; the alphas for this scale are .76 and .77 for a sample of college students (Martin & Rubin, 1995). Social problem solving. Three of the five subscales for the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R; D'Zurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002) were used to measure problem orientation and problem-solving style. The positive and negative problem orientation subscales (15 items) were used to measure problem orientation. The Rational Problem-Solving subscale (20 items) was used to measure problem-solving style. In a sample of Japanese college students, the SPSI-R was found to be related to high levels of social problem solving on another scale (Sato et al., 2006), with its alphas ranging from .79 to .92. Social desirability. The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1991) was used to measure social desirability. The BIDR has two subscales (20 items per scale): Self-Deception (BIDR-SD) and Impression Management (BIDRIM). The BIDR-SD was designed to measure defensiveness toward personal threats and positively biased responding that the respondent believes to be true. The BIDR-IM was designed to assess conscious responding that is guided by a desire to create a favorable impression on others. For a sample of Japanese college students in a study by Tani (2008), the alphas for the BIDR subscales are .75 and .70, and each subscale is positively related to the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.
^ As recommended by Paulhus (1991), the individual scores for the BIDR subscales were also computed by scoring 1 point for each extreme response (strongly agree). In this case, the total scores on each subscale can range from 0 to 20. Using these scores and the CFS scores, correlations between coping flexibility and social desirability were calculated. The results revealed that there were no significant relations between the BIDR subscales and the CFS subscales, rs (140) = - . 0 3 to .14.
KATO
266 Results and Discussion
Normative information and reliability. Deseriptive statisties of the CFS for Sample 1 are shown in Table 1. The skewness and kuriosis values were less than the absolute value of 1.0 exeept for Item 8, indieating a normal distribution of seores. For eaeh of the six samples, the alpha eoeffieients were .73, .72, .76, .82, .83, and .88 for Evaluation Coping and .87, .87, .83, .89, .89, and .78 for Adaptive Coping. The test-retest reliability coefficients over a 6-week period were .73 for Evaluarion Coping and .71 for Adaptive Coping, suggesting acceptable levels. CFA. A CFA was condueted on the data in Sample 1 using a maximum likelihood method. On the basis of the guidelines suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), the following criteria for evaluating fit were adopted: comparative fit index (CFI) values of .95 or greater, standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) values of .08 or lower, and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) values of .06 to .08. The fit indiees of the two-faetor model were as follows: x^(34, iV = 1589) = 192.88, p < .001; RMSEA = .065, CFI = .972, and SRMR = .029. This model showed a good fit to the data. However, the ehi-square index shows a relatively poor fit, beeause with a large sample, the chi-square test is sensitive to the sample size, resulting in an overrejeetion of adequate models (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). A one-faetor model was tested in order to estimate that subseales are differentiated among the items. This model showed a poor fit to the data, x^(35, N = 1589) = 1424.20, p < .001; RMSEA = .158, CFI = .766, and SRMR = .115. Delta ehi-square statistie was signifieant (Ax^ = 1231.32, ^df =l,p< .001), indieating that the one-faetor model is a worse fit to the data than the two-faetor model. Convergent and discriminant validity. In order to examine the eonvergent validity of the CFS seores, the eorrelation eoeffieients between the CFS scores and eaeh seore of the other eoping eonstruets were ealculated (see Table 2). As predieted, the eoping flexibility seores were significantly correlated with seores for all the other eoping eonstruets. In addition. Table 2 shows also the z seores using Fisher's transformation to test for differenees in eorrelation eoeffieients. As expeeted, the eorrelation eoeffieient (r = .37) between evaluation eoping and aeeommodative coping Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of the CES Items and Subscales and Eactor Loadings of Sample 1 in Study 2 Item number
M
SD
Skew
Kurt
Range
Evaluation coping 2 6 7 8 9 Adaptive coping 1 3 4 5 10
10.10 2.30 1.62 2.03 2.39 1.76 7.29 1.46 1.45 1.50 1.54 1.34
3.12 0.81 0.95 0.93 0.81 0.97 3.20 0.78 0.84 0.78 0.79 0.77
-0.42 -0.99 -0.15 -0.59 -1.12 -0.30 0.03 0.22 -0.07 -0.05 -0.10 0.14
-0.40 0.32 -0.89 -0.64 0.50 -0.91 -0.05 -0.36 -0.61 -0.40 -0.43 -0.35
0-15 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-15 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3
Loading .45 .67 .68 .59 .60 .68 .67 .88 .86 .67
Note. N = 1,589. Range is potential range and actual range. CFS = Coping Flexibility Scale.
was higher than that (r = .20) between adaptive eoping and aceotnmodative eoping (z = 2.13, p < .05). Next, in order to examine the diseriminant validity of the CFS scores, correlations between the CFS seores and the BIDR-IM score were ealeulated (see Table 2). As predieted, no signifieant eorrelations were observed. These results indicate that the CFS is a valid measure of coping flexibility in Japanese samples.
