Coping With Job Stress_A Conceptual Evaluation Framework for Coping Measures

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR. VOL. 13,479-508(1992)

Coping with job stress: A conceptualevaluation framework for coping measures

JANINA C. LATACK'Ohio Slate University, Department of Management and Human Resources, 356 Hagertv Hall.Columbus, OH43210, U.S.A.

AND

STEPHEN J. HAVLOVICSimon Fraser University. Faculty of Business Administration, Burnaby. BC, Canada V5A IS6

Summary Intense interest in stress had led to a proliferation of coping measures. To aid researchersin choosing or developing coping measures applicable to job stress, this paper providesa conceptual evaluation framework. The framework serves to evaluate the extent towhich coping measures are comprehensive (focus and method of coping) and specific(coping behaviors versus coping effectiveness, coping style, or coping resources; andstress management applications). Both theoretical and organizational stress managementperspectives are incorporated.

Introduction

The unprecedented managerial concern about detrimental effects of job stress continues togrow (Matteson and Ivancevich, 1987) and is unlikely to subside (Burke and Weir, 1980; Karasekand Theorell, 1990; Murphy, 1988). This concern is fueled by the widely-publicized estimatesthat stress costs American industry over $150 million annually in lost work time, accidentsand medical costs (Landers, 1987). The costs of stress, and the pressing need for research-basedinterventions were highlighted again recently by American Psychologist which devoted the major-ity of the October 1990 issue to workplace stress (Keita and Jones, 1990). In addition, a nationalconference, co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) brought world-renowned experts toWashington, D.C. to consider 'Work and Weil-Being: An Agenda for the 9O's'

Researchers interested in job stress have devoted considerable attention to how people cope(Kirmeyer and Dougherty, 1988; Latack, 1986; Schuler, 1985). In their review of personal andorganizational strategies for handling job stress, Newman and Beehr (1979) pointed out thatthere had been little rigorous evaluative research on coping strategies, an observation that

The authors express appreciation to Marjorie Stassen and Len Proper for excellent research assistance. Helpful commentson an earlier draft were provided by Ray Aldag, Terry Beehr, Tom Milbum and Amon Reichers.

Janina C. Latack is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Management and Human Resources at Ohio StateUniversity. Correspondence should be sent to the Faculty of Management and Human Resources, Room 356 HagertyHall, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210.

Stephen J. Havlovic is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Business Administration at Simon Fraser University.All correspondence should be addressed to the first author.

0894-3796/92/050479-30520.00 Received 3 January 1990© 1992 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Final Revision 21 June 1991

480 J. C. LATACK AND S. J. HAVLOVIC

Still holds today. Rigorous evaluation of coping depends, of course, on valid coping measures.Although there has been a proliferation of coping scales since Newman and Beehr's reviewarticle, many have not been evaluated beyond the specific sample and setting in which theywere developed. In other cases, multiple factor structures have been proposed for the samemeasure (Aldwin and Revenson, 1987).

Although coping is acknowledged as an important mechanism, researchers need frameworksfor organizing the existing coping literature into a cohesive whole (Edwards, 1988). This paperpresents a conceptual evaluation framework specifically focused on coping measures. The pur-pose is to aid researchers in selecting or adapting published coping measures as well as indeveloping new coping measures. First, we provide a conceptual definition of coping applicableto job stress. Next, we draw on coping theory and published coping measures to propose aframework for evaluating both comprehensiveness and specificity of coping measures. We explainhow this conceptual framework can serve as a crucial supplement to traditional psychometriccriteria in tests of complex job-related coping models. We conclude with suggested researchstrategies for advancing our knowledge of coping processes in work organizations. Our ultimategoal is to provide some order and integration that will advance coping research and spur appli-cation of new knowledge to pressing managerial problems. This goal is consistent with Cooperand Payne's conclusion that ' . . . the evidence on how to decrease stress and/or improve peoples'ability to cope with it is less than adequate, and much needs to be done to increase our knowledgebase in this area' (Cooper and Payne, 1988, p. 413).

Conceptual definition of coping

Empirical measures must be rooted in conceptual definitions of the constructs they are intendedto measure. A review of the conceptual definitions will pave the way for evaluating copingmeasures and highlight definitional issues relative to job-related coping.

Although not all of the empirical studies we reviewed offered an explicit conceptual definitionof coping, we summarize in Table 1 conceptual definitions of coping that were stated or couldbe inferred from statements by the authors. Many of the definitions utilized were borrowedor modified from earlier studies and researchers frequently cite the work of Lazarus and hiscolleagues (e.g. Lazarus and Launier, 1978). In most cases the coping definition was used toselect or develop the empirical measure(s) of coping.

Examination of the various definitions reveals some convergence around the notion thatcoping is part of a person-environment transaction that occurs when an individual appraisesa situation as stressful. Stressful situations can take the form of harm, threat or challenge(Beehr and Bhagat, 1985; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Schuler, 1985). The majority of definitionsdo not further define "stressful' but rather cast stress in terms of targets toward which copingis directed. In most cases the targets defined are the 'stressful situation (problem-focused coping)or the attendant negative emotions (emotion-focused coping)' (Aldwin and Revenson, 1987).Some definitions focus on one target, the emotional reactions, as in minimizing the 'impactof the strains' (Pearlin, Lieberman, Menaghan and Mullan, 1981).

Other researchers further define the concept of 'stressful', specifying the dimensions of asituation that will call forth coping responses. For example, Coyne, Aldwin and Lazarus (1981)state that 'coping refers to efforts, both cognitive and behavioral, to manage environmentaland internal demands and conflicts affecting an individual that tax or exceed a person's resources*Dewe (1987) refers to 'active or passive attempts to respond to a situation of threat with theaim of removing the threat or reducing the discomfort', Latack (1986) draws upon conceptual

COPING WITH JOB STRESS 481

Table 1. Synopsis of coping definitions

Author(s) Coping definitions

Aldwin andRevenson(1987)

Anderson (1976)

Billings and Moos(1981)

Burke and Belcourt(1974)

Carver ff a/. (1989)

Coyne era/. (1981)

Dewe(1987)

Feldman and Brett(1983)

Fleishman (1984)

Folkman andLazarus (1980)

Hall (1972)

Havlovic andKeenan(1991)

Ilfeld(1980)

Kinicki and Latack(1990)

Kirmeyer andDiamond (1985)

Kirmeyer andDougherty (1988)

'Coping encompasses cognitive and behavioral strategies used to manage a stressful situation(problem-focused coping) and the attendant negative emotions (emotion-focused coping)'

'The Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964) categorization of coping behaviorswas employed'. Class I Coping (task situation; problem-solving) and Class II Coping(emotional or anxiety reactions)

. . . we have chosen to focus on the cognitive and behavioral reactions individuals reportin response to stressful events which have occurred recently in their lives . . . ' [Method ofcoping: cognitive (intrapsychic) and behavioral strategies. Focus of coping: problem-focusedand emotion-focused coping]

'Burke (1971) and Mann (unpublished manuscript) attempted to determine specific activitiesmanagers undertook to cojie with job tension.... 'Some examples of these methods of copingwere: (1) Change to an engrossing non-work or play activity, (2) analyze the situation andchange strategy of attack (problem-solving), (3) withdraw temporarily from the situation,(4) work harder, and (5) talk situation through with others on the job'

The Lazarus (1966) stress definition is utilized. 'Lazarus argued that stress consists of threeprocesses. Primary appraisal is the process of perceiving a threat to oneself. Secondaryappraisal is the process of bringing to mind a potential response to the threat. Coping isthe process of executing that response'

'Coping refers to efforts, both cognitive and behavioral, to manage environmental and internaldemands and conflcits affecting an individual that tax or exceed that person's resources'

. . . coping can be defined as active or passive attempts to respond to a situation of threatwith the aim of removing the threat or reducing the emotional discomfort'

Combined definitions from Beehr and Newman (1978); Brett and Werbel (1980); Werbel (1980);Levi (1967); and Folkman and Lazarus (1980) in order to identify behavioral coping strategies

'Coping refers to both overt and covert behaviors that are taken to reduce or eliminatepsychological distress or stressful conditions.... behaviors that appear to have a primaryinstrumental nature will be distinguished from all other behaviors, and the latter will beconsidered as emotion-focused'

'Coping is defined as the cognitive and behavioral efforts made to master, tolerate, or reduceexternal and internal demands and conflicts among them'

'First, the person can alter external, structurally imposed expectations held by others, regardingthe appropriate behavior of a person in his or her position' (structural role redefinition). Thesecond type of coping involves changing one's personal concept of role demands receivedfrom others' (personal role redefinition). 'The third type of copying is reactive role behavior'

'The Aldwin and Revenson (1987) definition of coping is utilized in this study: "Copingencompasses cognitive and behavioral strategies used to manage a stressful situation (problem-focused coping) and the attendant negative emotions (emotion-focused coping)''

. . . coping styles are responses to ongoing stressors in daily roles. The following three majorpatterns emerge: taking direct action against the perceived stressor, rationalizing or avoidingthe stressor, and accepting the stressor without trying to change it definition of coping,attempt by a person to resolve life stressors and emotional pain . . . '

'Coping is conceptualized as cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage the internal andexternal demands of person-environment transactions appraised as stressful (Folkman andLazarus, 1985; Folkman cr a/., 1986)'

Coping is the cognitive and behavioral efforts made to master, minimize, tolerate or reduceexternal and internal demands' (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980, p. 223)'

'Although coping is broadly defined as cognitive and behavioral efforts directed at lesseningemotional distress and managing external demands (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), we limitedour measurement to problem-focused (as opposed to emotion-focused) strategies for alteringor managing one's work load'


Table 1 (contd.)

