Coping With Job Stress - A Conceptual Evaluation Framework For Coping Measures

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR. VOL.
13,479-508(1992)
Coping with job stress: A conceptual

evaluation framework for coping measures
JANINA C. LATACK'
Ohio Slate University, Department of Management and Human Resources, 356 Hagertv Hall.
Columbus, OH43210, U.S.A.
AND
STEPHEN J. HAVLOVIC
Simon Fraser University. Faculty of Business Administration, Burnaby. BC, Canada V5A IS6
Summary Intense interest in stress had led to a proliferation of coping measures. To aid researchers
in choosing or developing coping measures applicable to job stress, this paper provides
a conceptual evaluation framework. The framework serves to evaluate the extent to
which coping measures are comprehensive (focus and method of coping) and specific
(coping behaviors versus coping effectiveness, coping style, or coping resources; and
stress management applications). Both theoretical and organizational stress management
perspectives are incorporated.
Introduction
The unprecedented managerial concern about detrimental effects of job stress continues to
grow (Matteson and Ivancevich, 1987) and is unlikely to subside (Burke and Weir, 1980; Karasek
and Theorell, 1990; Murphy, 1988). This concern is fueled by the widely-publicized estimates
that stress costs American industry over $150 million annually in lost work time, accidents
and medical costs (Landers, 1987). The costs of stress, and the pressing need for research-based
interventions were highlighted again recently by American Psychologist which devoted the major-
ity of the October 1990 issue to workplace stress (Keita and Jones, 1990). In addition, a national
conference, co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) brought world-renowned experts to
Washington, D.C. to consider 'Work and Weil-Being: An Agenda for the 9O's'
Researchers interested in job stress have devoted considerable attention to how people cope
(Kirmeyer and Dougherty, 1988; Latack, 1986; Schuler, 1985). In their review of personal and
organizational strategies for handling job stress, Newman and Beehr (1979) pointed out that
there had been little rigorous evaluative research on coping strategies, an observation that
The authors express appreciation to Marjorie Stassen and Len Proper for excellent research assistance. Helpful comments
on an earlier draft were provided by Ray Aldag, Terry Beehr, Tom Milbum and Amon Reichers.
Janina C. Latack is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Management and Human Resources at Ohio State
University. Correspondence should be sent to the Faculty of Management and Human Resources, Room 356 Hagerty
Hall, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210.
Stephen J. Havlovic is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Business Administration at Simon Fraser University.
All correspondence should be addressed to the first author.
0894-3796/92/050479-30520.00 Received 3 January 1990

© 1992 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Final Revision 21 June 1991
480 J. C. LATACK AND S. J. HAVLOVIC
Still holds today. Rigorous evaluation of coping depends, of course, on valid coping measures.
Although there has been a proliferation of coping scales since Newman and Beehr's review
article, many have not been evaluated beyond the specific sample and setting in which they
were developed. In other cases, multiple factor structures have been proposed for the same
measure (Aldwin and Revenson, 1987).
Although coping is acknowledged as an important mechanism, researchers need frameworks
for organizing the existing coping literature into a cohesive whole (Edwards, 1988). This paper
presents a conceptual evaluation framework specifically focused on coping measures. The pur-
pose is to aid researchers in selecting or adapting published coping measures as well as in
developing new coping measures. First, we provide a conceptual definition of coping applicable
to job stress. Next, we draw on coping theory and published coping measures to propose a
framework for evaluating both comprehensiveness and specificity of coping measures. We explain
how this conceptual framework can serve as a crucial supplement to traditional psychometric
criteria in tests of complex job-related coping models. We conclude with suggested research
strategies for advancing our knowledge of coping processes in work organizations. Our ultimate
goal is to provide some order and integration that will advance coping research and spur appli-
cation of new knowledge to pressing managerial problems. This goal is consistent with Cooper
and Payne's conclusion t h a t ' . . . the evidence on how to decrease stress and/or improve peoples'
ability to cope with it is less than adequate, and much needs to be done to increase our knowledge
base in this area' (Cooper and Payne, 1988, p. 413).