Study 3 For Study 3, the validity of the CFS scores was examined again, using an insight problem with Japanese samples. Insight problem solving is characterized by impasses caused by a constrained solution spaee. This spaee is only broken by relaxing its eonstraints (e.g., Knoblieh, Ohlsson, Haider, & Rhenius, 1999; Ohlsson, 1992). For example, opening a locked door is normally subjected to the constraint that the door should not become damaged in the proeess. Constraint relaxation would refer to breaking through the loeked door (Knoblieh et al., 1999) and is in line with the present eoneept of eoping flexibility. Therefore, a predietion was made that people who ean solve an insight problem requiring constraint relaxation would repori higher seores on the CFS than people who eannot solve it.
Method Material. A T puzzle (Heiwa Kogyo, Tokyo) was used as an insight problem beeause its solution requires constraint relaxation (e.g., Suzuki, Abe, Hiraki, & Miyazaki, 2001). The puzzle eonsists of four wooden pieces, and the objective is to arrange them in the shape of a T. It often takes more than half an hour for a noviee to solve the puzzle, although it appears easy (Suzuki et al., 2001). Participants and procedure. Participants were Japanese undergraduates (44 women and 33 men; mean age 21.25, SD = 1.59) who had not been exposed to a T puzzle before. They were recruited from psyehology elasses, and eaeh received 500 yen (approximately $6 U.S.) for pariieipating in the study. Partieipants entered our laboratory individually and signed an informed eonsent form. After completing the CFS, each participant was instrueted to solve the T puzzle within 20 min. Before beginning the puzzle, eaeh rated his or her level of self-eonfidenee in solving it eorreetly on a 6-point seale, ranging from 0 (not confident) to 5 (very confident).
Results and Discussion The results indieated that 23.38% of the partieipants were able to solve the T puzzle within the allotted time. A between-subjeets f test revealed that the group who eould solve the T puzzle reponed higher seores of evaluation eoping (M = 12.33, 5D = 3.16) than the group who eould not (M = 10.58, SD = 3.02), ?(75) = 2.14, p < .05, 95 % CI [0.12, 3.40], d = 0.57. In addition, the group who eould solve the puzzle reported higher scores of adaptive coping (M = 9.22, SD = 2.07) than the group who eould not (M = 7.81, SD = 2.76), i(75) = 1.99, p < .05, 95 % CI [0.01, 2.82], d = 0.54. There were no significant eorrelations between self-eonfidenee and evaluation eoping (r = .08, p = .49), or between selfeonfidenee and adaptive eoping (r = .09, p = .42). These results indieate that eoping flexibility is not related to self-eonfidenee.
COPING FLEXIBILITY HYPOTHESIS
267
Table 2
Correlation Coefficients Between Coping Flexibility Scores and Other Constructs Scores, Means, and Standard Deviations for Scores on Criterion Variables in Study 2 Coping fiexibility Criterion variable
n
Evaluation coping
Adaptive coping
z value
a
Assimilative coping Accommodative coping Cognitive flexibility Problem orientation Problem-solving style Self-deception Impression management
269 269 140 157 157 141 141
.180" .371*** .378*" .369*" .465*** .012 .126
.274*** .199*" .521*" .474*** .459*** .033 .151
1.139 2.173* 1.495 1.130 0.064 0.175 0.212
.70 .84 .86 .83 .76 .73 .74
*p < .05. "p < .01. '"p
< .001.
These findings and the findings in Studies 1 and 2 supporí the validity of the CFS scores for Japanese samples.