Author(s) Coping definitions

Latack (1986)

McCrae(1984)

Mitchell et al.(1983)

Newton andKeenan(1985)

O'Neill andZeichner(1985)

Osipow andSpokane(1984)

Parasuraman andCleek(1984)

Parasuraman andHansen(1987)

Parkes(1984)

Pearling/a/. (1981)

Pearlin andSchooler (1978)

Seiler and Pearson(1984)

Shinne/a/. (1984)

Siegler and George(1983)

Stone and Neale(1984)

Violantiera/. (1985)

Zappert andWeinstein(1985)

. . . coping is defined in this study as a response to situations characterized by uncertaintyand important consequences'

. . . Lazarus and Launier (1978) This article . . . adopts the strategy of examining a fairlylarge number of distinct coping mechanisms, rather than a few broad categories'

'Coping responses have been described as the cognitions and behaviors that people use tomodify adverse aspects of their environments as well as to minimize the potential threat arisingfrom such aspects (Lazarus, 1981; Moos and Billings, 1982; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978)—problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies . . . '

'A person's coping response will depend on how he or she perceives the stress encountered(Lazarus and Launier, 1978; Lazarus, Averill and Opton, 1974; Lazarus, Cohen, Folkman,Kanner and Shaefer, 1980; Weir, 1980)''Coping with stress has been defined as the cognitive and behavioral efforts that master,minimize, tolerate, or reduce internal and environmental demands' (Lazarus, 1980). Two majorclasses of coping responses have been formulated (Billings and Moos, 1982; Folkman andLazarus, 1980; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978): (a) problem-focused coping which regulatesstressful person-environment interactions, and (b) emotion-focused coping which regulatesstressful emotions'Coping responses, when they exist in adequate proportion, permit human beings not onlyto deal with a stress, but to increase their adaptive capacities as a consequence'

. . . coping behaviors were defined conceptually as individuals' overt attempts to alleviate orrespond to stressful conditions at work'. . . coping refers to the cognitive and behavioral efforts made by individuals to prevent, reduce,

or master stressful situations and their attendant consequences'

. . . problem-focused coping intended to alter the troubled situation was distinguished fromemotion-focused coping intended to control the emotional response to the situation Theconcepts of problem- and emotion-focused coping are based on theoretical arguments(Folkman et al., 1979; Lazarus and Launier, 1978)...'

. . . the identification of the coping behaviors people use to minimize the impact of the strains'

. . . the concept is being used here to refer to any response to external life strains that servesto prevent, avoid, or control emotional distress'Practice of selected coping techniques (Attention to personal interests and growth; Cultivationand maintenance of friendships; Recreational time-off from work; Participation in physicalexercise)'We define coping as efforts to reduce stress and strain. In particular, we conceptualize copingas occurring at three levels: (a) strategies used by individual workers, (b) strategies undertakenby groups of workers to aid one another (social support), and (c) strategies initiated by humanservice agencies'

Coping orientation (instrumental or palliative) and cross classified modes of coping(information seeking, direct action, inhibition of action and intrapsychic). (Lazarus andLaunier, 1978). . . those behaviors and thoughts which are consciously used by an individual to handle or

control the effects of anticipating or experiencing a stressful situation'

Attempts to adjust to job demands, specifically two coping responses: cynicism "mockingdisbelief and use of alcohol as a response to job stress

. . . the coping style index included items related to the ability to set limits and pace oneself,confidence in one's judgment, seeking feedback or information when faced with a problem,and attempting to be the best at all one does;... the coping strain index included items relatedto difficulties controlling temper or emotions, impatience, heightened sensitivity to criticism,self-doubt and self-blame, and inaction when confronting problems;...'


dimensions identified by Schuler (1985) to define coping as a 'response to situations characterizedby uncertainty and important consequences'

A broad, integrative definition of coping is adopted here to allow for inclusion of copingmeasures based on coping targets as well as dimensions of stressful situations. Such a definitionhas been offered by Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, Delongis and Gruen (1986). Theydefine coping as constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage the internaland external demands of transactions that tax or exceed a person s resources. This broad defini-tion allows for various specific coping targets that are internal (e.g. emotional reactions) orexternal (e.g. the situation). Further, the definition can subsume more specific dimensions ofwhat individuals find 'taxing' (e.g. uncertainty, important consequences).

This integrative definition merits discussion because it permits us to make three key distinctionsimportant to research on job stress: Coping behaviors or processes are a more appropriatefocus than stable coping "styles'; coping is separate from coping effectiveness; and coping appliesto challenge as well as harm and threat situations.

The focus is on coping behaviors or processes rather than a stable coping 'style' or personalitytrait (see Burke and Weir, 1980; Folkman, 1982; Goldstein, 1973; and Fleming, Baum andSinger, 1984, for reviews). This focus is important for ultimate application of research findingsto managerial interventions and training. If coping is conceptualized as a personality trait rela-tively stable across situations, coping research would have little practical value for managersexcept perhaps in selection or placement decisions. If, on the other hand coping is amenableto behavioral or structural intervention and training, new tools for stress management canbe identified.

This definition also distinguishes coping from coping effectiveness. That is, it defines copingin terms of what people do in specific situations without reference to whether or not it 'works'.Definitions that cast coping in terms of its effects such as 'preventing, avoiding or controllingemotional distress (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978) contain implicit effectiveness criteria. Thatis, coping is 'effective' if it prevents, avoids or controls individual distress.

Although avoidance or control of individual distress is one effectiveness measure, albeit acritical one, organizations are interested in other effectiveness measures as well, such as perform-ance or intention to quit. The wording of the conceptual definition of coping should not beconfounded with effectiveness criteria. The integrative definition offered here (Folkman et al.,1986) does not imply any criteria for coping 'effectiveness' Coping, not coping 'effectiveness'is therefore appropriate to our interest in organizational stress because this focus does notbias researchers regarding what constitutes effective coping. Accordingly, coping can be exam-ined in terms of influence on a range of dependent variables including effectiveness criteria.

Finally, this conceptual definition applies to stress that takes the form of challenge as wellas harm or threat. Although much of the coping literature emphasizes situations of harm orthreat, it has been argued that the motivational or opportunity aspect of stress must be consideredin job stress situations (Schuler, 1985). From an organizational point of view, it is valuableto conceptualize coping in a manner that allows for developmental stress or 'eustress' thatcan spur organizational productivity and innovation.

Coping measures: An evaluative framework

Theory building is both a deductive and inductive process. Our strategy is inductive in thatit uses empirical evidence as a base for theory development by examining the empirical studiescontaining coping measures to derive theoretical directions. Drawing themes from empirical


Studies and integrating them with coping theory (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) enables us toprovide a theoretical framework for interpreting a large body of unrelated studies that havenot been integrated. To build an evaluative framework, we conducted an extensive literaturesearch on coping (PSYCH/info and ABI/INFORM). Since our focus is on empirical measuresof coping, studies that included coping measures are summarized in Table 2. Others have pro-vided more general reviews of the voluminous coping literature (Edwards, 1988; Suls andFletcher, 1985; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Menaghan, 1983; Silver and Wortman, 1980).

Job stress research has emphasized contemporary management problems, so the reviewincludes measures published from the early 7O's up to present. Studies providing measuresspecific to job stress appear first, followed by studies presenting general measures of copingwhich apply across a variety of life roles and situations including work. Several measures havebeen used in multiple studies, in particular the Ways of Coping Checklist (Folkman and Lazarus,1980) and the coping scale from the Health and Daily Living Form (Moos, Cronkite, Billingsand Finney, 1983).

Our focus is on measures developed to assess individual coping processes (thoughts andactions) rather than stable coping styles. Although terminology used by researchers sometimesblurs this distinction (e.g. Ilfeld, 1980; Zappert and Weinstein, 1985), measures were includedin our review if they assessed actions and thoughts relative to specific stressful situations. Inaddition, contextual influences are central in stress research (Fleming et al., 1984). Therefore,we selected studies dealing with organizational or everyday life experience and excluded studiesof extraordinary job situations, e.g. hospice workers (Yancik, 1984) and major life crises andillness (see Moos and Billings, 1982 for a review).

The coping dimensions assessed by these measures are summarized in the far right coltimnof Table 2. The number of dimensions varies from one or two (Kirmeyer and Dougherty,1988; Violanti, Marshall and Howe, 1985) to 28 separate scales (McCrae, 1984). A sunmiaryof the derivation methodology for each study is provided in Appendix A.

A review of both Appendix A and Table 2 shows that a number of the coping scales havealready been evaluated by traditional psychometric criteria. Reported coefficient alphas rangefrom a low of 0.38 (Feldman and Brett, 1983) to a high of 0.92 (Carver, Scheier and Weintraub,1989). The average coefficient alpha across the 15 studies that reported this statistic was (0.71).A review of derivation methodology in Appendix A reveals that 12 of the 40 studies subjectedscales to factor analysis. For some studies, such as Hall (1972) factor analysis was not applicable(e.g. response to open-ended questions coded into categories). It has been argued by someresearchers that because of the complex, changing nature of coping, traditional psychometricevaluation measures may not be appropriate. For example. Stone and Neale (1984) note thatwithin a particular coping dimension, the use of one or two specific strategies may in factdecrease the need to use other strategies in that scale. This fact would place a ceiling on internalconsistency coefficients. Similarly, if coping is a dynamic process, changing over time, it maynot be surprising that when the same coping measure is used with different samples and differentsettings, the factor structure varies (Aldwin and Revenson, 1987).

The coping research literature has grown to the point where recurring conceptual distinctionscan be identified. It is not only possible but advisable to set some boundaries on the conceptualdimensions that should be included in coping measures in order to build our understandingof coping with job stress. Researchers can establish content validity by selecting coping itemswithin the coping dimensions of interest.

