Coping With Interpersonal Stress: Role of Big Five Traits · ported interpersonal family stressors...

Coping With Interpersonal Stress: Role of Big

Five Traits

Dayna Lee-Baggley, Melady Preece,

and Anita DeLongis

University of British Columbia

ABSTRACT Seventy-one couples living in a stepfamily context re-ported interpersonal family stressors and related coping strategies dailyfor 1 week in a daily process study. The role of personality and of thestressful context in each of the spouse’s coping was examined. Personalitywas assessed via the Five-Factor Model (Neuroticism, Extraversion,Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness). Twotypes of stressors emerged as primary dimensions of stepfamily stress:marital conflict and child misbehavior. These were treated as contextualfactors in multilevel modeling analyses examining the independent andinteractive effects of personality and situation on coping. Nine subscalesof coping were examined based on three main functions of coping: prob-lem-, emotion- and relationship-focused. Both the situational context andthe five dimensions of personality examined were significantly and inde-

Dayna L. Lee-Baggley, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia,

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Melady Preece, Department of Psychology,

University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada; Anita DeLongis, Depart-

ment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada.

This research was supported by grants to the third author from the Social Science

and Humanities Research Council of Canada and fellowships to the first author from

the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and the Social Science and Hu-

manities Research Council of Canada. This research is based on a thesis submitted by

the first author. The factor analysis is based on a thesis submitted by the second au-

thor. We would like to thank Jennifer Campbell and Teresa O’Brien for their help at

earlier stages of this project.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anita DeLongis,

Department of Psychology, 2136 West Mall, University of British Columbia, British

Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z4. E-mail: [email protected].

Journal of Personality 73:5, October 2005r Blackwell Publishing 2005DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00345.x

pendently related to coping-strategy use. Moreover, there were significantpersonality-by-context interactions. The present study highlights the im-portance of considering personality in context when examining copingbehaviors.

Personality plays an important role in almost every aspect of the

stress and coping process. Personality has been linked to the likeli-hood of experiencing stressful situations (Bolger & Schilling, 1991;Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995), the appraisal of an event as stressful

(Gunthert, Cohen & Armeli, 1999), the likelihood of engaging incertain coping strategies (David & Suls, 1999; McCrae & Costa,

1986; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Rim, 1986; Watson & Hubbard,1996), and the effectiveness or outcomes of these coping strategies

(Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Gunthert et al., 1999).One model of personality that has been found particularly useful

in understanding coping is the Five-Factor Model, a broad basedtaxonomy of personality dimensions that arguably represent the‘‘minimum number of traits’’ needed to describe personality (David

& Suls, 1999, p. 276; McCrae & Costa, 1985). These personality di-mensions are Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness (O),

Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C). As reviewed below,research examining the role of personality in coping strategy use has

been focused on the role of N and E, resulting in only limited studyof the other dimensions. However, studies that have examined all

five traits suggest that these latter dimensions may add meaningfullyto our understanding of the stress and coping process (David & Suls,

1999; Hooker, Frazier & Monahan, 1994; O’Brien & DeLongis,1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996).

Coping and the Five-Factor Model of Personality

Neuroticism (N). Individuals high on N are prone to experiencenegative emotions such as depression, anxiety, or anger and tend to

be impulsive and self-conscious (for reviews see McCrae, 1992;McCrae & Costa, 1987). N has been found to be related to the use

of coping strategies that are typically related to poorer outcomes(Holahan & Moos, 1987; Maitlin, Wethington, & Kessler, 1990;Vitaliano, Mairuro, Russo, & Becker, 1987) such as an increase in

end-of-day distress (Gunthert, et al., 1999) or increased anger anddepression on subsequent days (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995). Those

1142 Lee-Baggley, Preece, & DeLongis

higher on N have been found to use more passive or emotion-

focused strategies such as escape avoidance, self-blame, wishfulthinking, and relaxation, as well as interpersonally antagonistic

means of coping such as hostile reactions, catharsis (venting of neg-ative emotions), confrontative coping (David & Suls, 1999; Gunt-

hert, et al., 1999; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996) or interpersonalwithdrawal (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996). Typically, they have also

been found to report lower levels of problem-focused coping (David& Suls, 1999; Endler & Parker, 1990; Gunthert et al., 1999; Hooker

et al., 1994; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Rim, 1986) than do thoselower on N. Furthermore, research suggests that even when thosehigher on N use putatively adaptive strategies, such as problem

solving, the use of these strategies tends not to result in positiveoutcomes (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995).

Extraversion (E). Extraverts have a propensity to experience pos-

itive emotions and tend to be sociable, warm, cheerful, energetic, andassertive (McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1987). As compared to

those lower on E, research suggests that those higher on E engage inhigher levels of problem-focused coping (Hooker et al., 1994;McCrae & Costa, 1986; Rim, 1986) and employ less maladaptive

forms of emotion-focused coping such as self-blame, wishful think-ing, and avoidance (Hooker et al., 1994). Individuals higher on E

tend to use more adaptive forms of emotion-focused coping (Hook-er et al., 1994; McCrae & Costa, 1986), such as support seeking

(Amirkhan, Risinger & Swickert, 1995; David & Suls, 1999; Hookeret al., 1994; Watson & Hubbard, 1996), positive thinking or reinter-

pretation (McCrae & Costa, 1986; Watson & Hubbard, 1996), andsubstitution and restraint (McCrae & Costa, 1986).

However, not all the findings regarding the role of E in copinghave been consistent. For example, several investigators have failedto find a significant relationship between E and either problem-

focused coping (Hooker, et al., 1994; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996)or generally adaptive forms of emotion-focused coping such as seek-

ing support and accepting responsibility (David & Suls, 1999;O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996). Notably, these studies have examined

E holding constant the effects of the other Big Five traits. Toour knowledge, in the only study of E to use a daily process meth-

odology in which participants were followed across time and situa-tions, E was positively associated with a variety of emotion-focused

Coping With Interpersonal Stress 1143

coping strategies and not solely the putative adaptive forms (David

& Suls, 1999).

Openness (O). Those high on O tend to be creative, imaginative,curious, psychologically minded, and flexible in their thinking (Costa

& McCrae, 1992). They are likely to experience a diversity of emo-tions, to have broad interests and a preference for variety, and to

hold unconventional values (McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1987).Evidence suggests those higher on O are more likely to employhumor in coping (McCrae & Costa, 1986), to engage in positive re-

appraisal (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996),and to think about or plan their coping (Watson & Hubbard, 1996).

Further, evidence suggests they are less likely to rely on faith(McCrae & Costa, 1986; Watson & Hubbard, 1996) and that they

tend to respond empathically to close family members and friendseven during times of stress. This latter finding has been interpreted to

suggest that they are open to both their own feelings as well as to thefeelings of others (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996). However, some stud-

ies have found no significant relations between O and coping (Hook-er, et al., 1994), and others have found O to be only a weak predictorof coping (McCrae & Costa, 1986; Vickers, Kolar, & Hervig, 1989).

Agreeableness (A). Those high on A tend to be altruistic, acqui-

escent, trusting and helpful (McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1987).Consistent with models of A, individuals higher on A are more likely

to cope in ways that engage or protect social relationships such asseeking support (Hooker et al., 1994; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996;

Vickers et al., 1989) and avoiding confrontation (O’Brien & De-Longis, 1996). They appear less likely to employ emotion focusedcoping strategies such as self-blame, avoidance, wishful thinking

(Hooker et al., 1994), or disengagement (Watson & Hubbard, 1996)as compared to those lower on A. Further, those higher on A tend to

use positive reappraisal and planful problem solving (Vickers et al.,1989; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). The findings related to A have

generally been modest in strength (Hooker et al., 1994; Vickerset al., 1989). In the only daily process study of which we are aware,

A was unrelated to coping strategy use (David & Suls, 1999).

Conscientiousness (C). Those higher on C tend to be organized,reliable, hard working, determined, and self-disciplined (McCrae,


1992; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Little research has examined the role

of C in coping, and the few studies that have been done have notalways been consistent in their findings. In at least some studies,

however, C has been found to be a strong predictor of coping styles.For example, Watson and Hubbard (1996) found C accounted for

29% of the variance in coping styles, which was exceeded only by N,which accounted for 40% of the variance. Similarly, Vickers et al.,

(1989) found that, along with N, C was a strong predictor of coping.C has been found to be related to the use of more active, problem-

focused strategies (Hooker et al., 1994), such as planning, problemsolving, positive reappraisal, and suppression of competing activities(Watson & Hubbard, 1996). Those higher on C are less likely to

engage in avoidant, emotion-focused coping strategies such as self-blame (Hooker et al., 1994; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996) or distrac-

tion or disengagement (Watson & Hubbard, 1996). However, somestudies have failed to find a significant relationship between C and

coping. For example, in the one daily process study of C of which weare aware, C was only related to lower reliance on religion and was

unrelated to active coping strategies (David & Suls, 1999).This review of existing literature raises several issues. First, re-

search is needed in which all five personality dimensions are exam-

ined within the same study. For one, the limited research that hasbeen done including all five has found that the role of personality in

coping is not limited to N and E. Rather, relationships between O,A, and C have been found with coping as well (David & Suls, 1999;

McCrae & Costa, 1986; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Watson & Hub-bard, 1996). This suggests that failing to examine these personality

dimensions may result in gaps in our understanding of the person-ality-coping relationship. Moreover, several researchers have noted

that failing to control for the other personality dimensions whenexamining a specific personality dimension may lead to spurious(and potentially contradictory) results (Amirkhan et al., 1995; Hook-

er et al., 1994; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard,1996). A number of researchers have argued that because N is so

highly correlated with coping, it is actually N that accounts for allthe personality-coping relationships by virtue of the correlation be-

tween N and the other personality dimensions (especially E; Costa,Somerfield, & McCrae, 1996; McCrae, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1986;

O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996). For these reasons, the present studyexamined all five dimensions of the Five-Factor Model of personal-


ity in an attempt to clarify the relationship between personality and

coping.Second, and critically, although research on the relationship be-

tween personality and coping has found a variety of associations,there are also numerous inconsistencies. Models of the stress and

coping process maintain that coping is a result of an interaction be-tween the individual and his or her environment (Lazarus & De-

Longis, 1983). Thus, the discrepant results in this literature may, inpart, be because the role of personality in coping depends upon thecontext in which the stressor occurs. That is, the same personality

trait may be expressed differently depending upon the context orstressor involved (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Wiggins & Trapnell,

1996). Many of the previous studies on personality and coping havefailed to examine or clarify the stressor or context being reported.