Study 4 In Study 4, the CFH was tested using the CFS to examine the association between coping fiexibility and psychological health. If the CFH is correct, then coping flexibility should be negatively related to poor psychological functioning. Method Participants and procedure. Data were collected from two Japanese samples (college students and employed workers), none of whom had paríicipated in the previous studies. Paríicipants (202 women and 124 men; mean age 19.79, SD = 1.94) in the college student sample were recruited through introductory psychology classes and received a course credit for their paríicipation. Paríicipants in the employee sample (49 women and 90 men; mean age 42.92, SD - 10.25) were full-time workers from several labor unions. Each received a 500-yen (approximately $6 U.S.) gift ceríificate for paríicipating. AU paríicipants completed the CFS and the scales related to psychological health. Measures. Depression, anxiety, and distress were measured as indicators of psychological health. All items on these scales, which were translated into Japanese through a back-translation procedure, were rated on the basis of the participants' experíences within the past week on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 {not at all) to 3 {very much so). Higher scores indicate poorer psychological health. The alpha levels are shown in Table 3. Depression. The Center for Epidemiologie Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), a 20-item self-reporí scale, was used to assess depressive symptoms. In studies using the Japanese version of the CES-D, samples with mood disorders have shown higher scores than nonclinical samples. This scale is also positively correlated with other scales related to depression (see Shima, 1998, for a manual). Test-retest reliability over a 5-day períod is .84 for a Japanese nonclinical sample (Shima, 1998). Anxiety. The trait anxiety version (20 item) of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Form Y (STAI-FY; Spielberger, 1983) was used to measure trait anxiety. According to the STAI-FY manual for Japanese paríicipants (Hidano, Fukuhara, Iwawaki, Soga, & Spielberger, 2002), the mean alpha for the trait version is .90 for
a sample of normal college students. The test-retest reliability over a 4-month períod is .76. This scale is also positively related to the anxiety trend measured by other scales, and personality traits such as neuroticism and negative emotions. Distress. The 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12; Goldberg & Williams, 1988), which is designed as a general measure of health and psychopathology, was used to measure distress. According to the Japanese version of the GHQ manual (Nakagawa & Daibo, 1985), outpatients with neurosis show higher scores than normal adolescents and adults. This scale is also positively correlated with scales related to anxiety for samples of normal adolescents.
Results and Discussion The correlations between the CFS scores and the psychological health scores are shown in Table 3. As predicted, all correlations were significant, indicating that the present approach supporíed the CFH. However, the CFH holds that fiexible coping predicts future psychological health. Therefore, in the following study, the CFH was tested by examining the association between coping fiexibility and later psychological health.
Table 3 Correlation Coefficients Between Coping Flexibility Scores and Mental Health Scores, Means, and Standard Deviations for Scores on all Variables in Study 4 Coping fiexibility Variable College student sample" Depression Anxiety Distress a Worker sample** Depression Anxiety Distress a » n = 326. " n = 140. **p < .01. * " p < . 0 0 1 .
Evaluation coping
Adaptive coping
a
-.34*" -.29*" -.22*" .80
-.32*" -.28"* -.25"* .85
.94 .85 .93
-.31*" -.29*" -.29*" .82
-.26" -.22" -.27"* .89
.90 .83 .88
KATO
268 Study 5
If the CEH is valid, then the CFS should predict later psychological health after controlling for the effects of typical coping strategies and the effects of coping flexibility as measured by existing approaches. It was expected that coping flexibility as measured by the CFS would add significant incremental validity in predicting good psychological health, beyond what can currently be accounted for by other approaches and strategies.