Relative to content validity of coping measures, there are three major questions that theexisting body of literature can help us answer. First, is the coping measure reflective of a clearconceptual definition? Second, is the coping measure comprehensive? That is does it include


00

'a.o

U

uO

a

0 0 ^

_o o. u•o o —

!3 g ^ ^

T3CCd

ioi

beha

v

•ou

n; a

do]

io:

3a

oaa

gu

esu

lea /o

lved

" ,<u

oo

o

•5 2 t-.

tjo 2

S'a

- g ^O -C •-- i;

cd

x: u ^ O itf flj ^*"^ 60 5 cd «) ^

— oii00 C . _ =5 > 2 . S

iicdcd

u cd a> 00

p - u c d c d Q c u o ' S CL,-£

j D 00 U5 • - •f*

•5 d

C TD ts 5 oii -a 2.-Sencd 13

o c xs

- c i c o"" •- O U

.S: Q jju c £:

cocd

en

I

o

I-4»

•s

ii'.C

ct»

o

'5b

a

u

a> -r* w J3 u 00

5 »>13l

4J OO

3)2

.E i j Cd

— U00

1oo

tean

rate

g1

stre

;

cd •-• " ^

•-S 00 %

2 .E «c o o

00

c

copi

cau

uE3

VJU

hang

i

o

job

and

00

2.o 00

•-3 .E

cd

S r 2u

3 00«^ cd

g gE E

_ed c

N u

C

o 3 _;,<i; o —8 M>«

l aIs

3 —'2 IIS

cd O

QQ

00

Ir00 2

c ^-2 Sl

^ S S2

C

o

"tS '

o£ C 13 2 .5 3

i2

a.5 2 JS 00

cc •- .c -a cd

^^3 c"5

lo C S 2i -H o W to S

c

ON

o »-Ji 00O, tdE CCd ^

00 ^

T3 CC O

^ s «

c 3,

l l^ 0

L2 ^

<e CJ

IIo ^a:

0,.2 J=


E•S00c'5.U

o

a.

cdC/5

08

00 teE S

00 1-^o dII II

•S -c3" a

g ^

s IIcd cd

tn cd4> '—'

§.6o

J^ w (0 S ccd.>; ^ tS oo !d 13 . , 2tn o - /-^ 3

•^ a, § so 5c if -x: o «E - ^ . § "3 qj C

X)

2 o

c i= te Cd Ea « o

cdco2

<C tn

••5 y

"2 O0T3

- E S

S2 8

y o •£ 2

cd cd

N

3T3r3cd

cdO00cd(J15U

oooas

/-• O J3 C OH CJ ts n o

u

c ^

- 1 3 S.SP^

^ S ^ P>S4

S Cd -5 U, S

g cT3 JS

1 - 3

oasas-o —§1§1^... o«2

55o

pol

iso

1^Z 5

•g™ a

.2 asQ

IsliIf-5 «*(£.E

"I

=

00

'Euuw

3 '-•O so22£?1) ^

IfT3 3< ^

N

Cd

^ Scd —

OX) "•« c ^

h 00

c .E -^^ b u

111"5 S ^

o00as

CJ

3cd

00as

NB

J


o

00

"S.oU

o

JJo.cd

1cd

o

IICT3

2 =1

§•y-SD

i:cd

3tn

11 IO flJ CJu >-< cdCJ tn 4.^

• S o «

'S Ca oo o

2 i«o I

IIi%ba O

.2S.S E

x: >«. g ^^%I sa^§•2; .2on -z: >. . u cd

CU Wa rs

o -s

11C .>cd 'fr^

00 CdI2 g ^ 00.2

•z; " i : JC a.H 5 o w

•= 5 -o

U x> cd

E you c >

IIIDM "5 cd

f!^

o « cd

13 —O 1^

Is o.

2S

cd_ I-^3 O

g -c c 5S <N ""Cd 00 ^

°" i*00 rt ; -

S •—' ®

c3 cd ^

"Oa *^ oh

C tn C ' S O „

tltlll

a

13E

cd

'ooc

'>"o

JO

o

52 '^2 , o ti "

2 c .2 ^ cd00 cd "^ *-• "5

8 ^ • = 2 c

o -otntn

isE oo o

C «1ooG

8

1 1 - 3 .>•i'3 i -oOaE a <

gotn tntn C" O

X I

00

o.oo

u

tn C 'S

i l l1) :t; cd•a s -z: o Tz: ^ 00

ld|.2

cd a , g cd " O* ^^ J^ *O ^ -^

M ' ^ . ^ cd -C cd

<3 Q-E 3-s

3CJ

_O

c 00

.8F

S §00 3 CC qs O ^'o. E '-S )(-, CJ OH u ,cd tn>-.S tn S

U Pa> ^ 3 Srv -<-.' rra ^

c =

cotn

i00 u

c *" OPJ= -Ti

g.r•s 2Cd Q ,cd t: u

.2,2

•3 Jl 2 2C tn -t- tn

• — cd <" Cen o 00 O« 2 C -S<«_.•=; u

- T ; tnO Ua

i2 .2 o

SBU.E

o

8E c^ 8

>ooa

c co u

Z

Cd X -^"Oa

DSD ^

T3 Ui

g |

^ E ^C* C tnO u u•EE.Eg (U 2

ooas

r^ C^

I> «5

>>ooo ^

ooas

00

C

00cd ^ ^c ocd ofa * ^

> s:

E 3

fc Cd

2 ccn • —

cd

.11en " . "

o

T3Ccdc

g5

I

ooas

c4>tn

cdX

cd

oCO

23C

cd

E

00

astn

I


CO

00

c'5,oU

o

Cfl

u

*-* a\ 1^

o>.o

o

o tis

.^"^ o g « ?^ cd C Cd u C

••g .> § S J s

•=* ° 2 .a S'S(u 00 t i •^ p! 5

tn

atn O«5 -

00

O f

g l

S o

2 - 6

il2 2

8. Icd •

^3E .2

ocd 5 4>« P <—EU

otn

5 13

I 3xT'rtvo f tiO 00 I

u 2cd •—O "Ll — tn

S C cd

o ti; X)

2 V cd

g Mis

00

cd

tnUob3cd

= I8

Io

c 2

8 c - ' * " gSJ 8.2 ^ § g.

. J u cd ^ "O S

(2 I §• E '-S 8

1c3

00

o 8^^ g

c •-

tnC

tn

cd

s

.E 00

</) CO^ N

00as

c jacd o

2XI OHO

a:- i " •" 5 oofe ^ ^ M l

00

'cLou

."2]>•g 00c asc <=>o o

i2 - ? S

^ tn .iir e tdO 3

« as. ' . t J " ? " o ' t n u e - :t/3 >W

oa .2, o

00

ocdtntnU

cd

o

^1

u tnen c>cd >

^1

tn ' -^ka SO1) ro

li

ka Cd

:3 CU

:5 =o

00 cd

g Cd

• 0 ?•g «i

iill

XI .Ea o

o cU o

00

ga.E

ccd

d, so' ' .

bo" 17 O

d j= 2- £ - • 0 .

£•13 <^cd tn

oII

Eg

g «e.2

6 ^.2 "ao ._

o .E ^ jri

LU E NS-OU

•2S

a-c t^ «f~- kaO tn

" O -cd .2 OXI ti 00

1S^ 0

osC II N

ka - 5 _O

.ESE £

asrO,ro3 00

fll^ 2

8-a^^as o00 cd «>2 >tcd c^^ cd00 . .

.E 00

tn OE II

i i CdX) ^

c

u£)a

StnC0

cdu

°ob00

•Cu>>tn

T3

cd

c 2

^ . S

l a

II

i2 iS


tn

O

00C'aoU

aI

u

"5.cd

u

^ 2 A en

d--2i JfT II -S I ^^-^cd tn U C O

II ^ 2 "S Si

ifiil

ao

'wouCCd

S00

cd

a —-3 003

nilI." •— J -

O u

£.2

Cd

r. a> C5 Q. O 00

• vH ' *• C *

•E s :2ry= o S o

1) ..3 .5a .—

ka (J O J5

. is S"3-,2 * *£3 ^ tn— C V > CCJ ka 'O ' 3 cd

2 "a 00 y E•4-rf C MJ q^ 1>

CO Cd ^ . ^ ka * O00

goue3O

tn

oCA

ods

aoo

S to

•5 g3 Cd

S

o 213 c> 4)

51

Cd O

CA CAU CA

2 «

2 ^o —

| g*C CA

^ aO UCJ ka

00 00C C

'500

O ;5 D*

o •« r:

S 2 °S E i2S'E

u cdc 00

«-H tn ka cd 2S 8 ^E

cd w

W . E

cou

o13

w cd

2 '»•

g as

! ^Sd.u>>.'3cd g

8.aII28

tt, 13

cd

CJ

2tn «.•C CO Otn u

•B2

3 <N £ .tn > o

J? —

•ol«=r II

111-o « oS U tn2n ka kaM O . OJ

u u a."> t 1)

O ODC cd

cd '-^ C

ICA ^ . ^

« Cd '-^

o3

•o ascd ^ "

ggIs

00

O

U

cd

cd

cd

S)o

U

ooa

tn'5in

8

cd


<N

tn

O

u

'•500

'5-oU

o

3

Icd

C/3

Oco

•a

tn UJj >

*oo]titd |>ka O g

. S "• Cd

IIIcoa2

1.2cd >cd cd

H 1 o

11111

co

uu

1 ccd ™ 002 c'-2•« .5 o

13co

8

iil.i it

iht

0en

a0

ence

(fl

u

g

.E

1XUi

•o

'33CJ

au

5es,

tl

g&•

res

0

tn

'Scd

CJ

00

8otntn

"5

• 0c00

copi

n

0tn

feet

tkaUU

T3

c

1%C0

. t icd

tnka

a

n 00

!7•^ c

u

o

cdcd

cdO

' o cdC ^cd "O

C IICd I-

a vo^ -O 00S c ascd cd r rS E <«

.a °^ cd ^

3

ob

o

1) 00jr C

B 3 !!:'§

< 3 - 7 '

tng 00

> E IIO r-

"3 Oo cd q

2 tn 00E u a

gasso tn Id 2i EII 0 0 ^cd.E-Sj= a £& o a13USP^E'I

3 u.5 t

00 cd 00 2

C J3 C •S

o ooja•Z3 c yO . g >»E U O<

S cd O

IJig c o

2 - « ctn (JP po

"o S'ocd S «=tj

cd

nila b

oA

kJ cd

"saU 00- c

••o'cLO tnut:

U J CA CA

g| o^ cS 2cu00

00 "O•s c> 00

c E

o cd

as

ucd

• 0

cdu

2r 1

00as>^2tn0

a«.a

ro00as

ao

:3ais tn

^.«C O.2 S

.ti o o§81 1 . 2

C cd . 'O ... C

. - . t n o(J tn -^?* fe cdka cd ^

c ^cd i>

ka tn

tn O

O O. tn<>a O P00^«^ t ^ •C O .

o E ^^ ^ CA - ^ ^0) CA ed

Q S 2

:S.^ o

> oC^ o^ II "^

11 ^ ^

^ II 2

• i tn C

cd

z

llo ^

1/3

COPING WITH JOB STR ESS 491

coverage of important, recognized coping concepts? Third, is the coping measure specific! Thatis, does it clearly reflect important distinctions that have emerged in the coping literature toseparate coping from other constructs and to illustrate important conceptual details aboutthe nature of coping?