Conceptual definition of coping

Empirical measures must be rooted in conceptual definitions of the constructs they are intended
to measure. A review of the conceptual definitions will pave the way for evaluating coping
measures and highlight definitional issues relative to job-related coping.
Although not all of the empirical studies we reviewed offered an explicit conceptual definition
of coping, we summarize in Table 1 conceptual definitions of coping that were stated or could
be inferred from statements by the authors. Many of the definitions utilized were borrowed
or modified from earlier studies and researchers frequently cite the work of Lazarus and his
colleagues (e.g. Lazarus and Launier, 1978). In most cases the coping definition was used to
select or develop the empirical measure(s) of coping.
Examination of the various definitions reveals some convergence around the notion that
coping is part of a person-environment transaction that occurs when an individual appraises
a situation as stressful. Stressful situations can take the form of harm, threat or challenge
(Beehr and Bhagat, 1985; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Schuler, 1985). The majority of definitions
do not further define "stressful' but rather cast stress in terms of targets toward which coping
is directed. In most cases the targets defined are the 'stressful situation (problem-focused coping)
or the attendant negative emotions (emotion-focused coping)' (Aldwin and Revenson, 1987).
Some definitions focus on one target, the emotional reactions, as in minimizing the 'impact
of the strains' (Pearlin, Lieberman, Menaghan and Mullan, 1981).
Other researchers further define the concept of 'stressful', specifying the dimensions of a
situation that will call forth coping responses. For example, Coyne, Aldwin and Lazarus (1981)
state that 'coping refers to efforts, both cognitive and behavioral, to manage environmental
and internal demands and conflicts affecting an individual that tax or exceed a person's resources*
Dewe (1987) refers to 'active or passive attempts to respond to a situation of threat with the
aim of removing the threat or reducing the discomfort', Latack (1986) draws upon conceptual
COPING WITH JOB STRESS 481
Table 1. Synopsis of coping definitions

Author(s) Coping definitions
Aldwin and 'Coping encompasses cognitive and behavioral strategies used to manage a stressful situation
Revenson(1987) (problem-focused coping) and the attendant negative emotions (emotion-focused coping)'
Anderson (1976) 'The Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964) categorization of coping behaviors
was employed'. Class I Coping (task situation; problem-solving) and Class II Coping
(emotional or anxiety reactions)
Billings and Moos ... we have chosen to focus on the cognitive and behavioral reactions individuals report
(1981) in response to stressful events which have occurred recently in their lives ...' [Method of
coping: cognitive (intrapsychic) and behavioral strategies. Focus of coping: problem-focused
and emotion-focused coping]
Burke and Belcourt 'Burke (1971) and Mann (unpublished manuscript) attempted to determine specific activities
(1974) managers undertook to cojie with job tension.... 'Some examples of these methods of coping
were: (1) Change to an engrossing non-work or play activity, (2) analyze the situation and
change strategy of attack (problem-solving), (3) withdraw temporarily from the situation,
(4) work harder, and (5) talk situation through with others on the job'
Carver ff a/. (1989) The Lazarus (1966) stress definition is utilized. 'Lazarus argued that stress consists of three
processes. Primary appraisal is the process of perceiving a threat to oneself. Secondary
appraisal is the process of bringing to mind a potential response to the threat. Coping is
the process of executing that response'
Coyne era/. (1981) 'Coping refers to efforts, both cognitive and behavioral, to manage environmental and internal
demands and conflcits affecting an individual that tax or exceed that person's resources'
Dewe(1987) ... coping can be defined as active or passive attempts to respond to a situation of threat
with the aim of removing the threat or reducing the emotional discomfort'
Feldman and Brett Combined definitions from Beehr and Newman (1978); Brett and Werbel (1980); Werbel (1980);
(1983) Levi (1967); and Folkman and Lazarus (1980) in order to identify behavioral coping strategies
Fleishman (1984) 'Coping refers to both overt and covert behaviors that are taken to reduce or eliminate
psychological distress or stressful conditions.... behaviors that appear to have a primary
instrumental nature will be distinguished from all other behaviors, and the latter will be
considered as emotion-focused'
Folkman and 'Coping is defined as the cognitive and behavioral efforts made to master, tolerate, or reduce
Lazarus (1980) external and internal demands and conflicts among them'
Hall (1972) 'First, the person can alter external, structurally imposed expectations held by others, regarding
the appropriate behavior of a person in his or her position' (structural role redefinition). The
second type of coping involves changing one's personal concept of role demands received
from others' (personal role redefinition). 'The third type of copying is reactive role behavior'
Havlovic and 'The Aldwin and Revenson (1987) definition of coping is utilized in this study: "Coping
Keenan(1991) encompasses cognitive and behavioral strategies used to manage a stressful situation (problem-
focused coping) and the attendant negative emotions (emotion-focused coping)''
Ilfeld(1980) ... coping styles are responses to ongoing stressors in daily roles. The following three major
patterns emerge: taking direct action against the perceived stressor, rationalizing or avoiding
the stressor, and accepting the stressor without trying to change it definition of coping,
attempt by a person to resolve life stressors and emotional pain ...'