Method Participants and procedure. Participants were Japanese college students enrolled in introductory psychology classes. No pariicipant took part in any of the previous studies. After providing informed consent, they completed the different questionnaires in two phases over a 12-week period. Coping flexibility and coping behavior were measured at Time 1; depression as an indicator of psychological health was measured at Time 2. Each student received a course credit for participation. In order to avoid answering similar questions repeatedly, participants were divided into the following three groups. In Sample 1 (150 women and 85 men; mean age 20.03, SD = 1.81), coping behavior, coping reperioire, and coping fitness were measured using the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). In Sample 2 (119 women and 125 men; mean age 19.42, SD = 1.55), coping variation was measured using the WCQ. In Sample 3 (265 women and 163 men; mean age 19.17, SD = 1.19), coping fitness was measured on the basis of Cheng's studies (e.g., Cheng, 2009; Cheng et al., 2007). AU samples completed the CFS. Measures. The WCQ was used to assess coping flexibility in Samples 1 and 2 for the following reasons; As previously discussed, coping fitness has been generally assessed on the basis of match or fit between controllability and coping focus (i.e., problem-focused or emotion-focused coping). For assessing coping fitness, a coping scale must therefore have two subscales involving problem-focused and emotion-focused coping. The WCQ satisfies this condition because it consists of two modes that assess problem-focused and emotion-focused coping. Accordingly, the WCQ has been frequently used to assess coping flexibiUty (e.g., Conway & Terry, 1992; Park et al., 2001; VitaUano et al., 1990; Zakowski et al., 2001). In addition to the two modes, the WCQ has eight subscales used to measure coping behavior. Alphas for the WCQ subscales range from .67 to 81. The WCQ also predicts depression, anxiety, and psychosomatic symptoms in Japanese college students (Nakano, 1991). Coping behavior. The following eight subscales of the WCQ were used to measure coping behavior in Sample 1 : Planful Problem Solving, Confrontive Coping, Seeking Social Support, Accepting ResponsibiUty, Self-Controlling, Escape-Avoidance, Distancing, and Positive Reappraisal. Each subscale consists of eight items. Participants were asked to describe the most stressful episode they had encountered in the previous month. They were then asked to rate the extent to which they controlled the situation and the extent to which they coped with that particular episode. The rating scale of perceived controUabiUty ranged firom 0 (no control) to 7 (complete control); the coping behavior scale ranged from 0 (did not use) to 3 (used a great deal). Perceived controllability scores were used to assess coping fitness. Alphas for the eight
subscales of the WCQ ranged from .62 to .86 {M = 0.71) for this study. Higher scores on the coping strategies reflect greater use of these strategies. Coping repertoire. The eight subscales of the WCQ were used to assess coping reperioire. On the basis of the method used by Carver et al. (1993), the scores of each pariicipant (i.e., the number of subscales that reached above a sample median for each subscale) were counted as an indicator of coping reperioire. Higher scores reflect greater coping flexibility. Coping variation. An eight-item questionnaire was used to measure coping variation in Sample 1. Each of the eight items displayed one concept of the eight subscales of the WCQ. For example, in the case of Distancing, which is one of the WCQ subscales, the present item was cognitive efforts to detach oneself and to minimize the significance of the situation. Pariicipants were presented with four stressful events (academic, work, friendships, and romantic attachment^) and were asked to rate each item on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 {did not use) to 3 (used a great deal) to indicate the extent to which they coped with each event. On the basis of the method used by Fresco et al. (2006), a pariicipant's standard deviation across the four events was calculated for each of the eight coping styles. The eight standard deviations were then totaled for each pariicipant. Higher scores refiect greater flexibility in coping. Coping fitness. Two methods were used to measure coping fitness. In Sample 1, the perceived controllability score and the scores of two coping modes (problem-focused and emotionfocused coping) measured using the WCQ (see the Coping behavior section) were used. In order to assess the degree of fit between perceived controUabiUty and coping focus, the interaction terms between perceived controllability score and the scores for each coping mode were computed. According to Aiken and West (1991), the two predictors were standardized before computing the interaction terms. For this study, the alphas were .68 for problemfocused coping and .75 for emotion-focused coping. In Sample 2, coping fitness was measured on the basis of a recent study by Cheng (e.g., Cheng, 2009; Cheng et al., 2007). More specifically, pariicipants described two controllable and two uncontrollable episodes that they had encountered during the past month. They then described their coping response for each of the episodes. They reporied their coping goal by choosing one of the following: managing the problem that was causing the distress (i.e., problem-focused coping) or managing/reducing emotional distress (i.e., emotion-focused coping). A score of 1 was given to the use of problem-focused coping in a controllable episode, or emotion-focused coping in an uncontrollable episode. All other responses were given a score of 0. Thus, higher scores on coping flexibility indicate greater fiexibility. The CFS. The alpha coefficients for each of the three samples were .78, .81, and .71 for evaluation coping and .90, .90, and .87 for adaptive coping.
' On the basis of Kato's (2008) data, the four stressful events were selected from episodes that Japanese college students most frequently encountered. Thirty-five students who had not experienced all four events were excluded from the analysis; they were not included in the 244 participants in Sample 2.