To further define the comprehensiveness and specificity criteria, we drew important conceptualdimensions from coping theory (e.g. Beehr and Baghat, 1985; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984;Schuler, 1985) and coalesced recurring conceptual distinctions noted by researchers or observedin the content of the measures. This is not to say that other conceptual distinctions mightnot also be valuable. Rather, we offer these conceptual dimensions as both prominent andapplicable to job stress research. We see them as threshold criteria that enable us to builda working evaluative framework to be potentially refined or expanded.

Conceptual definition

As can be seen in Table 1, some researchers are relatively imprecise or casual about offeringa clear statement of a conceptual definition of coping. In some cases the reader must infera definition. Thus, an initial evaluation criteria in our framework is whether or not the researchershave clearly and explicitly stated the conceptual definition on which the coping measure isbased.

Unless the authors specifically state how coping is being defined, it can be unclear whichstatement or statements in the introductory discussion serve as the base for the coping scale.Once the conceptual definition is isolated, researchers can make an initial assessment as towhether or not the coping scale is generally consistent with the definition. As is evident fromthe integrative conceptual definition provided earlier, several specific criteria emerge and theseare discussed later under 'Specificity

Comprehensiveness

Comprehensiveness includes two coping dimensions: Focus of coping'—The target toward whichthe coping behavior is directed—the problem (situation at hand) or the individual emotionalreactions; and 'Method of coping'—The mechanism or mode the person uses during the copingprocess—cognitive versus behavioral, proactive/control versus escape/resignation, and socialversus solitary. Comprehensive studies would therefore exhibit both focus and method of copingcomponents.

Focus of coping: problem versus emotionThis major distinction highlights perhaps the most widely-accepted conceptual dimensions inthe coping literature (Edwards, 1988). The pioneering work on role stress by Kahn, Wolfe.Quinn, Snoek and Rosenthal (1964) and an extensive research program by Lazarus and hiscolleagues (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) has solidified the value of distinguishing between prob-lem and emotion-focused coping. Kahn et al. (1964) proposed a two category typology: ClassI Coping (task situation, problem-solving) and Class II Coping (dealing with emotional oranxiety reactions). In subsequent research (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), the labels 'Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping' have become popular. Problem-focusing coping is definedas efforts aimed at altering the person-environment transaction and emotion-focused copingrefers to efforts aimed at regulating the emotions.

Several of the measures summarized in Table 2 were based on this problem/emotion-focusdistinction (e.g. Anderson, 1976; Kirmeyer and Dougherty, 1988; Manzi, 1986). For example.


in Anderson s (1976) study of small business owner-managers, the coping strategy, obtainingresources to counter loss' was classified as problem-focused while "withdrawal' was classifiedas emotion-focused.

Other researchers have proposed a third category, appraisal-focused coping (Billings andMoos, 1981; Latack, 1986; Moos and Billings, 1982). Appraisal-focused coping, sometimesreferred to as cognitive reappraisal, consists of modifying the meaning or cognition of thesituation. Empirical data, however, is more supportive of the two global distinctions of problem-or emotion-focused (Mitchell, Cronkite and Moos, 1983; Moos et al., 1983).

As the numerous coping dimensions in Table 2 reveal, however, the global distinction ofproblem/emotion-focused coping is insufficiently specific to capture the various subdimensionsthat have emerged in coping research. Empirical analyses of the Ways of Coping Checklist,for example, (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980) have identified subscales within the a/jr/ori problem/emotion-focused categories. The number and content of these subscales differs across samples.Aldwin and Revenson (1987) factor-analyzed the Ways of Coping Checklist and identifiedfour emotion-focused factors, three problem-focused factors and one factor which combinedboth problem and emotion-focused strategies—support mobilization. In another sample, onegeneral problem-focused factor emerged with six emotion-focused subscales (wishful thinking,help-seeking/'avoidance, growth, minimize threat, emotional support and blame selO (Coyneetal., 1981).

In addition, Latack s (1986) coping measure, which specifically focused on job stress, includeditems that measured problem-focused (direct action), appraisal-focused (cognitive reappraisal)and emotion-focused (symptom-management). Empirical evaluation did not confirm separatedimensions for problem-focused and appraisal-focused. Rather, these dimensions were moreclearly understood according to the method of coping (control/escape)as discussed in the nextsection.

Method of coping: cognitive/behavioral; control/escape; social solitaryThis second conceptual dimension provides order to the numerous subdimensions that haveemerged within the global problem/emotion-focused categories. That is, problem- or emotion-focused coping can be comprised of a variety of methods.

First, and most basically, coping can be cognitive (mental strategies and self-talk) and beha-vioral (taking action or doing something). For example, emotion-focused coping can take acognitive form as in trying to see the positive side of things (Billings and Moos, 1981) orthinking about the stressful situation as an opportunity to learn and develop new skills (Latack,1986). Emotion-focused coping can also be behavioral in method such as exercising more orsmoking (Billings and Moos, 1981). Many well-known symptom-management coping strategiesfall into the emotion-focused behavioral category, popularly referred to as the "gelusil, jogging,and gin approach (Switzer, 1979). Similarly, problem-focused coping can also be cognitivesuch as taking extra care to plan and organize (Latack, 1986; Parasuraman and Cleek, 1984)or behavioral, such as trying to find out more about the situation (Billing and Moos, 1981).

Although the cognitive/behavioral coping distinction is a prominent theme in the copingliterature, some measures are ambiguous on this point. This issue is explored later when weillustrate how to apply the framework to coping measures. It is sufficient to note here, however,that many researchers separate cognitive coping, which refers to self-talk, mental planningand other solitary cognitive activity from behavioral coping, or more readily-observable be-havioral actions.

The distinction between proactive/control-oriented methods versus escapist/avoidance


methods is also evident. For example, in evaluating a job-related coping measure Latack (1986)found that items clustered in dimensions that reflected two methods: Control and Escape. Controlstrategies showed a proactive, take-charge approach (e.g. making a plan of action, thinkingpositively about one's capabilities). Escape strategies consisted of staying clear of the personor situation or trying not to get concerned about it. Clearly, the proactive, control approachdiffers conceptually from escapist strategies but each can focus on the problem or the emotionalreactions.

This control-escape distinction has been confirmed in other coping measures. For example,O'Neill and Zeichner (1985) grouped items into two control methods (active cognitive andactive behavioral) and one escape method (avoidance). A review of coping dimensions in Table2 repeatedly suggests that control-oriented strategies such as action (Ilfeld, 1980) or optimisticaction (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978) are empirically distinct from escape-oriented strategies suchas rationalization-resignation (Ilfeld, 1980) and substitution of rewards and selective ignoring(Pearlin and Schooler, 1978).

A third category of coping method is social versus solitary. Coping can utilize methods thatinvolve other people or it can be done alone. For example, one can seek out informationfrom others about the job (Feldman and Brett, 1983) or one can remind oneself that workisn t everything (Latack, 1986). The concept of'cooperative task reduction' (Lang and Marko-witz, 1986) is, by definition, a social coping method whereas "doing things by myself insteadof with other people' (Osipow and Spokane, 1984) reflects an explicit choice not to use socialcoping.

The social coping dimension is evident in many coping measures, probably because socialsupport has emerged as a central concept in coping research (see Cohen and Wills, 1985 fora review). In particular, the role that social support may play in generating coping strategieshas been explicitly highlighted of late (e.g. Latack, 1989; Thoits, 1986).

Specificity

Specificity refers to three major distinctions: 'Coping versus coping effectiveness'—The claritywith which the dimensions tap coping rather than coping effectiveness; 'Coping behaviors versuscoping style or coping resources'—The extent to which the dimensions focus on coping behaviorsrather than stable traits or resources habitually used; and 'Stress management applications'—Theextent to which the dimensions suggest stress management applications. Measures which arespecific do not include effectiveness criteria, coping style or resources. More specific measuresalso examine coping in terms of behaviors with stress management applications.

Coping versus coping effectivenessJob-related coping items should allow for independent assessment of coping and coping effective-ness. Coping measures do not always make this distinction. For example. Burke and Belcourt(1974) confound coping and coping effectiveness with the stem used to generate responses.By asking respondents for ways they had found useful in handling tensions and pressuresof their jobs, they are measuring coping and coping effectiveness together—at least they areassessing one effectiveness measure, namely the respondents judgement of 'useful' Similarly,a coping item labeled a priori as maladaptive' contains both coping ('Working harder .. ')and coping effectiveness ( ' . . . but making more mistakes^ Parasuraman and Cleek, 1984).

Some of the Osipow and Spokane (1984) items imply effective coping as well. For example,the statement 'I find engaging in recreational activities relaxing' implies by one effectiveness


criteria at least, relaxation, that the person is already coping "effectively'. Similarly, the statement'Once they are set, I am able to stick to my priorities' implies a certain resolution or efficacyas does, 'I am able to put the job out of my mind when I go home' Although the majorityof items do not contain such clear implications of coping effectiveness, this discussion exemplifiesthe kind of conceptual analysis that researchers could use to evaluate the specificity of itemsrelative to coping versus coping effectiveness distinctions.

We argue that coping measures should specifically address coping, not coping effectiveness.The a priori labels, conceptual definitions and coding schemes as well as the coping itemsshould point us toward independent assessment of a range of both coping and outcome variablesthat constitute data on effects and effectiveness. Thus, researchers can evaluate one specificitydimension by examining first the author's conceptual definition and then both the stem anditem content of the coping questionnaire in order to insure that coping is measured independentlyof coping outcomes. (See Lazarus DeLongis, Folkman and Gruen (1985) and Aldwin and Reven-son (1987) for a discussion).

Coping processes versus coping style versus coping resourcesThe second specificity dimension is the extent to which it is clear that the coping measureassesses coping processes (thoughts and actions) in specific stressful transactions as opposedto a stable coping style or coping resources regularly used. This is perhaps the thorniest concep-tual dilemma that emerges from this review. That is, how specific does the stressful transactionhave to be to qualify as "specific'? Researchers have taken different approaches and ultimatelythe decision must be made according to each researchers' conceptualization of the stress processand research purpose.

There are studies of life stress that focus on specific roles in life such as work, family, economicand social (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978; Ilfeld, 1980). In these studies, the stressful transactionis the individual's relationship with that particular role. The coping measure then assesses howpeople deal with stress in these specific life roles.