Kinicki and Latack 'Coping is conceptualized as cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage the internal and
(1990) external demands of person-environment transactions appraised as stressful (Folkman and
Lazarus, 1985; Folkman cr a/., 1986)'
Kirmeyer and Coping is the cognitive and behavioral efforts made to master, minimize, tolerate or reduce
Diamond (1985) external and internal demands' (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980, p. 223)'
Kirmeyer and 'Although coping is broadly defined as cognitive and behavioral efforts directed at lessening
Dougherty (1988) emotional distress and managing external demands (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), we limited
our measurement to problem-focused (as opposed to emotion-focused) strategies for altering
or managing one's work load'
Table 1 (contd.)
Author(s) Coping definitions
Latack (1986) ... coping is defined in this study as a response to situations characterized by uncertainty
and important consequences'
McCrae(1984) ... Lazarus and Launier (1978) This article ... adopts the strategy of examining a fairly
large number of distinct coping mechanisms, rather than a few broad categories'
Mitchell et al. 'Coping responses have been described as the cognitions and behaviors that people use to
(1983) modify adverse aspects of their environments as well as to minimize the potential threat arising
from such aspects (Lazarus, 1981; Moos and Billings, 1982; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978)—
problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies ...'
Newton and 'A person's coping response will depend on how he or she perceives the stress encountered
Keenan(1985) (Lazarus and Launier, 1978; Lazarus, Averill and Opton, 1974; Lazarus, Cohen, Folkman,
Kanner and Shaefer, 1980; Weir, 1980)'
O'Neill and 'Coping with stress has been defined as the cognitive and behavioral efforts that master,
Zeichner(1985) minimize, tolerate, or reduce internal and environmental demands' (Lazarus, 1980). Two major
classes of coping responses have been formulated (Billings and Moos, 1982; Folkman and
Lazarus, 1980; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978): (a) problem-focused coping which regulates
stressful person-environment interactions, and (b) emotion-focused coping which regulates
stressful emotions
Osipow and 'Coping responses, when they exist in adequate proportion, permit human beings not only
Spokane(1984) to deal with a stress, but to increase their adaptive capacities as a consequence'
Parasuraman and ... coping behaviors were defined conceptually as individuals' overt attempts to alleviate or
Cleek(1984) respond to stressful conditions at work'
Parasuraman and ... coping refers to the cognitive and behavioral efforts made by individuals to prevent, reduce,
Hansen(1987) or master stressful situations and their attendant consequences'
Parkes(1984) ... problem-focused coping intended to alter the troubled situation was distinguished from
emotion-focused coping intended to control the emotional response to the situation The
concepts of problem- and emotion-focused coping are based on theoretical arguments
(Folkman et al., 1979; Lazarus and Launier, 1978)...'
