even though the response is very different. Skinner et al. (2003: 248) suggest that there
is a need for a comprehensive list of ways of coping that can then be classified into
‘conceptually clear and mutually exclusive action types’. They identify 13 families of
coping that fit this description. They are problem solving (e.g. direct action); support
seeking; escape (e.g. avoidance, disengagement and denial); distraction; cognitive
restructuring (e.g. positive thinking); rumination (e.g. worry and self-blame);
helplessness (e.g. giving up); social withdrawal; emotional regulation (e.g. by emotional
expression or self-calming); information seeking; negotiation (e.g. compromise or
prioritizing); opposition (aggression or blaming others); and delegation (e.g. maladaptive
help seeking).
Do we have consistent styles of coping across
different situations?
When faced with a stressful situation, we do not all adopt the same coping strategy.
Thus we need to consider individual differences or the ways personality affects choice
of coping strategy. However, the extent to which coping is determined by stable
factors, rather than varying across situations, has been a source of debate among
researchers. Those such as Lazarus who are interested in the different strategies used
in different circumstances take a situational view, while those who focus on consistency
across different situations take a dispositional (or trait) approach to coping.
Carver and Scheier (1994) argue that there are dispositional tendencies to use
emotion-focused or problem-focused coping. The COPE is designed to be used as
either a dispositional or a situational measure, depending on whether the individual
is asked to complete it in relation to specific situations or in relation to general
tendencies.
Some researchers are sceptical about the accuracy of people’s reports of their
general coping tendencies (e.g. Coyne and Gottlieb, 1996). Lazarus (1993) suggested
that dispositional tendencies to use particular coping strategies are better obtained by
looking at the individual in a range of different situations. One study that compared
people’s ratings of how they generally coped with their average coping across a number
of specific episodes found that asking people how they generally coped was a poor
predictor of what they did in a specific situation, although the tendency to use escape-
avoidance or religious coping showed more consistency across situations (Schwartz J.E.
et al., 1999). The tendency to use avoidance (versus approach) coping is a key feature
of two coping trait classifications, namely, repressive coping and monitoring (versus
blunting) coping.
Repressive coping
People who have a repressive coping style direct attention away from threatening
information or stimuli or interpret such information in a non-threatening manner
(Derakshan and Eysenck, 1997). This has clear links to the Freudian notion of
repression and was originally contrasted with ‘sensitizing’, a form of approach coping.
A person high on repressive coping will avert attention from negative feelings to the
extent of being unaware that they feel anxious or depressed. However, this is different
from intentional suppression of disturbing thoughts or feelings (Myers, Vetere and
Derakshan, 2004). A characteristic of repressors is that, when faced with stressful tasks,
COPING AND SOCIAL SUPPORT 95