There are, however, more specific approaches. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) focus on a specific"encounter' They ask respondents to recall specific stressful incidents that occurred recentlyand respond with a particular incident in mind. Others ask respondents about a particulartype of common job stress (role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, etc.) and ask for specificcoping strategies in each of these situations (Lang and Markowitz, 1986; Latack, 1986). Stillothers approach coping from the standpoint of a specific occupation, and have develop>ed copingitems for a specific job, as did Kirmeyer and Dougherty (1988) in their study of police officers.Finally, Osipow and Spokane's (1984) measure asks about resources that people have to "counter-act the effects of occupations stress' and assesses the extent to which various actions and thoughtscharacterize the person s approach on a regular basis.

Clearly, asking someone what s/he does on a regular basis differs in level of conceptualspecificity from asking for specific thoughts and behaviors in a specific stressful incident ortypes of incidents on the job. However, complex models of coping must account for boththe strategies an individual draws upon in situations as well as coping resources because copingdepends upon coping resources. Although Osipow and Spokane (1984) specify their intentto develop a generic occupational stress measure, the item content provides a conceptual framefor coping assessed by determining the extent which someone utilized various resources ina particular stressful situation.

As our discussion has suggested, the issue of coping versus coping style or coping resourcesis raised to a large extent by the stem and response scale of the measure. Asking an individual


to respond with a specific stressful encounter in mind (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) is moreeffective in assessing coping behaviors whereas asking an individual to adopt a more globalperspective about what s/he does to counteract the effects of occupational stress (Osipow andSpokane, 1984) is more likely to tap characteristic style or habitual use of various copingresources. It has been suggested that situational specificity is addressed in coping measuresthat solicit responses to a particular stressful encounter. Occupational specificity refers tomeasures that operationalize general coping dimensions in terms specific to an occupation.This distinction is important, because situational specificity is achieved by the orientation ofthe entire measure, whereas occupational specificity is achieved by the content of the itemsthemselves"

At some point, asking about a situation that is very general or asking about regular useof certain coping strategies equates to assessing a cross-situationally stable coping style orcoping resources. On the other hand, development of measures that are highly job specificretards the evaluation of complex coping models because of lack of generalizability. We recom-mend a middle-range strategy which is discussed under 'Future research' in the concludingsection of the paper.

Stress management applicationThe final criteria is applicability of empirical results to stress management in organizations.That is, to what extent does the coping measure suggest specific management interventionsand training for employees in how to deal with stress on the job?

Academic researchers have been criticized for focusing on research that does not tie closelyto practical organizational problems (Behrman and Levin, 1984). Clearly, the field of manage-ment knowledge cannot be advanced if it is driven solely by pragmatic concerns. Inherentin coping research, however, is the ultimate application of this knowledge to reducing thehigh costs of stress in organizations. Economic projections and continued growth in workerscompensation claims related to job stress lend a particular urgency to the management impli-cations of research in this area. In addition, the current wave of organizational restructuringhas layered a new form of stress on managers and employees that has intensified the pressureon researchers for management solutions.

Furthermore, the specificity-generalizability balance may be a difficult one to achieve becausecontextual influences are critical factors in understanding job stress. Since organizational culturesundoubtedly influence the types of coping strategies used, management may want a specialized,organization-specific approach as a base for stress management interventions. On the otherhand, coping research argues for sufficiently generic measures so that other researchers mightuse the measure to advance theoretical understanding.

Therefore, one conceptual issue is in fact a practical one: What do these measures suggestfor helping managers address coping and stress management? Clearly, the more general thesituation and coping behaviors assessed, the less specific will be the possible suggested alterationsto employee behavior, work organization structure and processes, management strategy andemployee training. Thus, the more general coping measures in Table 2 are more ambiguousrelative to implications for managerial intervention.

Having explained the major dimensions of the evaluative framework, comprehensiveness andspecificity, we now illustrate how these dimensions can be utilized to evaluate job-related copingmeasures, and conclude with several recommendations for future coping research.

The authors express appreciation to an anonymous reviewer for this idea.


Evaluative framework applied to job-reiated coping measures: Anillustration

To show how the framework might be used by researchers examining or developing job-relatedcoping measures. Table 3 illustrates the evaluative dimensions with a 2 x 2 matrix whichhighlights focus, method and specificity. The value of this conceptual framework is twofold.It imposes order on the burgeoning coping literature and it supplements traditional psychometriccriteria for scale development and evaluation.

First, the framework provides order and integration to the rapidly growing literature ongeneral as well as job-related coping. This enormous literature can appear disorganized andunrelated, especially to researchers who are in the initial phases of a research program onthis topic, or to researchers who wish to integrate coping concepts into other naturally-relatedorganizational research domains such as organizational entry^ or careers (Latack, 1989).

Second, it provides a valuable supplement to traditional psychometric criteria such as factoranalysis or measures of internal consistency. Although more concrete, these measures sometimesyield conflicting results relative to the usefulness or the potential improvement of a particularcoping measure.

The remainder of the discussion applies the various conceptual dimensions to examples ofcoping measures drawn from Table 2. Although we have focused on job stress, the approachoffered here is applicable to any coping measure and other research purposes.

Evaluating comprehensiveness: Focus and method

The comprehensiveness dimension is first addressed with the 2 x 2 matrix which shows a cross-classification of coping items by focus (problem/task and emotions/reactions) and method (cogni-tive and behavioral). In addition, cognitive and behavioral coping methods can be furtherclassified by control versus escape dimensions. Behavioral coping methods can be further classi-fied as social versus solitary.

Problem/emotions and cognitive/behavioralThis cross-classification by focus and method was chosen because this four-way conceptualdistinction was widely acknowledged in both the theoretical and empirical literature (e.g. Billingsand Moos, 1981; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Sample items that appear in Table 3 (cellsA, B, C and D) were drawn from the coping measures that focused on job stress or generalmeasures that included job-related coping dimensions (see Table 2). Placing items in the appropri-ate cell illustrates how coping measures could be unbundled along conceptual lines to evaluatethis most basic aspect of comprehensiveness. Those measures that are comprehensive would,at a minimum, contain items that tap these four basic conceptual dimensions. For example,a cognitive item is: 'I think about how I might best handle the problem' (Carver et al., 1989).Although the item in cells C and D have been selected to illustrate the distinction betweenfour subdimensions of coping (control/escape; social/solitary), it should be noted that thesedimensions could also be nested. In cell C, for example, 'Ask caller to hold .. . is both asocial and a control strategy. Similarly, 'Express your irritation to other work colleagues justto be able to let off steam' (cell D), is both a social and an escape coping strategy.

Furthermore, some items are generally written such that they are ambiguous relative to the

' Wanous, J. P. Personal conversation, January 13,1989.

COPING WITH JOB STR ESS 497

Table 3. Evaluative framework applied to coping measures

FOCUSProblem/task Emotions/reactions

Method* Control:Planning, organizing and prioritizingassignments (Parasuraman and Cleek,1984)

CognitiveEscape:Try to pay attention only to yourduties in order to overlook difficultiesin your work situation (Menaghan andMerves, 1984)

A

CSocial:Sit down and talk things out (Ilfeld,1980)

Solitary:I do what has to be done, one step ata time (Carver et al., 1989)

Control:Behavioralt Ask callers to hold; delay or leave

undone some of normal jobresponsibilities (Kirmeyer andDougherty, 1988)

Elscape:Got busy with other things in order tokeep my mind off the problem (Billingsand Moos, 1981)

Control:Try to think of myself as a winner — assomeone who always comes through; Getmad at yourself and tell yourself that youcould have avoided the situation (Dewe,1985)

Escape:Tell yourself difficulties are unimportant(Fleishman, 1984); I am able to put myjob out of my mind when I go home(Osipow and Sopkane, 1984)

B

DSocial:Express your irritation to other workcolleagues just to be able to let off steam(Dewe, 1985)

Solitary:Spend time on a hobby (O'Hare andTamburri, 1986)

Control:Had no emotional reaction (McCrae,1984) not communicating distress toanyone (Parkes, 1984)

Escape:Change to a nonwork activity (Burke andBelcourt, 1974); taking pills, smokingmore (Feldman and Brett, 1983)

Critical specificity questions:(1) Coping rather than coping effectiveness?(2) Coping thoughts and actions as contrasted with coping style or coping resources?(3) Applicability to job stress situations?

•Cognitive coping methods have a solitary classification.tThe four subdimensions of behavioral coping are not mutually exclusive, but rather could be nested (e.g. in cellC, 'Ask callers to hold . . . ' is both a social and control strategy. See text, p. 496.

Other subdimension. For example, 'Got busy with other things' (cell C) could be escape/solitaryor escape/social depending on what those 'other things' were.

An initial evaluation of the comprehensiveness dimension could look at the representationacross the four cells of coping items within a particular coping measure. In some measures,not all four cells are represented. For example, Kirmeyer and Dougherty (1988) assessed onlyproblem-focused behavioral coping (cell C). The Osipow and Spokane (1984) measure has fewerproblem-focused behavioral strategies (cell C) and emphasizes items that fall within the otherthree cells (A, B and D). Violanti et al. (1985) assess only emotion-focused cognitive coping(cynicism—cell B) and emotion-focused behavioral coping (alcohol use—cell D). This is not


a criticism of these measures per se; there are research-driven reasons for selecting certaincoping dimensions. The point is that focusing on certain coping dimensions and excludingothers should be a conscious theoretical choice. Researchers will want to examine coping measuresto determine if the measure is comprehensive vis-a-vis their research purpose.

If items cannot be clearly classified into one cell, item content may contain both behavioraland cognitive strategies. For example, 'Analyzing the situation and changing the strategy ofattack' (Burke and Belcourt, 1974; Howard, Rechnitzer and Cunningham, 1975) is suggestiveof both cognitive and behavioral strategies. Although the cognitive/behavioral distinction isnot always a clean one, some items in coping measures conceptually confound cognitive andbehavioral coping even when the distinction could be made according to the definitions offeredearlier. That is, references to cognitive coping emphasize solitary, mental activities; behavioralcoping strategies emphasize doing something, taking action. Although one could argue that,broadly speaking, all coping has both cognitive and behavioral components, we believe thatthis qualitative distinction is a major point for future coping research. Clearly, analyzing thesituation emphasizes thinking while changing the strategy of attack suggests doing or takingaction. In a coping item that refers to planning and organizing (Parasuraman and Cleek, 1984),we could argue that planning is the more clearly cognitive aspect whereas organizing is moresuggestive of taking action. Finally, although people may solicit social support in order toimplement cognitive strategies, the action of soliciting social support is qualitatively distinctfrom the thoughts that are facilitated by the social support that is obtained.