Pearling/a/. (1981) ... the identification of the coping behaviors people use to minimize the impact of the strains'
Pearlin and ... the concept is being used here to refer to any response to external life strains that serves
Schooler (1978) to prevent, avoid, or control emotional distress'
Seiler and Pearson Practice of selected coping techniques (Attention to personal interests and growth; Cultivation
(1984) and maintenance of friendships; Recreational time-off from work; Participation in physical
exercise)
Shinne/a/. (1984) 'We define coping as efforts to reduce stress and strain. In particular, we conceptualize coping
as occurring at three levels: (a) strategies used by individual workers, (b) strategies undertaken
by groups of workers to aid one another (social support), and (c) strategies initiated by human
service agencies'
Siegler and George Coping orientation (instrumental or palliative) and cross classified modes of coping
(1983) (information seeking, direct action, inhibition of action and intrapsychic). (Lazarus and
Launier, 1978)
Stone and Neale ... those behaviors and thoughts which are consciously used by an individual to handle or
(1984) control the effects of anticipating or experiencing a stressful situation'
Violantiera/. (1985) Attempts to adjust to job demands, specifically two coping responses: cynicism "mocking
disbelief and use of alcohol as a response to job stress
Zappert and ... the coping style index included items related to the ability to set limits and pace oneself,
Weinstein(1985) confidence in one's judgment, seeking feedback or information when faced with a problem,
and attempting to be the best at all one does;... the coping strain index included items related
to difficulties controlling temper or emotions, impatience, heightened sensitivity to criticism,
self-doubt and self-blame, and inaction when confronting problems;...'
dimensions identified by Schuler (1985) to define coping as a 'response to situations characterized

by uncertainty and important consequences'
A broad, integrative definition of coping is adopted here to allow for inclusion of coping
measures based on coping targets as well as dimensions of stressful situations. Such a definition
has been offered by Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, Delongis and Gruen (1986). They
define coping as constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage the internal
and external demands of transactions that tax or exceed a person s resources. This broad defini-
tion allows for various specific coping targets that are internal (e.g. emotional reactions) or
external (e.g. the situation). Further, the definition can subsume more specific dimensions of
what individuals find 'taxing' (e.g. uncertainty, important consequences).
This integrative definition merits discussion because it permits us to make three key distinctions
important to research on job stress: Coping behaviors or processes are a more appropriate
focus than stable coping "styles'; coping is separate from coping effectiveness; and coping applies
to challenge as well as harm and threat situations.
The focus is on coping behaviors or processes rather than a stable coping 'style' or personality
trait (see Burke and Weir, 1980; Folkman, 1982; Goldstein, 1973; and Fleming, Baum and
Singer, 1984, for reviews). This focus is important for ultimate application of research findings
to managerial interventions and training. If coping is conceptualized as a personality trait rela-
tively stable across situations, coping research would have little practical value for managers
except perhaps in selection or placement decisions. If, on the other hand coping is amenable
to behavioral or structural intervention and training, new tools for stress management can
be identified.
This definition also distinguishes coping from coping effectiveness. That is, it defines coping
in terms of what people do in specific situations without reference to whether or not it 'works'.
Definitions that cast coping in terms of its effects such as 'preventing, avoiding or controlling
emotional distress (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978) contain implicit effectiveness criteria. That
is, coping is 'effective' if it prevents, avoids or controls individual distress.
Although avoidance or control of individual distress is one effectiveness measure, albeit a
critical one, organizations are interested in other effectiveness measures as well, such as perform-
ance or intention to quit. The wording of the conceptual definition of coping should not be
confounded with effectiveness criteria. The integrative definition offered here (Folkman et al.,
1986) does not imply any criteria for coping 'effectiveness' Coping, not coping 'effectiveness'
is therefore appropriate to our interest in organizational stress because this focus does not
bias researchers regarding what constitutes effective coping. Accordingly, coping can be exam-
ined in terms of influence on a range of dependent variables including effectiveness criteria.
Finally, this conceptual definition applies to stress that takes the form of challenge as well
as harm or threat. Although much of the coping literature emphasizes situations of harm or
threat, it has been argued that the motivational or opportunity aspect of stress must be considered
in job stress situations (Schuler, 1985). From an organizational point of view, it is valuable
to conceptualize coping in a manner that allows for developmental stress or 'eustress' that
can spur organizational productivity and innovation.
Coping measures: An evaluative framework

Theory building is both a deductive and inductive process. Our strategy is inductive in that
it uses empirical evidence as a base for theory development by examining the empirical studies
containing coping measures to derive theoretical directions. Drawing themes from empirical
Studies and integrating them with coping theory (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) enables us to
provide a theoretical framework for interpreting a large body of unrelated studies that have
not been integrated. To build an evaluative framework, we conducted an extensive literature
search on coping (PSYCH/info and ABI/INFORM). Since our focus is on empirical measures
of coping, studies that included coping measures are summarized in Table 2. Others have pro-
vided more general reviews of the voluminous coping literature (Edwards, 1988; Suls and
Fletcher, 1985; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Menaghan, 1983; Silver and Wortman, 1980).