The failure to examine dimensions of the stressor may lead to seriousconfounds in the examination of the stress and coping process.

Notably, there have been a limited number of studies that haveexamined the interaction between personality and context, and these

support the contention that context is important in investigating therole of personality in coping. Fleishman (1984) found that the asso-ciation between the trait of mastery and problem-focused coping

depended on the context. For work contexts, mastery was associatedwith problem-focused coping (i.e., direct action) whereas in marital

and parenting contexts, mastery was not associated with problem-focused coping (i.e., negotiation and discipline). Further, Parkes

(1986) examined the relationship between N and the use of directcoping under varying degrees of work demands. Those lower on N

reported the greatest use of direct action for moderate levels of workdemands. However, those higher on N reported low levels of directaction regardless of the intensity of work demands. In a study that

examined all five personality dimensions and their interactions withsituation, O’Brien and DeLongis (1996) found that those higher on

N were more likely to use confrontation when coping with a stressfulsituation involving someone with whom they had a close relationship

than when they were coping with a stressful situation involvingsomeone with whom they had a more distant relationship. Addi-

tionally, those higher on N, as compared to those lower on N, wereless likely to use empathic forms of coping in dealing with a stressor

involving someone close than in stressful situations involving some-one distant. The findings suggested that, unlike those lower on N,


those higher on N reported engaging in interpersonally maladaptive

ways of coping particularly in stressful situations with close others. Owas also found to interact with context in this study; those lower on

O reported more empathic responding in stressful situations involv-ing close others as compared to noninterpersonal stressful situations.

Finally, those higher on C were more likely to use planful problemsolving to cope with noninterpersonal stressors than with interper-

sonal stressors. These results indicate that the examination of theinteraction between person and context is a promising avenue to

explore in developing our understanding of the stress and copingprocess.

The Interpersonal Context of Coping

Interpersonal factors play a major role in physical and psychologicalwell-being (Cramer, 1985; Feldman, Downey, & Schaffer-Neitz,

1999) as well as in the ability to successfully deal with stress (Kramer,1993; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996). In a study comparing the impact

of interpersonal stressors (e.g., conflicts or tensions in social rela-tionships) with work overload stressors (e.g., household or job de-

mands) on variations in mood, interpersonal stressors accounted formore than 80% of the explained variance in daily mood (Bolger,DeLongis, Kessler, and Schilling, 1989). Additionally, the negative

effects of interpersonal stressors persisted over several days. As well,Bolger and Schilling (1991) found that interpersonal conflicts were

the most important daily stressor in explaining the relationship be-tween Neuroticism and distress.

Two main functions of coping are discussed frequently in thecoping literature: problem-focused and emotion-focused coping.

Problem-focused (PF) coping refers to responses that are geared to-ward directly altering or resolving the stressful situation, while emo-

tion-focused (EF) coping refers to efforts to manage and regulateone’s emotional reactions to the stressful situation (Folkman, La-zarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). An additional

function of coping is relationship-focused (RF) coping, which refersto modes of coping that are aimed at managing, regulating, or pre-

serving relationships during times of stress (Coyne & Smith, 1991;DeLongis & O’Brien, 1990; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; 1997). Cop-

ing in close relationships may involve a diversity of processes that arebroader than those involved in ‘‘solitary’’ coping (Bolger, DeLongis,


Kessler, & Wethington, 1990; DeLongis & O’Brien, 1990; DeLongis

& Preece, 2002). Further, modes of coping pertinent to interpersonalcontexts, such as empathy and compromise, have not been considered

in the majority of extant coping scales. Therefore, in additionto the examination of traditional problem-focused and emotion-

focused strategies, we propose that the inclusion of coping strategiesthat are relationship-focused is essential when considering interper-

sonal contexts (Coyne & Smith, 1991; DeLongis & O’Brien, 1990;O’Brien & DeLongis, 1997).

Daily Process Methodology

Although studies examining coping in context suggest that a key tountangling the inconsistencies in the personality and coping litera-

ture may be to examine personality in context, the majority of pre-vious research has used a cross-sectional retrospective methodology.

Increasingly, there have been criticisms of studies relying on suchdesigns (e.g., Tennen, Affleck, Armeli, & Carney, 2000). Researchers

have noted this methodology fails to capture the nature of the stressand coping process (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; David & Suls, 1999;

Tennen, et al., 2000). Coping involves the concept of changing cog-nitive and behavioral efforts to manage psychological stress; it is, bydefinition, a process (Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983; Lazarus & Folk-

man, 1984). Using single assessments to examine differences in cop-ing between individuals has inherently missed the within-person,

idiographic process of coping over time (Tennen et al., 2000). Aswell, reports of coping responses that have long since passed, tend to

be plagued by memory biases and distortions (DeLongis, Hemphill,& Lehman, 1992).

Evidence is beginning to accumulate to support these criticisms ofretrospective, cross-sectional studies. For example, Ptacek, Smith,and colleagues (Ptacek, Smith, Espe, & Raffety, 1994; Smith, Lef-

fingwell, & Ptacek, 1999) examined the relationship between dailyand retrospective measures of coping and found that retrospective

measures were a ‘‘poor reflection’’ of daily reports, with only 26%and 37% shared variance (Smith et al., 1999, p. 1051). Moreover, the

correspondence between daily record and retrospective measures ofcoping was even further reduced when the participant was experi-

encing greater levels of stress. These authors suggest that resultsfrom retrospective studies, which have dominated the field, may have


contributed to the inconclusive and contradictory findings that have

frequently occurred in the coping literature. The daily process meth-odology reduces the retrospective nature of reporting, thus minimiz-

ing any inaccuracy of memory.A cross-sectional methodology is also problematic in the exami-

nation of personality and coping. Many researchers have focused onattempts to uncover coping styles or consistent patterns of coping by

individuals. However, a cross-sectional study is merely a snapshot ofa process that is dynamic and constantly in flux (Coyne & Gottlieb,

1996; Suls & David, 1996). Multiple assessments are necessary todetect a pattern of coping. A daily process methodology is, therefore,ideally suited to the study of person by situation interactions in pre-

dicting coping, as a given individual can be studied across time in avariety of naturally occurring stress contexts.

Additionally, daily data can be examined in more sophisticatedand meaningful ways with the development of new statistical meth-

ods (Affleck, Zautra, Tennen, & Armeli, 1999; Bryk & Raudenbush,1992). Multilevel modeling allows for the simultaneous analysis of

both within-person and between-person variation as well as same-day and cross-day effects (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Thus, pat-terns of coping can be analyzed with reference to both within-person

fluctuations, as well as between-person differences in coping style.Such techniques allow us to consider the effects of personality and

situation as well as any interactions between them without resortingto aggregation and the loss of idiographic information.

The Current Study

The current study, using a daily process methodology, examines the

roles of context and personality in coping with family stress amongmarried couples living in a stepfamily context. Given the high rate of

divorce and the consistency with which the vast majority of divorcedadults either remarry or establish common-law relationships, thestepfamily has become an increasingly common family form. On

average, those in stepfamilies face both higher levels of stress and agreater variety of stress than do those in first-marriage families (Bray

& Berger, 1993; Hetherington, 1993). Indeed, the stress in stepfam-ilies with children has been reported to be consistently higher than

that of first marriages, matching the level of first marriages only bythe 14th year of marriage (Zeppa & Norem, 1993).


Stress in stepfamilies is most often related to family processes and

conflict (Preece & DeLongis, 2005). Parenting and stepparenting aregenerally the most difficult and stressful aspects of stepfamily life,

both initially and over the long term (Bray & Berger, 1993). Maritalconflict is also a common and significant source of stress, both in

first marriages and in remarriages (Bray & Jouriles, 1995). For thesereasons, stepfamilies provide a useful context for examination of

interpersonal stress and coping processes.It was expected that coping would vary significantly by both per-

sonality and context. Previous research has found that stressors such

as marital conflict and child misbehavior are relatively commonamong those living in a stepfamily context (Bray, 1999), and these

were examined as contextual factors that might be differentially as-sociated with coping responses. Dimensions of personality derived

from the Five-Factor Model (Costa &McCrae, 1985) were examinedin association with a variety of problem-, emotion-, and relationship-

focused coping strategies reported in response to these stressors.Based on previous literature, the following hypotheses were gen-

erated:

Neuroticism. We expected that higher scores on N would be asso-

ciated with higher scores on avoidance or passive forms of copingsuch as escape-avoidance, interpersonal withdrawal, and self-blame.