Since the evaluative framework is intended to help researchers develop new measures aswell as revise existing measures, we believe that despite the ambiguities, continued efforts todistinguish the qualitative differences between cognitive and behavioral action coping are import-ant. Whether or not these strategies or orthogonal or oblique remains an empirical question.Fvidence indicates that cognitive and behavioral items may cluster together in some sampleswhile in other cases, factors that are only behavioral or cognitive appear (Latack, 1986; O'Neilland Zeichner, 1985; Siegler and George, 1983). Many existing measures have not fared toowell on traditional psychometric criteria, and this problem may be due, in part, to conceptuallyconfounding cognitive and behavioral coping. If we do not at least attempt to separate theseconstructs in the wording of our measures, these empirical questions cannot be addressed.One value of the framework would be to spur revision or adaptation of existing coping measuresso that empirical questions about qualitative differences in the nature of coping can be furtherexplored.

Finally, measures of coping that are less comprehensive may originate with the conceptualdefinition that frames the measure. For example, Pearlin and Schooler's (1978) definition castscoping in terms of alleviating emotional distress. It is not surprising, therefore, that two ofthe three occupational coping factors were emotion-focused strategies (substitution of rewardsand selective ignoring). If researchers agree that our coping definition is appropriate for jobstress research, then a review of researchers' conceptual definitions may preview the copingdimensions that are emphasized in the measure.

Other dimensions that define method of coping are illustrated in Table 3: control versusescape and social versus solitary. These evaluative dimensions, as noted earlier, constitute import-ant comprehensiveness considerations.

Social versus solitaryThe social versus solitary distinction mainly applies to cells C and D. As the items in cellsA and B (Table 3) suggest, cognitive coping is by definition mostly solitary. Comprehensivemeasures would include both social and solitary activities, particularly given the interest in

COPI NG WITH JOB STR ESS 499

social support. Furthermore, since social support specific to the workplace is emerging as acritical variable in understanding job stress, it may be important to include items that specificallytap coping related to various work-related support sources (e.g. supervisors, coworkers).

Evaluating comprehensiveness of coping measures would include an examination of whetheror not both social and solitary behavioral items are included. For example, in measures ofcoping related to role overload, Lang and Markowitz (1986) include both "cooperative taskreduction' (e.g. delegation and getting help from others) and "unilateral task reduction (e.g.cutting back on work). In contrast, the item, 'Express feelings to self and others' (Dewe, 1987)combines both solitary and social coping. It may be important not only to cover both socialand solitary coping, but also to separate social and solitary items so that social and solitarycoping effects can be specifically evaluated.

Control/escapeThe control versus escape distinction is also important. Clearly, a strategy that involves discus-sion with supervisors or making a plan of action is quite different conceptually than simplyavoiding the situation or trying not to think about it. Although there has been an historicalbias against escapist strategies and "defense mechanisms' (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), studiesof relaxation methods and exercise suggest that periodic escape is a necessary component ofcoping. Furthermore, escape strategies that are cognitive in nature, including denial processes,may in fact be a very valuable coping mode in situation where the person is not yet readyto deal actively with the problem or where the situation is not amenable to change (see Lazarusand Folkman, 1984, pp. 134-138). An illustration of a cognitive escape item is 'I cope byforgetting about the restructuring until it happens' (Ashford, 1988).

Our review of coping measures indicates that several of the job-related coping measuresemphasize problem-focused coping that is both behavioral and control-oriented (e.g. 'Takesome action to get rid of difficulties'; Fleishman, 1984). Scales that mention control-orientedcognitive strategies in the problem-focused category tend to be limited to mental planningor organizing. Few scales cover control-oriented emotion-focused categories (e.g. 'Try to thinkof myself as a winner'; Latack, 1986).

Escape-oriented behavioral strategies apply mainly to cell D. That is, these strategies, bydefinition tend to not be problem-focused because they are designed to get the person awayfrom the situation. Very few job-related studies assess escape-oriented behavioral strategies(e.g. 'When I need a vacation, I take one'; Osipow and Spokane, 1984). This omission ofescape/avoidance items makes the measure less comprehensive.

We have noted two coping dimensions within cells B and D that have been de-emphasizedin job stress research. To make job-related coping measures more comprehensive, researcherscould include more control-oriented emotion-focused coping as well as escape-oriented be-havioral coping.

Evaluating specificity of coping measures

After examining the comprehensiveness dimension, the list of specificity dimensions in the lowerportion of Table 3 guides evaluation of the extent to which measures make important, specificdistinctions relative to job stress: Coping versus coping effectiveness, coping versus copingstyle or coping resources, and applicability to stress management in organizations.

In using the critical specificity questions to examine coping measures contained in the studieslisted in Table 2, we found that some of the items implied coping effectiveness versus copingdimensions. For example, 'Obtaining resources to counter initial loss' (Anderson, 1976); and


'Accept the job as it is and not let it get to you' (Dewe, 1987). In each case a high scoreon the coping measure would suggest a successful or effective outcome.

We were also able to identify coping measures which were assessing coping style or resourcesrather than coping thoughts and actions. For example, the general question posed by Shinn,Rosario, Morch and Chestnut (1984) 'What do you do to cope with the stress and strain ofyour particular job?' while very specific in terms of applicability to job stress has strong copingstyle and/or coping resource implications. In cell C of Table 3, the Solitary item from Carveret al. (1989) states, 'I do what has to be done, one step at a time' implies a certain style ofcoping on a regular basis.

Relative to applicability to job stress situations, the items in Table 3 show varying degreesof specificity. Items in cell D are probably the most general in focus. As is evident in someof the items, however, it is possible to make them job-focused (e.g. 'Express your irritationto other work colleagues .. '). Other items have no connection to job situations and reflectstrategies for getting away from the job to hobbies or other symptom-management strategiessuch as taking pills. At the other end of the continuum are items such as that from Kirmeyerand Dougherty (1988), which applies only to jobs where it is appropriate to place callers onhold.

There are two points for researchers to bear in mind relative to job specificity. First, althoughit is appropriate for some emotion-focused items to focus on areas unrelated to job situationsbecause they deal with management of symptoms, it is important to make at least some copingitems in all four cells specifically applicable to job situations. Studies of job-related stress andsocial support (e.g. Payne, 1980; Schlossberg and Leibowitz, 1980; Seers, McGee, Serey andGraen, 1983) confirm the importance of coping that is rooted in and supported by the workplace.Second, if items are very occupationally-specific, they cannot be generalized across a varietyof jobs. Both of these points should be kept in mind as researchers consider the potentialimpact of their findings on stress management interventions.

The evaluative framework presented here would be a useful tool for stress management inter-ventions in organizations. It is clear that stress management interventions have primarily targetedindividual-level coping (Ivancevich, Matteson, Freedman and Phillips, 1990). Furthermore, theseprograms tend to be aimed at escape-oriented emotion-focused coping (e.g. relaxation training)or at cognitive emotion-focused coping (e.g. cognitive modification training). Stress researcherscontinue to be critical of organizational efforts aimed at symptoms rather than fostering indivi-dual control over conditions of working life (Karasek and Theorell, 1990). Clearly, a reviewof Table 3 suggests that interventions can target numerous other types of individual copingstrategies that are more problem-focused and control-oriented. The framework presented herecould be used to review the scope of stress management efforts with an eye toward takinga more comprehensive and preventive approach to stress management interventions.

Future research on coping: Suggested strategies

The preceding discussion and illustration points toward suggested strategies to advance futureresearch on coping with job stress in organizations. Specifically, we suggest use of the evaluativeframework in choosing existing coping measures or developing new coping measures, the pursuitof a middle-range strategy relative to situational specificity of coping, and the continued broaden-ing of research on stress management intervention in organizations.

The framework illustrated in Table 3 serves as a conceptual blueprint for selecting fromamong previously-developed coping measures, for adapting measures for a particular situation


and for development of new coping measures. In this process, researchers could perform ananalysis similar to that provided in our preceding discussion to insure that coping measuresused will be both comprehensive and specific in light of important themes that have emergedin coping theory and research.

Second, the issue of situational specificity merits further attention. One strategy is a middle-range' approach to the dilemma of job-specific versus general coping measures. Clearly, wecannot develop measures specific to every job situation or generalizability of findings will bea problem. A middle-range approach would be to identify categories or types of stress situationsfrom organizational research. For example, role conflict and role overload are common stressors.More recently, job loss and the stressors unique to specific roles (e.g. boundary spanners) ororganizational events (e.g. restructuring) have been identified. These represent categories ofspecific job stress situations that are sufficiently common to be a useful specific focus. It ispossible to identify common themes in these situations that will service as the fabric for specificcontent of coping measures.

We suggest that researchers might want to begin with one of the more job-oriented copingmeasures and compare it to the general measures for missing content that should be added.Alternatively, researchers could adapt the general measures to focus on job stress among aparticular occupational group or setting. This strategy may make it possible to tie empiricalefforts to both theory and stress management solutions. An example of this approach is reflectedin a recent adaptation of Latack s (1986) coping measure (Kinicki and Latack, 1990). Theory-based coping items that originally dealt with role stress were reworded to apply specificallyto job loss. Another example is Ashford's (1988) study of strategy for coping with organizationaltransitions, which focused on employees of the Bell System during divestiture.

The focus of this paper has been the conceptual content of the coping measures. However,an important additional focus for establishing construct validity would be evaluation of thelinkages between coping and other variables in the nomological net. Preliminary to use ofcoping measures for model testing, evidence of convergent and discriminant validity shouldbe presented. This would involve examining relationships between coping measures and a varietyof theoretical correlates including individual variables (e.g. stress symptoms. Type A personality,self-esteem) and environmental factors (e.g. social support). In addition, the examination ofconstruct validity should include the process dimension—i.e. coping is dynamic and changesover time. Examination of this aspect of coping theory has been hampered by the fact thatthe majority of the studies have been cross-sectional. It has been argued that coping researchis an area where longitudinal studies are not only recommended but required (Latack, 1986).