COPING FLEXIBILITY HYPOTHESIS
Results and Discussion The correlation coefficients between the coping flexibility (assessed via the CFS) and depression scores were calculated to test the CFH. As predicted, evaluation coping for Samples 1, 2, and 3 (rs = —.37, —.34, and —.29, allps < .001) and adaptive coping for Samples 1, 2, and 3 (rs = -.25, - . 3 2 , and -.22, allps < .001) were negatively correlated with depression. Coping behavior and depression. Each score of the WCQ subscales was entered in Step 1, and each score of the CFS subscales was entered in Step 2 in Sample 1. The beta weights for both evaluation coping (ß = - . 2 8 , t = 3.86, p < .001) and adaptive coping (ß = — .17, / = 2.06, p < .05) were significant (sec Table 4). This indicates that coping flexibility as measured by the CFS predicted low depression even after controlling for the effects of popular coping strategies. This finding indicates that the CFS incrementally contríbutes to lower depression beyond other popular coping measures. Thus, the CFS offers something new to the measurement of coping flexibility that has not been captured by previous measures. Coping repertoire and depression; coping variation and depression. Depression was positively conelated with both coping reperíoire in Sample 1 (r = .13, p < .05) and coping varíation in Sample 2 (r = .27, p < .001), indicating that both approaches failed to supporí the CFH. Coping fítness and depression. Coping fitness was assessed in two ways. In order to test coping fitness as measured by the WCQ, a multiple regression analysis was conducted with depression as a criterion variable in Sample 1. Two coping modes (problem-focused and emotion-focused coping) and con-
269
trollability as well as their interactions were entered as predictors. Neither of the interaction effects was significant (ß = - . 1 7 , t = -0.71, p = .48; and ß = .11, / = 0.33, p = .74), indicating that coping fitness as measured by the WCQ fails to supporí the CFH. Coping fitness as measured on the basis of Cheng's studies (e.g., Cheng, 2009; Cheng et al., 2007) was negatively conelated with depression in Sample 3 (r = —.14, p = .003). Therefore, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted with depression as a críteríon varíable. The coping fitness score was entered in Step 1, and each score of the CFS subscales was entered in Step 2. The beta weights for both evaluation coping (ß = - . 2 3 , t = 4,66,p < .001) and adaptive coping (ß = - . 1 3 , / = 2.64, p = .009) were significant (see Table 4). Thus, coping flexibility as measured by the CFS significantly predicted lower depression even after controlling for the effects of coping fitness. These findings furíher supporí that the CFS incrementally contríbutes to lower depression beyond other approaches. These findings supporí the CFH, suggesting that the present approach to measuring coping flexibility is valid. However, there are several methodological issues concerning the WCQ. For example, alphas for the WCQ subscales ranged from .62 to .86 (M = 0.71) for the present study. However, a meta-analysis of 92 studies on the WCQ revealed that the mean alphas for each of the subscales ranged from .62 to .75 (Rexrode, Petersen, & O'Toole, 2008). Although the alphas for this study were somewhat higher than those of the meta-analysis, lower reliability estimates for the WCQ subscales have been found in other studies. Coping flexibility might need to be measured
Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Depression Score From Coping Flexibility Scores and Coping Strategies Scores in Study 5 95% CI Predictor Step 1 Coping fitness Step 2 Evaluation coping Adaptive coping Total R^ Step 1 Planful problem solving Confrontive coping Seeking social support Accepting responsibility Self-controlling Escape-avoidance Distancing Positive reappraisal Step 2 Evaluation coping Adaptive coping Total Ä^
LL
UL
.02** -4.83
-.14
-3.04*=*
-7.95
-1.71
-.83 -.45
-.23 -.13
-4.66"*** -2.63"**
-1.18 -0.78
-0.48 -0.11
-.29 .57 -.36 .48 -.25 .60 -.15 -.41
-.15 .21 -.14 .22 -.10 .18 -.06 -.16
-1.62" 2.67'** -1.95= 3.25"** -1.32= 2.78"* -0.78= -1.85=
-0.65 0.15 -0.73 0.19 -0.62 0.17 -0.52 -0.85
0.06 0.99 0.00 0.76 0.12 1.02 0.23 0.03
-.92 -.50
-.28 -.17
-3.86^*** -2.06'*
-1.39 -0.99
-0.45 -0.02
.10***
.12"*** .16***
.11***
.27"***
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. " n = 428. " « = 235. = df = 426. " df = 424. " df = 226. ' df = 224. */7