This expectation is consistent with clear findings that those higher onN tend to experience more negative emotions (Costa & McCrae,

1985). Given this, those higher on N may be more likely to use apanoply of emotion-focused coping methods in an attempt to man-

age their distress. Based on previous findings, it was also expectedthat those higher on N would report lower levels of relationship-focused coping. Because individuals higher on N tend to have dif-

ficulty managing their own distress, it was expected that they wouldbe similarly less able to deal with the distress of close others (O’Brien

& DeLongis, 1996).

Extraversion. Findings regarding the relationship of E with copinghave been contradictory. This may be due to differences across stud-

ies in whether E is examined within the context of its companion BigFive traits. In addition, inconsistent findings may be due to differ-

ences in the stressful context examined across studies. Previous stud-ies have found that those higher on E tended to use a greater


diversity of coping strategies as compared to those lower on E

(David & Suls, 1999), suggesting that they may vary their copingdepending upon the stressful context. Findings were expected to be

consistent with those of previous studies examining all five person-ality dimensions, which indicate that E is related to interpersonally

oriented and expressive coping strategies such as confrontation andsupport seeking (David & Suls, 1999; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996;

Watson & Hubbard, 1996).

Openness. The relationship between O and coping has also beeninconsistent across studies. However, a previous daily process study

found that those higher on O reported using less distancing (David &Suls, 1999), and we expected to replicate that finding here given our

similar daily process methodology. Additionally, consistent with thedescription of those higher on O as more open to their own feelings(Costa & McCrae, 1998), previous research suggests that those high

on O are also more open to the feelings of close others and tend toemploy relationship-focused coping in such contexts (O’Brien &

DeLongis, 1996). Given the context of close relationships examinedin the present study, it was expected that those higher on O would

report greater use of relationship-focused coping when compared tothose lower on O.

Agreeableness. Based on the few studies that have examined the

role of A in coping, it was expected that those higher on A wouldreport lower use of emotion-focused coping strategies (Watson &

Hubbard, 1996), less confrontation (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996),and more support seeking (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Watson &

Hubbard, 1996).

Conscientiousness. Based on the relatively few studies that have

examined the role of C in coping, as well as models of C that suggestthose higher on C are more dependable and reliable, it was expected

that those higher on C would report greater use of active and rela-tionship-maintaining coping strategies, such as problem solving,

support seeking, compromise, and relationship-focused coping,and lower use of passive emotion-focused strategies such as self-

blame and escape avoidance (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Watson &Hubbard, 1996).


Finally, very limited research has examined interactions between

the Big Five dimensions of personality and context (O’Brien & De-Longis, 1996; Parkes, 1986). Therefore, while it was expected that the

role of personality in coping would vary by situation, due to thepaucity of previous work on the interactive nature of personality and

interpersonal contexts, specific predictions were not made.

METHOD

Information was drawn from data collected as part of a larger prospectivestudy investigating stress, coping, and social support in stepfamilies(DeLongis, Capreol, Holtzman, O’Brien, & Campbell, 2004). The designincluded two interviews conducted approximately 2 years apart as well asstructured daily diaries and a battery of questionnaires that were com-pleted after the first interview. Only those procedures and measures thatare pertinent to the present investigation will be discussed here.

Sample

Couples were recruited from the lower mainland of British Columbia bymeans of newspaper and radio advertisements, notices in school news-letters, posters on community bulletin boards, and solicitation at severallocal stepfamily groups. The participant pool was limited to those familieshaving at least one child from a previous union (of either spouse) living inthe home for more than 3 months of the year. Due to difficulties in ad-vertising and interviewing in more than one language, participants werelimited to those who were fluent in English. Participants were either mar-ried or living as a common-law couple. A total of 81 couples completedthe measures in the study; 71 of these couples reported stressors that al-lowed them to be included in the analyses reported here. The final sampleconsisted of 13 common-law couples, 51 married couples, and 7 coupleswho did not specify whether they were married or common-law. Analysesrevealed that there were no significant differences between those coupleswho reported being married versus common-law on length of time livingtogether, number of previous unions, or number of children in the home.Differences between common-law and married couples on average copinguse and frequency of stressors were also examined. Common-law wiveswere significantly more likely to report using confrontation, t (61)5 4.06,po.001, than were their married counterparts. Further, married hus-bands reported significantly more marital stressors as the major stressorof the day than did their common-law counterparts, t(62)5 � 2.28,po.05. Because of the small sample of common-law couples, the groups


were collapsed into a single group, and participants in common-law re-lationships are henceforth referred to here as married.

The mean age of the sample was 40 years, ranging in age from 20 to 59years. The majority of participants were Canadian-born (72%), with theremainder largely from other English-speaking countries (primarilyUnited States and England). The mean level of education was 13 years,ranging from 5 to 17 years. Participants were predominantly middle toupper-middle class and the majority were employed (80%).

Couples had spent an average of 4.6 years living together in the currentunion, with a range from less than a year to 12 years. The majority of thehusbands and wives in our sample had been married at least once pre-viously. Eighty-eight percent of the sample had children from a previousunion. The mean number of children in the stepfamily was 3.1, with arange of from one to eight children. The children spent on average 7.8months of the year in the stepfamily home under study.

Procedure

Each member of the couple was interviewed separately to obtain back-ground information. Each was then mailed a set of structured diaries tobe completed twice daily over a period of one week. Also included was aset of self-report measures. Participants were asked to complete the diaryentries on a variety of topics ‘‘around lunch time or mid afternoon’’ and‘‘just before going to sleep at night.’’ Participants recorded the time ofeach of their diary entries.1 Participants reported the major stressor of theday and their coping strategies used to deal with that stressor in theevening entry and thus made one report of stressors and coping per day.Participants were asked to complete the diary materials and return themin the stamped envelopes provided. The importance of each spouse com-pleting these materials independently and during the specified time periodwas emphasized in the instructions. Each spouse was also provided with anumber of adhesive tabs with which to seal each diary entry after com-pletion. These measures were intended to increase confidentiality.

1. In a previous study, using the same diary method and a similar version of the

‘‘Brief Ways of the Coping,’’ we specifically asked participants to indicate both

when they actually completed the diary entry and the period for which they en-

tered it (Bolger, et al., 1990; DeLongis, Bolger, & Kessler, 1987). In that study, we

did not find that those diary entries that were completed off time differed signif-

icantly from those that were completed on time. Nor did their relations to other

study variables differ significantly.


Measures

Personality. Personality was assessed by the NEO-FFI Personality In-ventory (Costa & McCrae, 1989), which is a shortened 60-item version ofthe 181-item NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985). This measure was con-tained in the self-report questionnaire package. The NEO-FFI assessesfive personality dimensions: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agree-ableness, and Conscientiousness. Substantial psychometric research hasbeen conducted on these scales and indicates that it has excellent psy-chometric properties (for a review, see Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Stressor. The stressful situation with which participants were copingwas assessed through an open-ended question: ‘‘Please describe briefly themost bothersome event or problem you had with someone in your familytoday. It might have been something as minor as your child’s distress oversomething that happened at school or it might have been a major argu-ment or disagreement. Whatever your most serious family problem was

today (no matter how minor or trivial it may seem to you), please describeit here.’’ Two trained undergraduate research assistants coded these open-ended responses based on a detailed coding scheme. Discrepancies wereresolved by the first author. Inter-rater reliability was high (kappa5 .90).These responses resulted in eight categories of interpersonal stressors:health (6.07%), marital (18.9%), co-parenting (6.53%), child misbehavior(31.04%), other child stressor (21.24%), spouse’s stress involving othersexternal to the family (3.38%), demands (9.22%), and problems with ex-partners (3.62%). Consistent with previous research (e.g., Bray, 1999), alarge percentage of stressful situations (50%) fell into one of two cate-gories: marital conflict (18.9%) and child misbehavior (31%)2. Subse-quent analyses examining the relationship between personality andcoping were limited to data obtained on those days on which one orthe other of these stressor types were reported, which yielded data on 71couples.

Coping. Subjects were asked to report the degree to which they used avariety of coping strategies on a 3-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘not atall’’ to ‘‘a lot.’’ Coping strategies were measured with items from the BriefWays of Coping (BWOC), developed for use in diary studies (Holtzman,Newth, & DeLongis, 2004; Newth & DeLongis, 2004). Three of the top-

2. Marital problems about child misbehavior were coded as ‘‘co-parenting’’ is-

sues. Thus, the final stressors that were examined (marital and child misbehavior)

did not contain overlapping issues of marital problems due to child misbehavior

or child misbehavior causing marital problems.


loading items from each of the eight coping scales from the Ways ofCoping scale (WOC; Folkman, et al., 1986) were selected. Relevant lit-erature on interpersonal behavior and coping (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987;Buss, 1992; DeLongis & O’Brien, 1990; McCrae, 1984; O’Brien & De-Longis, 1996; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1997) suggested an additional 15items that were included to tap coping dimensions not assessed by theoriginal WOC. Three items were chosen to assess each of the followingdimensions: empathy, support provision, compromise, self-care, and in-terpersonal withdrawal.