It has been noted that several research issues related to stress management interventions(SMI's) need attention, including a stronger theory base, targeting situational stressors andfocusing on relapse prevention (Ivancevich et al., 1990). The evaluative framework here couldbe used to broaden this stream of research along the lines suggested.

First, the framework guides the theoretical development SMI research. As previously noted,the current narrow focus on symptom-management strategies reflects implicit assumptions aboutthe conceptual domain of coping. Clearly, the cells in Table 3 convey a much broader theoreticaldomain to be attended to in SMI research.

Additional studies that target situational stressors are needed. Using the framework providedhere, future studies on SMI's could focus on situation stressors directly relevant to variouscategories of coping. For example, many of the problem-focused coping strategies suggest situa-tional interventions such as participation, supervisory coaching training, conflict managementskills, etc. The situational interventions should make it more likely that people can use certaintypes of control or social coping strategies.


Finally, a focus on relapse prevention studies suggests utilizing coping as a dependent variable.To date, outcome variables have been limited to attitude and stress symptom measures. Copingoutcomes have been generally overlooked. Studies of relapse prevention dictate assessmentof coping over time. Does an individual's use of various coping strategies change or broadenas a result of the intervention? Do these coping strategies hold over time? The use of theevaluative framework presented here could inform both the theoretical scope and empiricalrigor of future SMI studies as we look toward increasing our capability for preventive stressmanagement.

To conclude, the evaluative framework offered here is presented as a departure point. Assuch, additional evaluative dimensions may emerge as recurring themes. As our knowledgeof coping continues to accumulate, new dimensions may be added to the framework and existingones may be refined. Our goals were to provide a mechanism for imposing meaning on a largebody of research, a set of criteria for choosing among existing coping measures and a conceptualblueprint for developing new measures or for adapting existing measures specifically to jobstress. In the process, a summary of coping measures applicable to job stress was providedand important conceptual issues for research were discussed. Ultimately, we hope this analysiswill move us forward toward theoretically-based coping measures that can be used for testingcomplex coping models and for contributing solutions to costly stress management problemsin organizations.

References

Aldwin, C. M. and Revenson, T. A. (1987). 'Does coping help? A reexamination of the relation betweencoping and mental health'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 337-348.

Anderson, C. R. (1976). 'Coping behaviors as intervening mechanisms in the inverted-U stress-performancerelationship'. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 30-34.

Amirkhan, J. H. (1990). 'A factor analytically derived measure of coping: The coping strategy indicator'Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1066-1074.

Ashford, S. J. (1988). 'Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions'. Journalof Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 19-36.

Beehr, T. A. and Bhagat, R. S. (Eds.) (1985). Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations: An IntegratedPerspective, Wiley, N.Y.

Behrman, J. N. and Levin, R. I. (1984). 'Are business schools doing their job?' Harvard Business Review,62, 140-146.

Billings, A. G. and Moos, R. H. (1981). 'The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuatingthe impact of stressful life events'. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139-157.

Billings, A. G. and Moos, R. H. (1984). 'Coping, stress, and social resources among adults with unipolardepression'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 877-891.

Burke, R. J. and Belcourt, M. L. (1974). 'Managerial role strain and coping responses'. Journal of BusinessAdministration, 5(2), 55-68.

Burke, R. J. and Weir, T. (1980). 'Coping with the stress of managerial occupations . In: Cooper, C. L.and Payne, R. (Eds) Current Concerns in Occupational Stress, Wiley, Chichester, U.K., pp. 299-335.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F. and Weintraub, J. K. (1989). 'Assessing coping strategies: A theoreticallybased approach'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.

Cohen, S. and Wills, T. A. (1985). 'Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis'. PsychologicalBulletin, 9S, 310-351.

Cooper, C. L. and Payne, R. (1988). Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work, Wiley, Chichester,U.K.

Coyne, J. C , Aldwin, C. and Lazarus, R. S. (1981). 'Depression and coping in stressful episodes'. Journalof Abnormal Psychology, 90, 439-447.

Dewe, P. J. (1985). 'Coping with work stress: An investigation of teachers' actions'. Research in Education,33, 27^0.


Dewe, P. J. (1987). 'Identifying strategies nurses to cope with work stress', Journal of Advanced Nursing,12,489-497.

Edwards, J. R. (1988). 'The determinants and consequences of coping with stress'. In: Cooper, C. L.and Payne, R. (Eds) Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work, Wiley, Chichester, U.K.,pp.233-263.

Feldman, D. C. and Brett, J. M. (1983). 'Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new hires andjob changers'. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 258-272.

Fleishman, J. A. (1984). 'Personality characteristics and coping patterns'. Journal of Health and SocialBehavior, 25, 229-244.

Fleming, R., Baum, A. and Singer, J. (1984). 'Toward and integrative approach to the study of stress'.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,939-949.

Folkman, A. F. (1982). 'An approach to the measurement of coping'. Journal of Occupational Behavior,3,95-158.

Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. (1980). 'An analysis of coping behavior in a middle-aged communitysample'. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C , Delongis, A. and Gruen, R. J. (1986). 'Dynamicsof a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal coping and encounter outcomes', Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S. and Novacek, J. (1987). 'Age differences in coping processes'.Psychology and Aging, 2, 171-184.

Goldstein, M. J. (1973). 'Individual differences in response to stress', American Journal of CommunityPsychology,\,m-m.

Hall, D. T. (1972). 'A model of coping with role conflict: The role behavior of college educated womenAdministrative Science Quarterly, 17, 471-486.

Havlovic, S. J. and Keenan, J. P. (1991). 'Coping with work stress: The influence of individual differences .Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.

Holahan, C. J. and Moos, R. H. (1986). 'Personality, coping, and family resources in stress resistance:A longitudinal analysis'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 389-395.

Howard, J. H., Rechnitzer, P. A. and Cunningham, D. A. (1975). 'Coping with job tension—effectiveand ineffective methods'. Public Personnel Management, 4, 307-326.

Ilfeld, F W., Jr. (1980). 'Coping styles of Chicago adults: Description, Journal of Human Stress, 60,2-10.

Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T., Freedman, S. M. and Phillips, J. S. (1990). 'Worksite stress managementinterventions', American Psychologist, 45, 252-261.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, D. and Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organization Stress:Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, Wiley, New York.

Karasek, R. and Theorell, R. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of WorkingLife, Basic Books, New York.

Keita, G. P and Jones, J. M. (1990). 'Reducing adverse reaction to stress in the workplace: Psychology'sexpanding role', American Psychologists, 45, 1137-1141.

Kinicki, A. J. and Latack, J. C. (1990). 'Explication of the construct of coping with involuntary jobloss'. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 339-360.

Kirmeyer, S. L. and Diamond, A. (1985). 'Coping by police officers: A study of role stress and typeA and type B behavior patterns'. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 6, 183-195.

Kirmeyer, S. L. and Dougherty, T. W. (1988). 'Work load, tension, and coping: Moderating effects ofsupervisor support'. Personnel Psychology, 41, 125-139.

Landers, S. (1987). 'Rising work stress claims his employers right in the pocket' APA Monitor, August,6-7.

Lang, D. and Markowitz, M. (1986). 'Coping, individual differences, and strain: A longitudinal studyof short-term role overload'. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 1, 195-206.

Latack, J. C. (1986). 'Coping with job stress: Measures and future directions for scale development'Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 377-385.

Latack, J. C. (1989). 'Work, stress and careers: A preventive approach to maintaining organizationalhealth'. In: Arthur, M. B., Lawrence, B. S. and Hall, D. T. (Eds) Handbook of Career Theory, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.Lazarus, R. S. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Coping and Adaptation, Springer, New York.


Lazarus, R. S. Delongis, A., Folkman, S. and Gruen, R. (1985). 'Stress and adaptation outcomes: Theproblem of confounded measures', American Psychologist, 40, 770-779.

Lazarus, R. S. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer Publications, New York.Lazarus, R. S. and Launier, R. (1978). 'Stress-related transactions between person and environment'.

In: Pervin, L. A. and Lewis, M. (Eds) Perspectives in International Psychology, Plenum Press, NewYork.

Manzi, P. A. (1986). 'Cognitive appraisal, stress, and coping in teenage employment'. The VocationalGuidance Quarterly, 34, 160-170.

Matteson, M. T. and Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Controlling Work Stress: Effective Human Resource arulManagement Strategies, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

McCrae, R. R. (1984). 'Situational determinants of coping responses—loss, threat, and challenge'. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 92,433-448.

McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986). 'Personality, coping, and effectiveness in an adult sample'.Journal of Personality, 54, 385-405.

Menaghan, E. G. (1983). 'Individual coping efforts: Moderators of the relationship between life stressand mental health outcomes'. In: Kaplan, H. B. (Ed.) Psychological Stress: Trends in Theory and Research,Academic Press, New York, pp. 157-191.

Menaghan, E. G. and Merves, E. S. (1984). 'Coping with occupational problems: The limits of individualefforts'. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 406-423.

Mitchell, R. E., Cronkite, R. C. and Moos, R. H. (1983). 'Stress, coping and depression among marriedcouples'. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 433-448.

Moos, R. H. and Billings, A. G. (1982). 'Conceptualizing and measuring coping resources and processes'In: Goldberg, L. and Breznitz, S. (Eds) Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects, FreePress, New York, pp. 212-239.

Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. C , Billings, A. G. and Finney, J. W. (1983). The Health and Daily LivingForm Manual. Social Ecology Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, StanfordUniversity and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA.

Murphy, L. R. (1988). 'Workplace interventions for stress reduction and prevention'. In: Cooper, C. L.and Payne, R. (Eds) Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work, Wiley, Chichester, U.K.,pp. 301-339.

Newman, J. E. and Beehr, T. (1979). 'Personal and organizational strategies for handling job stress:A review of research and opinion'. Personnel Psychology, 32, 1-43.

