1978; Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996). In performance contexts, we might have a
general expectation that problem-focused strategies should be more adaptive
than avoidance or emotion-focused strategies. However, we must also take
into account the personal significance of the performance situation. If per-
forming well has no adaptive value, avoidance may be the most appropriate
strategy. Why expend effort for no reward? If the person cannot hope to suc-
ceed at the task, emotion–focus may be adaptive if it allows the person to
come to terms with failure, perhaps recognizing that external factors rather
than personal inability are responsible. Thus, although active, problem-
focused coping is preferred by most persons and is generally more effective in
stress reduction (Gal & Lazarus, 1975), alternative strategies are increasingly
used when the source of stress is unclear, when there is a lack of knowledge
about stress modification, or when there is little one can do to eliminate stress
(Pearlin & Schooler, 1978).
With this background to coping and adaptation, further studies have ex-
plored the role of cognitive-stress processes in state changes induced by the
task environment (see Matthews, Derryberry, et al., 2000, for a summary).
These studies measured situational appraisal and coping immediately follow-
ing task performance using scales for standard constructs in the stress litera-
ture (e.g., Endler & Parker, 1990). With baseline, pre-task state held constant,
appraisal and coping explain substantial variance in state change. Figure 6.8
gives representative regression statistics from a study in which pre-task state,
164 MATTHEWS AND ZEIDNER
FIG. 6.8. Percentages of variance explained by three types of predictors of
post-task state—pre-task state, appraisal, and coping—in a study of 108 partic-
ipants performing a rapid information-processing task (Matthews, Derryberry,
& Siegle, 2000).Note. **Significance of predictor set at entry:p< .01.