RESULTS

Factor Analysis of Coping Data

A factor analysis was conducted utilizing coping data reported over

a 7-day period by 81 couples.3 There were a total of 861 days forwhich a stressor was reported and coping data obtained. Consistent

with recommendations by Russell (2002), the factors were extractedusing principal axis factoring, and a Promax rotation was selected inorder to allow the rotated factors to be correlated with one another.

The number of factors to be extracted was determined through anexamination of the scree plot and eigenvalues larger than 1.0. This

resulted in nine factors that loaded cleanly. However, two of thesefactors (Factor 1 and Factor 4) grouped together items that loaded

separately in previous research (O’Brien & DeLongis 1996; Folkmanet al., 1986). As such, we further explored each of these two factors.

Factor 1 contained items originally designed to assess empathicand compromise based coping strategies (O’Brien & De-Longis, 1996). Previous research suggested that distinguishing

between these strategies may provide unique insights into the roleof relationship-based coping (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996). Factor 4

contained items previously conceptualized as ‘‘problem solving’’ and‘‘accepting responsibility/self-blame’’ (Folkman et al., 1986). These

3. Muthen (1991) has noted that when developing scales using data with a nested

structure, factor loadings may differ for between, within, and overall covariance

matrices. Lower-level variation is likely to suggest more factors, whereas some

factors may vanish when aggregated scores are used. As the purpose of this study

was to model predictors of daily variability, our primary factor analysis used

coping items measured at the daily level.


scales have been differentially associated with outcomes in

previous research (Folkman et al., 1986). Using principal compo-nents analysis and a Promax rotation, we factor analyzed the items

within each factor separately. An examination of the scree plots andeigenvalues larger than 1.0 yielded subscales that both mirrored pre-

vious coping structures and were consistent with our original con-ceptual selection of items. The analysis of Factor 1 resulted in

relationship-focused coping and compromise subscales, andFactor 4 factored cleanly into problem-solving and self-blame sub-scales. The final scales and subscales used in the analyses were: re-

lationship-focused coping, compromise, interpersonal withdrawal,escape-avoidance, self-blame, problem solving, confrontation, sup-

port seeking, distancing, self-care, and positive reappraisal.Factor loadings for the factors and subsequent subscales are pro-

vided in the Appendix along with Cronbach’s alphas. The alphasfor the seven scales that parallel the 67-item WOC scale (Folkman

et al., 1986) were comparable to those reported previously in theliterature.

In addition to the factor analysis using all of the available data foreach individual, factor analyses were also conducted separately foreach day. These analyses supported the factor structure found using

day as the unit of analysis. Further, as seen in Table 3, the majorityof variance was at the daily level, supporting our decision to use

coping scales based on the daily-level factor analysis.For subsequent analyses examining the relationship between per-

sonality and coping, data was selected for days on which participantsreported either a marital stressor or a stressor involving child mis-

behavior. This was done to ensure conceptually meaningful and dis-tinct contextual factors. The majority of the stressors reported fellinto these two categories and the remaining stressors fell into a

number of diverse categories that were either low in frequency orcontained overlapping stressors (e.g., marital stress over child mis-

behavior). In coping with these two stressors, participants reportedextremely low levels of usage of both positive reappraisal and self-

care strategies, and these two coping scales were consequentlydropped from further analyses.4

4. Results of HLM analyses indicated that there was insufficient variance in these

coping strategies to permit further analysis.


Analyses of Aggregated Data

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations. Table 1 presents

the intercorrelations among the coping scales and stressor type. Sev-eral of the coping scales were significantly intercorrelated.5 Otherthan scores on distancing and problem solving, scores on the coping

scales were significantly correlated with stressor type. That is, par-ticipants reported greater use of relationship-focused coping, com-

promise, interpersonal withdrawal, escape avoidance, self-blame,and confrontation in dealing with a marital stressor as compared

to child misbehavior and reported greater use of support seekingwhen dealing with child misbehavior.

Table 2 presents the intercorrelations among each of the five per-sonality dimensions, scores on the coping scales (based on daily re-ports aggregated over seven days), and frequency of reported

stressor, as well as means and standard deviations for the person-ality scales. The frequency of the reported daily stressor was calcu-

lated by computing the number of days out of the possible 7 days onwhich participants reported either a marital stressor or child mis-

behavior as the major stressor of the day. Zero-order correlationsindicated that higher scores on N were associated with greater use of

interpersonal withdrawal, escape avoidance, self-blame, and supportseeking, while E was unrelated to reports of coping. Higher scores on

O were associated with lower scores on distancing, fewer reports ofchild misbehavior as the most serious stressor of the day, and morereports of marital problems as the major stressor of the day. Higher

scores on A were associated with lower reports of escape avoidanceand self-blame. Higher scores on C were associated with higher

scores on problem solving and distancing and with fewer reports ofmarital stressors. In addition, wives reported higher levels of con-

frontation and support seeking than did their husbands. However,aggregated data used in zero-order correlations are not the best rep-

resentation of the daily data. Furthermore, these analyses do not

5. Although some of the correlations between the coping scales were relatively

high (over .45), they were not collapsed into fewer scales for two reasons. First,

these coping scales are consistent with standard scales in the field resulting from

several factor analyses across different populations (e.g., Folkman, et al., 1986;

Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Vitaliano, et al., 1987). Second, intercorrelations

found here among the coping scales are of a similar size to those reported in other

research (e.g., Folkman, et al., 1986).


Ta

ble

1In

terc

orr

ela

tio

ns

Am

on

gC

op

ing

Sca

les

an

dSt

ress

or

Ty

pe

Subscale

RFC

COMP

INTWTH

ESCAVD

SLFBLM

PROBSV

CONFT

SUPSK

DIST

STRSTYP

RFC

–.59nnn

.08t

.19nnn

.30nnn

.51nnn

.09t

.09

.06

.19nnn

COMP

–.12n

.22nnn

.50nnn

.51nnn

.15nnn

.07

.08

.27nnn

INTWTH

–.34nnn

.34nnn

�.01

.06

.06

.03

.31nnn

ESCAVD

–.41nnn

.22nnn

.18nnn

.13nn

.07

.10n

SLFBLM

–.38nnn

.09t

.05

.12nn

.29nnn

PROBSV

–.31nnn

.14nn

.18nnn

.02

CONFT

–.19nnn

.01

.12n

SUPSK

–.04

�.10n

DIST

–�.02

STRSTYP

–

Note.N

5involves

theresponsesfrom

71individualacross

the7daysofassessm

entforatotal407timepoints.Dueto

therepeated

assessm

ents

onthesameindividuals,andtheuse

ofhusbandsandwives,thedata

isnotindependent.RFC

5relationship

focusedcoping,

COMP

5compromise,

INTWTH

5interpersonalwithdrawal,ESCAVD

5escapeavoidance,SLFBLM

5selfblame,

PROBSLV

5prob-

lem

solving,CONFT

5confront,SUPSK

5support

seeking,DIST

5distancing,STRSTYP

5maritalstress

(1)childmisbehavior(�1).

npo.05,nnpo.01,nnnpo.001,t po

.10.

permit the examination of the effect of one personality variable while

holding the others constant, as was done subsequently in the mul-tilevel analyses.

Multivariate analyses. The analyses in this study followed the rec-ommendations of Raudenbush and Bryk (2002) and others (e.g.,

West & Hepworth, 1991), who suggested multilevel modeling as thebest type of analyses for repeated measures (daily process) data.6 A

Table 2Intercorrelations Between Personality Scales,

Situation, and Coping Scales

Subscale N E O A C GENDER MEAN SD

RFC .05 .08 .15 � .04 .13 .07 1.69 0.43

COMP .11 .08 .04 � .08 .14 .00 1.45 0.34

INTWTH .35nnn � .02 � .06 � .14t � .05 .03 1.34 0.33

ESCAVD .41nnn � .12 � .05 � .20n � .11 .11 1.41 0.41

SLFBLM .24nnn .00 � .09 � .21nn � .04 � .11 1.37 0.36

PROBSV .06 .08 .00 � .08 .17n .06 1.70 0.46

CONFT .07 .14 � .06 .08 .09 .27nnn 1.58 0.45

SUPSK .21nn � .01 � .12 � .10 .09 .17n 1.16 0.26

DIST � .08 � .01 � .30nnn � .03 .18n � .01 1.45 0.31

FCHILD � .02 .01 � .17n .02 .05 .16 1.78 1.54

FMARITAL .07 � .03 .20n � .04 � .17n � .04 1.13 1.20

MEAN 2.70 3.41 3.51 3.65 3.82

SD 0.69 0.53 0.51 0.45 0.49

Note. N5 142 individuals. Coping data has been aggregated across the 7 days. The

data lacks independence because husbands and wives comprise the 142 individuals

but are not independent from each other. RFC5 relationship focused coping,

COMP5 compromise, INTWTH5 interpersonal withdrawal, ESCAVD5 escape

avoidance, SLFBLM5 self blame, PROBSLV5problem solving, CONFT5 con-

front, SUPSK5 support seeking, DIST5 distancing, N5 neuroticism, O5 open-

ness, A5 agreeableness, C5 conscientiousness, E5 extraversion, FCHILD5

frequency of reporting a child misbehavior stressor, FMARITAL5 frequency of

reporting a marital stressor, GENDER5 female (1), male (� 1).npo.05, nnpo.01, nnnpo.001, tpo.10.