Newton, T. J. and Keenan, A. (1985). 'Coping with work-related stress'. Human Relations, 38, 107-126.O'Hare, M. M. and Tamburri, E. (1986). 'Coping as a moderator of the relation between anxiety and

career decision making'. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 255-264.O'Neill, C. P and Zeichner, A. (1985). 'Working women: A study of relationships between stress, coping

and health'. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 4, 105-116.Osipow, S. H. and Spokane, A. R. (1984). 'Measuring occupational stress, strain and coping'. In: Oskamp,

S. (Ed.) Applied Social Psychology, Annual 5, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 67-86.Parasuraman, S. and Cleek, M. A. (1984). 'Coping behaviors and managers affective reactions to role

stressors'. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 179-193.Parasuraman, S. and Hansen, D. (1987). 'Coping with work stressors in nursing: Effects of adaptive

versus maladaptive strategies'. Work and Occupations, 14, 88-105.Parkes, K. R. (1984). 'Locus of control, cognitive appraisal, and coping in stressful episodes'. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 655-668.Payne, R. (1980). 'Organizational stress and social support'. In: Cooper, C. L. and Payne, R. (Eds) Current

Concerns in Occupational Stress, Wiley, Chichester, U.K., pp. 269-298.Pearlin, L. J., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G. and Mullan, J. T. (1981). 'The stress process'. Journal

of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356.Pearlin, L. I. and Schooler, C. (1978). 'The structure of coping'. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,

19,2-21.Schlossberg, N. K. and Leibowitz, Z. (1980). 'Organizational support systems as buffers to job loss'.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17,204-217.Schuler, R. S. (1985). 'An integrative transactional process model of coping with stress in organizations'.

In: Beehr, T. A. and Bhagat, R. S. (Eds) Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations: An IntegratedPerspective, Wiley, New York, pp. 347-374.


Seers, A., McGee, G. W., Serey, T. T. and Graen, G. G. (1983). 'The interaction of job stress and socialsupport: A strong inference investigation'. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 273-284.

Seiler, R. E. and Pearson, D. A. (1984). 'Dysfunctional stress among university faculty EducationalResearch Quarterly, 9, 15-26.

Shinn, M., Rosario, M., Morch, H. and Chestnut, D. E. (1984). 'Coping with job stress and burnoutin the human services. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 864-876.

Siegler, I. C. and George, L. K. (1983). 'The normal psychology of the aging male: Sex differences incoping and p)erceptions of life events'. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 16, 297-299.

Silver, R. L. and Wortman, C. B. (1980). 'Coping with undesirable life events'. In: Garber, J. and Seligman,M. E. P. (Eds) Human Helplessness: Theory and Applications, Academic Press, New York, pp. 279-340.

Stone, A. A. and Neale, J. M. (1984). 'New measure of daily coping: Development and preliminaryresults'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 892-906.

Suls, J. and Fletcher, B. (1985). 'The relative efficacy of avoidant and non-avoidant coping strategies:A meta-analysis'. Health Psychology, 4, 249-288.

Switzer, L. (1979). 'Gelusil, jogging and gin: How executive educators deal with stress'. Executive Educator,1, 27-29.

Thoits, P. A. (1986). 'Social support as coping assistance'. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,54,416^23.

Wanous, J. P. and Colella, A. (1989). 'Organizational entry research: Current status and future directions'.In: Rowland, K. M. and Ferris, G. R. (Eds) Research in Personnel and Human Resources, JAI, Greenwich,CT.

Violanti, J. M., Marshall, J. R. and Howe, B. (1985). 'Stress, coping, and alcohol use: The police connection'.Journal of Police Science and Administration, 13, 106-110.

Yancik, R. (1984). 'Coping with hospice work stress'. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 2, 19-35.Zappert, L. T. and Weinstein, H. M. (1985). 'Sex differences in the impact of work on physical and

psychological health', American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 1174-1178.


Appendix A. Methodology for coping measures

Author(s) Methodology

Job stressAnderson (1976) Coding of critical incidents into coping categories

Burke and Belcourt(1974)

Coping responses coded from answers to three open-ended questions, (e.g. 'Ourjobs occasionally demand a good deal from each of us. What ways have youpersonally found useful in handling the tensions and pressures of your jobs?')65 per cent of responses fell into five categories

Carver et al. (1989) Identified 12 coping factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 using principal-factors factor analysis with an oblique rotation. For each scale Cronbach alphaand test-retest reliabilities are calculated. Correlations between the coping scalesare also presented

Dewe (1985)

Dewe (1987)

Factor analysis used to identify one direct-action (problem-focused) and fivepalliative (emotion-focused) coping factors

Identified six major coping strategies using principal components analysis

Feldman and Brett Coping measures developed from reviews of coping literature(1983)

Havlovic and A modified version of the Latack (1986) coping scale was developed based uponKeenan (in press) factor analysis

Howard et al. Coping techniques questionnaire based on Burke (1971)(1975)

Illfeld (1980) A priori categories of coping across life roles; factor analysis identified two factors:action and rationalization-resignation

Kinicki and Latack(1990)

Eighteen judges place 39 coping items into five categories (control; escape;symptom management; more than one of these; none of these strategies). Twentyitems showing content validity were factor analyzed

Kirmeyer and Subjects completed a modified version of the 'Ways of Coping' questionnaireDiamond (1985) (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980). Items judged inappropriate or potentially offensive

were deleted, reducing the length of the questionnaire from 64 to 51 items

Kirmeyer andDougherty (1988)

Lang andMarkowitz (1986)

Latack (1986)

Manzi (1986)

Menaghan andMerves (1984)

Problem focused coping items were used with a 5-point scale. ('... they ratedhow often they had (1) asked callers to hold while they finished dealing withother complaints, (2) delayed or left undone some of their normal jobresponsibilities, (3) spent less time than usual handling each request or complaintfrom the public, (4) shortened conversations with other employees, and (5)provided more or less individualized attention than usual to police officers whoradioed in with requests')

Measured coping strategies using a modified version of Hall's (1972) model

Coping measures developed from review of coping literature. Assessed: actionto change stressor situation, cognitive reappraisal and symptom-managementcoping. Cluster analysis suggested three subscales: control, escape, and symptom-management

Utilized the Ways of Coping Checklist (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980)

Measured four specific occupational coping efforts: (Pearlin and Schooler's (1978)coping scales): direct action, comparisons, selective ignoring, and restrictedexpectations


Appendix A (contd.)


Job StressNewton and

Keenan (1985)

O Hare andTamburri (1986)

O'Neill andZeichner(1985)

Osipow andSpokane (1984)

Parasuraman andCleek (1984)

Pasasuraman andHansen (1987)

Parkes(1984)

Pearlin £>/a/. (1981)

Pearlin andSchooler (1978)

Seiler and Pearson(1984)

Shinny/a/. (1984)

Violanti e/a/. (1985)

Zappert andWeinstein (1985)

General measuresAldwin and

Revenson (1987)Amirkhan (1990)



To assess coping behavior respondents were asked 'How did you handle theincident described above?' Responses were initially coded using a 29-categorycoding frame. Reliability analysis of coping behavior coding frames yielded aCohen kappa value of 0.81. Initial 29 category coping set reduced to 15 becauseof the similarity of categories. These 15 items were collapsed into five higher-orderclasses of coping

A modified version of the Latack (1986) coping scale was utilized. Factor analysisrevealed four types of coping: support, efficacy, reactive and avoidant

A 20-item list of coping responses (modified version of the Billings and Moos(1981) 19-item checklist) was applied to a recent job stress event. Frequency andlevel of effectiveness were rated on two separate 5-point Likert-type scales. Itemswere grouped into three methods-of-coping categories and two focus-of-copingcategoriesCoping items for Personal Resources Questionnaire developed from review byNewman and Beehr (1979)

Coping measures developed by coding responses to open-ended questionnaireasking for possible behavior by employees faced with stressful working conditionsCoping measured using a 15-item checklist. Factor analysis revealed problem-solving and emotional coping factorsWays of Coping Checklist (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980). Identified general,direct, and suppression coping factors

Confirmatory factor analysis of Economic Coping items yielded evidence of'positive comparisons' and 'devaluation' factors

Coping patterns assessed with items developed from exploratory interviews.Factor analysis of occupational coping items showed substitution, optimistic andignoring coping factors

Questionnaire which included items on coping methods. Principal componentsanalysis identified four coping factors: personal interest, comraderie, recreation,and physical exercise

Individual coping responses assessed with the question. 'What do you do to copewith the stress and strain of your particular job?' Responses were coded intosix coping categories

Cynicism measured as a coping strategy on a 12-item scale adopted fromNiederhoffer (1967). Use of alcohol as a coping response determined by the answerto the following statement: 'I have used alcohol to relieve the stress of policework.' The item was scored on a 5-point scale

Developed indexes measuring coping style and coping strain

Ways of Coping scale factor analyzed revealing: emotion-focused, problem-focused, and combination coping strategies

Used factor analytic investigation which confirmed three fundamental copingstrategies

Measured how individuals dealt with personal crisis or stressful life event with19 items. The items were grouped by method and focus of coping categories

Revision and expansion of Billing and Moos (1981) coping measures

508 J. C. LATACK AND S. J HAVLOVIC

Appendix A (contd.)


General measuresCoyne e/a/. (1981)

Fleishman (1984)

Folkman andLazarus

Hall (1972)

Holahan and Moos(1986)

McCrae (1984)

McCrae and Costa(1986)

Mitchell et al.(1983)

Siegler and George(1983)

Stone and Neale(1984)

Ways of Coping checklist (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980). Describe coping strategyused for most recent stressful events

Scale adapted from Pearlin and Schooler (1978). Factor analysis for work copingyielded four factors similar to Pearlin and Schooler (1978)

Ways of Coping checklist: Items covered defensive coping (avoidance),information-seeking, problem-solving, palliation, inhibition of action, directaction, and magical thinking

Coping behaviors coded from open-ended question, 'How do you deal with theseconflicts [experienced between your various roles in life]?'

Health and Daily Living Form (Moos et al., 1983) was utilized to measureavoidance coping

Ways of Coping checklist (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980) and CopingQuestionnaire developed from coping literature. Factor analysis plus rationaljudgement identified 28 separate coping scales—mean alpha = 0.63; four scaleswere 1-item

Modified version of the Ways of Coping checklist (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980)and 50 new items measuring coping mechanisms

Coping items from Moos, Cronkite, Billings and Finney (1983)

Coding of open-ended responses according to matrix of coping orientation bycoping modes (Lazarus and Launier, 1978)

Initial attempts to develop checklist based on a priori categories from copingliterature abandoned due to problems with internal consistency. Ultimately usedcategory labels with definitions and coded participant responses

Coping With Job Stress_A Conceptual Evaluation Framework for Coping Measures

Documents

Transcript of Coping With Job Stress_A Conceptual Evaluation Framework for Coping Measures