6. A homogeneous variance was specified for the error structure in the repeated

measures analyses. Alternative error structures, such as an autocorrelated error

structure, were not used for several reasons. First, our analyses did not examine


three-level model was examined using hierarchical linear modeling(HLM). At the first level (daily or within-subject level), daily var-

iation in coping and stressor within individuals was represented. Atthe second level (between-subject), variation between individuals was

represented. At the third level (between-couples), variation betweencouples was represented. The within-subject level of analysis was

used to estimate the degree of variability in each participant’s copingchoice that could be explained by stressor type: either marital tension

or child misbehavior. Stressor type was coded as an indicator var-iable for either marital conflict (1) or child misbehavior (� 1). Cod-

ing in this manner allowed us to consider the intercept asrepresenting average coping across stressor types. Intraclass corre-lations indicated that significant variance was available for modeling

at both the daily and the individual level for both the coping strat-egies and the stressor type (Table 3). There was also significant

Table 3Coping and Stressor Variance at Three Levels of Analysis

Proportion of Variance (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient)

Variable Daily1 Individual2 Couple3

Relationship-Focused Coping 0.60 0.32 0.08

Compromise 0.78 0.19 0.04a

Interpersonal Withdrawal 0.79 0.02 0.18

Escape Avoidance 0.56 0.25 0.19

Self-Blame 0.64 0.21 0.15

Problem Solving 0.60 0.16 0.24

Confrontation 0.68 0.21 0.10

Support Seeking 0.94 0.05 0.01a

Distancing 0.68 0.16 0.17

Stressor 0.69 0.01 0.31

Note. N1 5 407, N2 5 142, N3 5 71.aNo significant variance at this level.

temporal relationships where any potential autocorrelation could seriously bias

the results. Second, our own analyses of the average autocorrelation across par-

ticipants and coping scales indicated a low average autocorrelation of � .05. As

such, consistent with past research (e.g., Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Gunthert, et

al., 1999), we did not examine other error structures for our analyses.


variance at the couple-level for most of the strategies, confirming the

need for a third level to control for differences between couples.At the between-subject level of analysis, individual differences in

the relationship between stressor type and coping strategy associatedwith the five personality dimensions were examined.7 The between-

subject level of analysis provides the mean level use of the copingstrategy (the intercept) and the unique effects of the personality di-

mensions, as well as the interactions between personality and thestressor type. The five personality dimensions were modeled onto

both the intercept and the slope describing the relationship betweenthe stressor type and coping response for each individual. Concep-tually, modeling onto the intercept gives the main effect of the per-

sonality dimensions on average coping levels, controlling for stressortype, whereas modeling personality on the slope of the stressor type

is analogous to considering the cross-level interaction between per-sonality and the stressor. By including all five personality variables in

the model the results for each trait are independent, controlling forthe influence of the other traits in the model. A separate model was

used to predict each of the nine coping strategies.At the between-couple level of analysis no predictors were used.

Variables at this level would be used to assess differences between the

couples, but because this was not the focus of the present study, thislevel of analysis was only used to control for the dependence among

participants in the study given that the sample is comprised of mar-ried couples.8

The following equations represent the model examined in thecurrent study:

Coping strategy ¼ p0 þ p1ðstressorÞ þ e

7. Gender was modeled at the between-subject level but was only significant for

one of the nine coping strategies (confrontation). Consistent with recommenda-

tions to remove nonsignificant terms from multilevel models (Raudenbush &

Bryk, 2002), gender was dropped from further analyses.

8. We cannot, of course, assume that husbands and wives are independent of one

another. Although a thorough examination of this issue is beyond the scope of this

paper, the pattern of intercorrelations indicated significant associations between

spouses on each of the Big Five dimensions of personality (for E, r5 .25, po.05,

for O, r5 .33, po.01; for A, r5 .23, po.05; for C, r5 .27, po.05). The one ex-

ception to this pattern was for N. Here we failed to find a significant correlation

between scores on N for husbands and their wives. However, wives with higher

scores on N tended to have husbands with lower scores on O (r5 � .32, po.05).


p0 ¼ b00 þ b01ðNÞ þ b02ðEÞ þ b03ðOÞ þ b04ðAÞ þ b05ðCÞ þ r0

p1 ¼ g10 þ g11ðNÞ þ g12ðEÞ þ g13ðOÞ þ g14ðAÞ þ g15ðCÞ

The results of multilevel analyses are shown in Table 4, including

the explained proportion of variance at each level.9 Results indicatedthat stressor type was a significant predictor of the likelihood of re-

porting various coping strategies. When coping with marital conflict(as compared to child misbehavior) participants were significantly

more likely to report engaging in relationship-focused coping, com-promise, interpersonal withdrawal, and self-blame. They were also

significantly less likely to report engaging in confrontation.As discussed below and shown in Table 4, the results of the mul-

tilevel models also revealed both significant independent effects of

the role of personality as predictors of coping as well as a number ofsignificant interactions between personality and stressor type. For

each result considered, the other four personality dimensions wereheld constant at their own mean level.

Those who were higher on Neuroticism, compared to those loweron N, reported engaging in more interpersonal withdrawal, escape

avoidance, self-blame, and support seeking. As well, there was anonsignificant trend toward greater use of confrontation. There were

no significant interactions of N with stressor type.Those higher on Extraversion were significantly more likely to

report engaging in compromise and self-blame, with a nonsignificant

trend toward reporting engaging in more confrontation. Stressortype interacted with E in the prediction of relationship-focused cop-

ing, interpersonal withdrawal, self-blame, and confrontation. Spe-cifically, those higher on E, as compared to those lower on E, were

9. R2 in multilevel data (e.g., the explained proportion of variance) is analogous

but not identical to an R2 statistic in linear regression (for a detailed review of R2

in multilevel data, see Snijders & Bosker, 1999). At present, there are no signif-

icance tests available for explained proportion of variance in multilevel models.

The explained proportion of variance for Level 1 indicates the amount of variance

the model predicts for the Level 1 outcome (e.g., daily coping). The explained

proportion of variance for Level 2 indicates the amount of variance the model

predicts for the Level 2 outcome (e.g., average coping). These latter values tend to

be higher because the availability of multiple cases of coping for each participant

increases the reliability in the outcome variable (Snijders & Bosker, 1999).


Ta

ble

4H

iera

rch

ica

lL

ine

ar

Mo

de

lin

gfo

rP

ers

on

ali

tyD

ime

nsi

on

sa

nd

Stre

sso

ro

nC

op

ing

RFC

COMP

INTWTH

ESCAVD

BSE

BSE

BSE

BSE

Intercept

1.70nnn

0.03

1.46nnn

0.02

1.35nnn

0.03

1.41nnn

0.03

N0.05

0.05

0.05

0.04

0.13nnn

0.03

0.22nnn

0.05

E0.08

0.07

0.11n

0.05

0.07

0.05

0.04

0.06

O0.12t

0.06

0.03

0.05

�0.03

0.04

0.04

0.06

A�0.13

0.08

�0.08

0.06

�0.05

0.05

�0.14t

0.07

C0.17n

0.07

0.10t

0.05

0.02

0.05

0.03

0.07

Stressor

0.09nnn

0.02

0.11nnn

0.02

0.13nnn

0.02

0.04t

0.02

N�

stressor

�0.05

0.04

0.05

0.03

0.06t

0.03

�0.07t

0.04

E�

stressor

�0.12n

0.05

�0.01

0.04

0.08n

0.04

�0.01

0.05

O�

stressor

�0.05

0.05

�0.01

0.04

0.00

0.04

�0.01

0.05

A�

stressor

0.12n

0.06

0.04

0.05

�0.05

0.05

�0.06

0.06

C�

stressor

�0.05

0.05

0.07

0.05

�0.04

0.04

�0.06

0.05

Rsquared9

level

10.11

0.12

0.17

0.14

level

20.14

0.19

0.19

0.20

Note.RFC

5relationship

focusedcoping,COMP

5compromise,

INTWTH

5interpersonalwithdrawal,ESCAVD

5escapeavoidance.

Stressor,1

5maritalconflict,�1

5childmisbehavior.

npo.05,nnpo.01,nnnpo.001,t po.10.

Ta

ble

4(C

on

t.)

SLFBLM

PROBSLV

CONFT

SUPSK

DIST

BSE

BSE

BSE

BSE

BSE

Intercept

1.39nnn

0.03

1.70nnn

0.04

1.58nnn

0.04

1.16nnn

0.02

1.45nnn

0.03

N0.09n

0.04

0.08

0.05

0.10t

0.06

0.09nn

0.03

�0.05

0.04

E0.12n

0.05

0.12

0.07

0.14t

0.08

0.03

0.04

�0.02

0.05

O�0.05

0.05

0.05

0.07

�0.01

0.07

0.00

0.04

�0.14nn

0.05

A�0.14n

0.06

�0.11

0.09

0.07

0.09

�0.03

0.05

0.00

0.06

C0.00

0.06

0.14t

0.08

0.06

0.08

0.07t

0.04

0.09

0.06

Stressor

0.12nnn

0.02

�0.01

0.03

�0.06n

0.03

�0.04t

0.02

0.01

0.02

N�

stressor

0.02

0.03

0.00

0.04

0.05

0.05

0.02

0.03

�0.02

0.03

E�

stressor

0.11nn

0.04

0.03

0.05

0.12n

0.06

�0.02

0.04

0.04

0.04

O�

stressor

�0.03

0.04

0.02

0.05

0.10t

0.06

0.01

0.04

0.01

0.04

A�

stressor

�0.06

0.05

0.01

0.07

�0.15n

0.07

0.01

0.05

�0.06

0.05

C�

stressor

0.11n

0.04

�0.01

0.06

0.07

0.06

0.07t

0.04

�0.02

0.04

Rsquared9

level

10.16

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.07

level

20.20

0.06

0.06

0.07

0.10

Note.CONFT

5confront,DIST

5distancing,PROBSLV

5problem

solving,SLFBLM

5selfblame,SUPSK

5supportseeking.Stressor,

15maritalconflict,�1

5childmisbehavior.

npo.05,nnpo.01,nnnpo.001,t po.10.

more likely to report using relationship-focused coping with child

misbehavior but less likely to report using relationship-focused cop-ing with marital conflict. Those higher on E were more likely to re-

port using confrontation, interpersonal withdrawal, and self-blameto cope with marital conflict and less likely to report using these

strategies to cope with child misbehavior.Individuals higher on Openness were significantly less likely to

report using distancing than were those lower on O. There was anonsignificant trend toward reporting greater use of relationship-

focused coping. O did not significantly interact with context in pre-dicting coping.

Those higher on Agreeableness were significantly less likely to

report engaging in self-blame, with a non-significant trend towardbeing less likely to report engaging in escape avoidance. Agreeable-

ness interacted with stressor type in the prediction of relationship-focused coping and confrontation. Specifically, those higher on A,

compared to those lower on A, were more likely to report using re-lationship-focused coping with marital conflict but less likely to re-

port using relationship-focused coping with child misbehavior.Additionally, those higher on A were less likely to report using con-frontation when coping with marital conflict, but more likely to re-

port using confrontation when coping with child misbehavior.Finally, those higher on Conscientiousness were significantly

more likely to report engaging in relationship-focused coping. Thosehigher on C were somewhat more likely to report using compromise,

problem solving, and support seeking. C also interacted significantlywith stressor type in the prediction of self-blame. Specifically, those

higher on C were more likely to report using self-blame to cope witha marital stressor and less likely to report using self-blame to cope

with child misbehavior.

DISCUSSION

The study examined both the direct and interactive effects of five

basic personality dimensions (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness,Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and two prevalent sources of

interpersonal stress among parents living in stepfamilies (child mis-behavior and marital conflict) on coping responses. Findings support


the notion that a consideration of the context of coping is critical to

understanding the role of personality in coping.

The Context of Coping

Consistent with previous research, multilevel analyses revealed thatparticipants coped differently depending on the stressor, indicating

that contextual factors played a significant and independent role incoping. The two most common sources of family stress that emerged

in the current study were marital conflict and child misbehavior. Thiswas consistent with our expectations and with research on bothfamilies and stepfamilies (e.g., Kheshgi-Genovese & Genovese,

1997). When coping with marital conflict, as compared to child mis-behavior, participants were significantly more likely to report the use

of relationship-focused coping, compromise, interpersonal with-drawal, and self-blame, and significantly less likely to report the

use of confrontation. Thus, in dealing with a marital stressor, ourresults suggest that participants were more likely to take an egali-

tarian perspective by trying to see things from their spouse’s point ofview, offering support, and acknowledging their own contributions

to the conflict. They were also more likely to report withdrawingfrom their spouse than from their children during conflict. Given theresponsible nature of the parental role, withdrawing or ignoring may

be less viable for dealing with child misbehavior.As compared to their coping with marital conflict, participants

were less likely to report both accepting blame for their child’s mis-behavior and trying to understand their child’s point of view or come

to a mutually beneficial resolution of the conflict. This is likely due tothe more hierarchical nature of the parent-child relationship as com-

pared to the spousal relationship.Marital conflict and child misbehavior were not significantly as-

sociated with the use of distancing and problem solving. This is

consistent with previous research that suggests people are less likelyto use distancing and problem solving in response to an interper-

sonal stressor (as compared to more agentic sources of stress; Folk-man et al., 1986; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996). Interestingly, although

participants did not report significant levels of distancing as a re-sponse to marital conflict or child misbehavior, they did report

greater use of other strategies to remove oneself from the situation,such as interpersonal withdrawal. The distancing scale was com-


prised largely of emotional suppression strategies (e.g., ‘‘I went on as

if nothing happened’’; ‘‘I tried to forget the whole thing’’). It may bethat it is difficult to use such a suppression strategy in dealing with

close relationships. However, other strategies that are efforts tomanage emotions while not suppressing them, especially those in-

terpersonally related such as interpersonal withdrawal (e.g., ‘‘I gavethe other person involved the ‘silent treatment’’’; ‘‘I tried to keep

others from knowing about the problem or about my feelings’’), maybe more likely to be used.

The present findings point to the importance of context in under-standing and predicting coping behavior. All stressors examined inthe study occurred within the context of the family. However,

there were meaningful differences in coping between differenttypes of family stressors. This suggests that there are important dis-

tinctions among interpersonal stressors that may need to beexamined separately to understand coping with interpersonal

stressors.

The Role of Personality in Coping

As expected, personality played a significant role in coping. Our re-sults suggest that each of the five personality dimensions examined inthe present study were independently and significantly related to

coping responses. In addition, personality was found to interact withstressor type in predicting coping responses. The findings were gen-

erally consistent with previous research and with our expectations,indicating that those higher on Neuroticism (N), compared to those

lower on N, were more likely to report engaging in passive emotion-focused strategies such as escape avoidance, interpersonal withdraw-

al and self-blame (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Endler & Parker,1990; Hooker et al., 1994; McCrae & Costa, 1986; O’Brien & De-

Longis, 1996). This is consistent with the characterization that thosehigher on N have a propensity for experiencing negative emotions(McCrae & Costa, 1987) and therefore may be more likely to channel

their coping efforts toward managing their disruptive emotions.However, it appears that those higher on N have problems coping

in constructive ways. They tend to report using emotion-focusedcoping strategies associated with poorer outcomes (e.g., Lee-Bag-

gley, DeLongis, Grover, & Chan, 2003) that may not alleviate theirnegative emotions and may even create negative affect (Bolger &


Zuckerman, 1995). Those higher on N also reported the use of strat-

egies that may be disruptive to their relationships, such as interper-sonal withdrawal and, to a lesser degree, confrontation. Contrary to

expectation, those higher on N did not report significantly lower useof relationship-focused coping. N was found to be unrelated to the

use of relationship-focused coping. As such, those higher on N re-ported the use of relationship-disrupting coping strategies without

reporting the use of strategies that maintain their relationships suchas relationship-focused coping or compromise. And while they weremore likely to report seeking emotional support, they were not more

likely to report offering support or taking the perspective of othersinvolved.

Interestingly, N did not significantly interact with situation. Thelack of significant interactions with context suggests that those high-

er on N are less likely to change their coping strategy in response tothe needs of the situation (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Terry, 1994).

This suggests that those high on N may be more inflexible in theircoping strategies. This lack of flexibility may account for their poor

outcomes in coping (e.g., Gunthert et al., 1999), as being flexible inone’s coping strategies is regarded to be a hallmark of good copingskills (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Those higher on Extraversion (E) were significantly more likely toreport engaging in compromise and self-blame. The greater reported

use of compromise may indicate that those high on E cope in waysthat try to protect their interpersonal relationships, a finding

consistent with the social nature of those high on E (Costa &McCrae, 1985). The significant finding of a relationship between E

and self-blame was qualified by the significant interaction withcontext between E and self-blame. Additionally, our predictionthat E would be related to greater use of confrontation was sup-

ported but found to interact with the situation. Notably, we did notfind a significant relationship between E and support seeking, one of

the more commonly cited findings in the literature concerning E(Amirkhan et al., 1995; Rim, 1986). However, studies that control

for the other personality factors (e.g., O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996)or examine E and coping at a daily level (e.g., David & Suls, 1999)

have not found significant associations between E and support seek-ing. Given this, our finding that E was not significantly related to

social support seeking may be consistent with more comprehensiveexaminations of E.


Notably, a number of significant interactions were also found

with E. Those higher on E, as compared to those lower on E, weremore likely to report the use of confrontation, self-blame, and in-

terpersonal withdrawal in response to a marital conflict than childmisbehavior. They were less likely to report using relationship-

focused coping with marital conflict, whereas the opposite wasfound for coping with child misbehavior. Together, these results

suggest that those higher on E tend to use strategies that are likely tofoster positive relationships when dealing with child misbehavior,

such as trying to take their child’s perspective and offering support,but tend to report the use of more relationship-disruptive strategies,such as withdrawing or confronting the other person to cope with

marital conflict.One potential explanation for this difference may be the dominant

aspect of the E personality. In a parent-child relationship this dom-inance is generally already established. However, in the more likely

egalitarian relationship with a spouse, those higher on E may beprone to engage in coping strategies that demonstrate dominance,

such as interpersonal withdrawal and confrontation. While they areable to be empathic and supportive during child conflict, they maynot be able to do the same for their spouses. Importantly though, E

was found to be related to compromise across situations, indicatingthat despite their dominant style in dealing with other adults, they

continue to try to preserve their relationships. As a whole, the resultsindicate that those high on E are flexible copers who adapt their

coping response depending on the situation but express their dom-inant interpersonal style during marital conflict.

Previous research has found contradictory results with Extraver-sion. Some studies have found no independent effects of E on coping

(O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996), while others have reported significantrelationships between E and coping (Amirkhan et al., 1995; David &Suls, 1999; Rim, 1986; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). As supported by

our findings, one reason for the discrepancy in findings across studiesmay be that the role of E in coping appears to be highly context

dependent. That is, those high on E appear to cope quite differentlydepending upon the specific dimensions of the stressful situation

with which they are coping. Such situational specificity in copingbehavior may be considered to be a sign of flexibility in coping and,

as such, potentially indicative of adaptive coping efforts. This isconsistent with the generally positive view of those high on E that


emerges in the literature (Hooker et al., 1994; Watson & Hubbard,

1996).Those higher on Openness (O) were significantly less likely to re-

port the use of distancing. This result is consistent with expectation,previous research, and models of O that suggest that those higher on

O are comfortable experiencing a range of emotions (Costa &McCrae, 1989; David & Suls, 1999; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996).

As such, they may not feel as great a need to distance themselvesfrom the potentially distressing emotions elicited by stressful cir-cumstances as do those lower on O. Consistent with descriptions that

those high on O are open with their own feelings and experiences,previous research has suggested that those higher on O are also more

open and sensitive to the feelings of loved ones (O’Brien & De-Longis, 1996). Consistent with these findings and expectations, those

higher on O reported a marginally significant tendency to use rela-tionship-focused coping.

Those higher on Agreeableness (A) were significantly less likely toreport engaging in self-blame and somewhat, but not significantly,

less likely to report engaging in escape avoidance. This is consistentwith our expectations and previous research suggesting that thosehigher on A are less likely to use emotion-focused strategies (Hooker

et al., 1994; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996).There were also significant interactions between A and stressor type.

Compared to those lower on A, those higher on A were more likelyto report using relationship-focused coping and less likely to report

the use of confrontation when coping with a marital stressor. Incontrast, they were less likely to report the use of relationship-

focused coping and more likely to use confrontation when copingwith child misbehavior. Together, these results suggest that thosehigher on A may not be as comfortable with the dominant or au-

thoritative role sometimes called for in parenting. They may there-fore respond in ways that could be less adaptive. Our findings

suggest that although those higher on A tend to be able to respondempathically and nonconfrontationally during a marital stressor,

they tend to be unable to use such adaptive strategies during a con-flict with their children. It is only in coping with stress involving their

spouse, but not their children, that coping reported by those high onA tended to fit the standard description, and our expectations, of A

as nonconfrontational and highly agreeable (McCrae, 1992; McCrae& Costa, 1987). As we are aware of no previous studies of A and


parenting, this study offers an interesting picture of how those higher

on A may deal with their children.Finally, those higher on Conscientiousness (C) were significantly

more likely to report engaging in both relationship-focused copingand somewhat, but not significantly, more likely to report using

support seeking, compromise, and problem solving than were thoselower on C. Previous research suggests that those higher on C tend to

use direct, active, problem-focused strategies and to eschew avoidantemotional strategies (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Watson & Hub-

bard, 1996). These results are consistent with previous research andour expectations indicating that those higher on C are more able tocope in active and relationship-protecting ways such as engaging in

relationship-focused coping (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996). C also in-teracted significantly with context in predicting coping. Those higher

on C, as compared to those lower on C, were more likely to reportself-blame in coping with a marital stressor and less likely to report

self-blame in coping with child misbehavior. Thus, although thosehigher on C take responsibility for their actions and the potentially

associated blame during a marital conflict, they do not do so re-garding their children. While it is unclear why this is so, future re-search might examine whether, consistent with their own high

standards for themselves, they have heightened expectations fortheir children’s behavior. If so, high C parents may be less inclined

to accept responsibility for their child’s misdeeds, lack of conscien-tiousness, or irresponsibility.

In coping with stress involving both their children and theirspouses, those higher on C reported higher levels of relationship-

focused coping, suggesting that they coped with family stress withempathy and sensitivity. Thus, although those high on C may be

somewhat demanding of their children, they were able to respondempathically to their children even in times of child misbehavior.Together, these results add to a picture of those high on C as being

effective copers who adapt to the demands of the situation and re-spond in appropriate ways (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996; Watson &

Hubbard, 1996).

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study examined only two types of interpersonal stress-ors, marital conflict and child misbehavior. Even within this limited


range of stressors, situational factors played a role in both coping

and in the effect of personality on coping. This suggests that a fruit-ful direction for future research might lie in further examining in-

terpersonal dimensions of stressors and their role in personality andcoping. A second limitation of the current study is that, although we

have considered each Big Five trait within the context of the others,we have not considered personality profiles. That is, although we

have statistically controlled for the role of the other four Big Fivetraits in examining each trait, personality traits do not, in actuality,exist independent of other personality traits. A far richer analysis

than that provided here might be afforded by a consideration ofprofiles of coping (e.g., high on N and C, average on O and A, low

on E).10 A third limitation is that we did not control for the per-ceived severity of the stressor. Previous research has demonstrated

that perceived severity of the stressor interacts with personality topredict coping strategy use (David & Suls, 1999), and therefore fu-

ture research may want to examine how the severity of the stressoraffects the relationship between personality and coping. There may

be meaningful differences even within a category of stressors de-pending on the severity of the stressor. Finally, although gender didnot produce reliable or consistent effects in the relationship between

stressor, personality, and coping, future research may want to con-sider a more detailed analysis of the role of gender. For example,

gender may have a direct influence on coping strategy use or it mayalso have significant interaction effects both with personality and

coping and between personality, situation, and coping.

Conclusion

The stress and coping literature is plagued with inconsistencies and

discrepancies (Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). The present study ad-dresses some of the concerns raised as reasons for these inconsist-

encies both through the use of a daily process methodology (e.g.,Tennen et al., 2000) and in evaluating the situation, person dimen-sions, and the interactions between the two (e.g., Coyne & Gottlieb,

1996). Our results underscore the importance of considering all threeof these aspects to develop a better understanding of how people

cope with interpersonal-family stress. They also suggest that incon-

10. We wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.


sistencies in the literature regarding the relations between personality

and coping may also be due to a failure to consider context. As theresults of our study suggest, the way that personality manifests itself

in the stress and coping process may be highly context dependent.The stress and coping process is complex and intricate, involving

both person and situation factors and their interactions. The findingsof this study highlight the importance of examining coping behavior

within an interactional context in which both the person and featuresof his or her environment are considered in tandem.

REFERENCES

Affleck, G., Zautra, A. J., Tennen, H., & Armeli, S. (1999). Multilevel daily

process designs for consulting and clinical psychology: A preface for the per-

plexed. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 746–754.

Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, R. A. (1987). Does coping help? A reexamination of

the relation between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and So-

cial Psychology, 43, 337–348.

Amirkhan, J. H., Risinger, R. T., & Swickert, R. J. (1995). Extraversion: A ‘‘hid-

den’’ personality factor in coping? Journal of Personality, 63, 189–212.

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily

stress on negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,

808–818.

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethington, E. (1990). The micro-

structure of daily role-related stress in married couples. In J. Eckenrode & S.

Gore (Eds.), Stress between work and family (pp. 95–115). New York: Plenum

Press.

Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday

life: The role of neuroticism in the exposure and reactivity to daily stressors.

Journal of Personality, 59, 355–386.

Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in

the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,

890–902.

Bray, J. H. (1999). From marriage to remarriage and beyond: Findings from the

developmental issues in stepfamilies research project. In E. M. Hetherington

(Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage: A risk and resil-

iency perspective (pp. 253–271). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bray, J. H., & Berger, S. H. (1993). Developmental issues in stepfamilies research

project: Family relationships and parent-child interactions. Journal of Family

Psychology, 7, 76–90.

Bray, J. H., & Jouriles, E. (1995). Treatment of marital conflict and prevention of

divorce. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 461–473.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. London:

Sage Publications.


Buss, D. M. (1992). Manipulation in close relationships: Five personality factors

in interactional context. Journal of Personality, 60, 477–499.

Costa, P. T., Jr., &McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual.

Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement.

Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI/NEO-FFI Professional Man-

ual. Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Trait theories of personality. In D. F.

Barone & M. Hersen (Eds.), Advanced personality. The Plenum series in social/

clinical psychology (pp. 103–121). New York: Plenum.

Costa, P. T., Jr., Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (1996). Personality and

coping: A reconceptualization. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.),Handbook

of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 44–61). Toronto: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

Coyne, J. C., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The mismeasure of coping by checklist.

Journal of Personality, 64, 959–991.

Coyne, J. C., & Smith, D. A. F. (1991). Couples coping with a mycardial inf-

arction: A contextual perspective on wives’ distress. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 61, 404–412.

Cramer, D. (1985). Psychological adjustment and the facilitative nature of close

relationships. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 58, 165–168.

David, J. P., & Suls, J. (1999). Coping efforts in daily life: Role of Big Five traits

and problems appraisals. Journal of Personality, 67, 265–294.

DeLongis, A., Bolger, N., & Kessler, R. C. (1987, August). Coping with marital

conflict. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Asso-

ciation, New York.

DeLongis, A., Capreol, M. J., Holtzman, S., O’Brien, T. B., & Campbell, J.

(2004). Social support and social strain among husbands and wives: A mul-

tilevel analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 470–479.

DeLongis, A., Hemphill, K. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1992). A structured diary

methodology for the study of daily events. In F. B. Bryant, J. Edwards, L.

Health, E. J. Posavac, R. S. Tinsdale, & E. Henderson (Eds.), Methodological

issues in applied social psychology (pp. 81–109). New York: Plenum.

DeLongis, A., & O’Brien, T. (1990). An interpersonal framework for stress and

coping: An application to the families of Alzheimer’s patients. In M. A. P.

Stephens, J. H. Crowther, S. E. Hobfoll, & D. L. Tennenbaum (Eds.), Stress

and coping in later life families (pp. 221–239). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

DeLongis, A., & Preece, M. (2002). Emotional and relational consequences of

coping in step-families. Marriage and Family Review, 34, 115–138.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping:

A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,

844–854.

Feldman, S. I., Downey, G., & Schaffer-Neitz, R. (1999). Pain, negative mood,

and perceived support in chronic pain patients: A daily diary study of people

with reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical



Fleishman, J. A. (1984). Personality characteristics and coping patterns. Journal of

Health and Social Behavior, 25, 229–244.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R.

(1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping,

and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,

992–1003.

Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism

in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,

1087–1100.

Hetherington, E. M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia longitudinal study of

divorce and remarriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 35–56.

Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1987). Personal and contextual determinants of

coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 946–955.

Holtzman, S., Newth, S., & DeLongis, A. (2004). The role of social support in

coping with daily pain among patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. Journal of

Health Psychology, 9, 749–767.

Hooker, K., Frazier, I. D., & Monahan, D. J. (1994). Personality and coping

among caregivers of spouses with dementia. The Gerontologist, 34, 386–392.

Kheshgi-Genovese, Z., & Genovese, T. A. (1997). Developing the spousal rela-

tionship within stepfamilies. Families in Society, 78, 255–264.

Kramer, B. J. (1993). Expanding the conceptualisation of caregiver coping: The

importance of relationship-focused coping strategies. Family Relations, 42,

383–391.

Lazarus, R. S., & DeLongis, A. (1983). Psychological stress and coping in aging.

American Psychologist, 38, 245–254.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:

Springer.

Lee-Baggley, D. L., DeLongis, A., Grover, R., & Chan, T. (2003, May). Coping

with family stress: Relationship and mood outcomes. Poster session presented at

the 83rd Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association, Van-

couver, BC, Canada.

Maitlin, J. A., Wethington, E. M., & Kesser, R. C. (1990). Situational determi-

nants of coping and coping effectiveness. Journal of Health and Social Behav-

iour, 31, 103–122.

McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss,

threat, and challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,

919–928.

McCrae, R. R. (1990). Controlling neuroticism in the measurement of stress.

Stress Medicine, 6, 237–241.

McCrae, R. R. (Ed.). (1992). The five-factor model: Issues and applications [Spe-

cial issue]. Journal of Personality, 60 (2).

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr., (1985). Updating Norman’s ‘‘adequate tax-

onomy’’: Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in

questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710–721.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effec-

tiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385–405.


McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of a five-factor model of

personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social


Muthen, B. O. (1991). Multilevel factor analysis of class and student achievement

components. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 338–354.

Newth, S., & DeLongis, A. (2004). Individual differences, mood and coping with

chronic pain in rheumatoid arthritis: A daily process analysis. Psychology and

Health, 19, 283–305.

O’Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problem-,

emotion-, and relationship-focused coping: The role of the Big Five personality

factors. Journal of Personality, 64, 775–813.

O’Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1997). Coping with chronic stress: An interper-

sonal perspective. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Coping with chronic stress. The Ple-

num series on stress and coping (pp. 161–190). New York: Plenum Press.

Parkes, K. R. (1986). Coping in stressful episodes: The role of individual differ-

ences, environmental factors, and situational characteristics. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1277–1292.

Preece, M., & DeLongis, A. (2005). Stress, coping, and social support processes in

stepfamilies. To appear in T. A. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann

(Eds.), Emerging perspectives on couples coping with stress (pp. 51–69). Wash-

ington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ptacek, J. T., Smith, R. E., Espe, K., & Raffety, B. (1994). Limited correspond-

ence between daily coping reports and retrospective coping recall. Psycholog-

ical Assessment, 6, 41–48.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.).

London: Sage Publications.

Rim, Y. (1986). Ways of coping, personality, age, sex and family structural var-

iables. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 113–116.

Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of

factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646.

Smith, R. E., Leffingwell, T. R., & Ptacek, J. T. (1999). Can people remember how

they coped? Factors associated with discordance between same-day and retro-

spective reports. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1050–1061.

Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to

basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-

tions.

Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Meth-

odological challenges, theoretical advances and clinical applications. American

Psychologist, 55, 620–625.

Suls, J., & David, J. P. (1996). Coping and personality: Three generations of re-

search. Journal of Personality, 64, 711–735.

Tennen, H., Affleck, G., Armeli, S., & Carney, M. A. (2000). A daily process

approach to coping: Linking theory, research, and practice. American Psy-

chologist, 55, 626–636.

Terry, D. J. (1994). Determinants of coping: The role of stable and situational

factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 895–910.


Vickers, R. R., Jr., Kolar, D. W., & Hervig, L. K. (1989). Personality correlates of

coping with military basic training (Rep. No. 89-3). San Diego: Naval Health

Research Center.

Vitaliano, P. P., Mairuro, R. D., Russo, J., & Becker, J. (1987). Raw versus rel-

ative scores in the assessment of coping strategies. Journal of Behavioural

Medicine, 10, 1–18.

Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional struc-

ture: Coping in the context of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 64,

737–774.

West, S. G., & Hepworth, J. T. (1991). Statistical issues in the study of temporal

data: Daily experiences. Journal of Personality, 59, 609–662.

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the

five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality:

Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88–162). New York: Guilford.

Zeppa, A., & Norem, R. H. (1993). Stressors, manifestations of stress, and first

family/stepfamily group membership. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 19,

3–24.

Appendix

Factor Analysis: Principal Axis Factors and Subscale Loadings

Factorloadings

Subscaleloadings

Factor 1: (alpha5 .88)Subscale 1: Relationship-focused coping

(alpha5 .86)Tried to understand how the oth-er person felt.

0.93 0.85

Tried to see things from the otherperson’s perspective.

0.82 0.81

Tried to help the other person(s)involved by listening to them.

0.78 0.45

Imagined myself in the other per-son’s shoes.

0.68 0.77

Tried to comfort the other per-son(s) involved by showing themmy positive feelings for them.

0.72 0.45

Tried to help the other person(s)involved by doing something forthem.

0.57 0.29


Subscale 2: Compromise (alpha5 .73)Tried to meet the other personhalf-way.

0.50 0.67

Tried to find a solution that wasfair to all involved.

0.46 0.71

Tried to compromise with oth-er(s) involved.

0.45 0.72

Factor 2: Interpersonal Withdrawal (alpha5 .73)I withdrew from the other per-son(s) involved.

0.75

I gave the other person(s) in-volved the ‘‘silent treatment’’.

0.74

I sulked. 0.64Tried to keep others from know-ing about the problem or aboutmy feelings.

0.46

Tried to keep my feelings to my-self.

0.42

Factor 3: Escape-Avoidance (alpha5 .66)(WOC alpha5 .72)Hoped a miracle would happen. 0.72Wished the situation would goaway or somehow be over with.

0.51

Had fantasies about how thingsmight turn out.

0.49

Factor 4: (alpha5 .70)Subscale 1: Self-blame (alpha5 .64)(Accepting responsibility, WOC al-pha5 .66)

Realized I brought the problemon myself.

0.54 0.67

Criticized or lectured myself. 0.54 0.66Made a promise to myself thatthings would be different nexttime.

0.53 0.49

Subscale 2: Problem-solving(alpha5 .71) (WOC alpha5 .68)

Appendix (Cont.)

Factorloadings

Subscaleloadings


Concentrated on what I had to donext to solve the problem.

0.60 0.75

Made a plan of action. 0.47 0.70Increased my efforts to makethings work.

0.32 0.60

Factor 5: Confrontation (alpha5 .70)Stood my ground and fought forwhat I wanted.

0.76

Expressed anger to the person(s)who caused the problem.

0.69

Tried to get the person responsi-ble to change his or her mind.

0.65

Factor 6: Support-seeking (alpha5 .72)(WOC alpha5 .76)Talked with someone not in-volved about the problem.

0.81

I asked someone I respected foradvice.

0.72

Factor 7: Distancing (alpha5 .55)(WOC alpha5 .61)Didn’t let it get to me; refused tothink about it too much.

0.58

Went on as if nothing had hap-pened.

0.57

Tried to keep my feelings frominterfering with other things.

0.43

Refused to get too serious about thesituation; tried to laugh about it.

0.41

Factor 8: Positive Reappraisal (alpha5 .80)(WOC alpha5 .79)Changed or grew as a person in agood way.

0.87

Came out of the experience betterthan when I went in.

0.86

Rediscovered what is importantin life.

0.56

Appendix (Cont.)

Factorloadings

Subscaleloadings


Factor 9: Self-care (alpha5 .61)Did something nice for myself. 0.81Took some private time out to dosomething.

0.58

Took some time out to be withsomeone I enjoy.

0.35

Note. The first alpha reported after the scale name is the Cronbach alpha for this

version of the scale. The second alpha, when noted, is for the parallel scale from the

67-item Revised Ways of Coping Scale (Folkman et al., 1986).

Appendix (Cont.)

Factorloadings

Subscaleloadings


Coping With Interpersonal Stress: Role of Big Five Traits · ported interpersonal family stressors...

Documents

Transcript of Coping With Interpersonal Stress: Role of Big Five Traits · ported interpersonal family stressors...