Job stress research has emphasized contemporary management problems, so the review
includes measures published from the early 7O's up to present. Studies providing measures
specific to job stress appear first, followed by studies presenting general measures of coping
which apply across a variety of life roles and situations including work. Several measures have
been used in multiple studies, in particular the Ways of Coping Checklist (Folkman and Lazarus,
1980) and the coping scale from the Health and Daily Living Form (Moos, Cronkite, Billings
and Finney, 1983).
Our focus is on measures developed to assess individual coping processes (thoughts and
actions) rather than stable coping styles. Although terminology used by researchers sometimes
blurs this distinction (e.g. Ilfeld, 1980; Zappert and Weinstein, 1985), measures were included
in our review if they assessed actions and thoughts relative to specific stressful situations. In
addition, contextual influences are central in stress research (Fleming et al., 1984). Therefore,
we selected studies dealing with organizational or everyday life experience and excluded studies
of extraordinary job situations, e.g. hospice workers (Yancik, 1984) and major life crises and
illness (see Moos and Billings, 1982 for a review).
The coping dimensions assessed by these measures are summarized in the far right coltimn
of Table 2. The number of dimensions varies from one or two (Kirmeyer and Dougherty,
1988; Violanti, Marshall and Howe, 1985) to 28 separate scales (McCrae, 1984). A sunmiary
of the derivation methodology for each study is provided in Appendix A.
A review of both Appendix A and Table 2 shows that a number of the coping scales have
already been evaluated by traditional psychometric criteria. Reported coefficient alphas range
from a low of 0.38 (Feldman and Brett, 1983) to a high of 0.92 (Carver, Scheier and Weintraub,
1989). The average coefficient alpha across the 15 studies that reported this statistic was (0.71).
A review of derivation methodology in Appendix A reveals that 12 of the 40 studies subjected
scales to factor analysis. For some studies, such as Hall (1972) factor analysis was not applicable
(e.g. response to open-ended questions coded into categories). It has been argued by some
researchers that because of the complex, changing nature of coping, traditional psychometric
evaluation measures may not be appropriate. For example. Stone and Neale (1984) note that
within a particular coping dimension, the use of one or two specific strategies may in fact
decrease the need to use other strategies in that scale. This fact would place a ceiling on internal
consistency coefficients. Similarly, if coping is a dynamic process, changing over time, it may
not be surprising that when the same coping measure is used with different samples and different
settings, the factor structure varies (Aldwin and Revenson, 1987).
The coping research literature has grown to the point where recurring conceptual distinctions
can be identified. It is not only possible but advisable to set some boundaries on the conceptual
dimensions that should be included in coping measures in order to build our understanding
of coping with job stress. Researchers can establish content validity by selecting coping items
within the coping dimensions of interest.
Relative to content validity of coping measures, there are three major questions that the
existing body of literature can help us answer. First, is the coping measure reflective of a clear
conceptual definition? Second, is the coping measure comprehensive? That is does it include
3
T3 a
C o
Cd
o
o
a
behav ioi
a o
io:n; ado]
leaguesu
/olved
_o o. u
•o o —
•o
- g ^
•5 2 t-. O -C •-- i;
u
00^
!3 g ^ ^
tjo 2
S'a
cd
x: u^ ^ O îtf flj ^*"

^ 60 5 cd «) ^
00
" ,<u — oii •5 d
00 C . _ =5 > 2 . S
u cd a> 0 0 C TD ts 5 ii
o -a 2.-S
'a. jD 00 U5 • - •f*
U
o îi cd
p-ucdcd
cd
Qcuo'S CL,-£
en
^ S S2 0,.2 J=
cd 13
ii C
o
I '.C
c
o
cd
I- t»
c "tS '^
4»
o c xs •s o
o
'5b £ C 13 2 .5 3
en i2
- c i c o^
a o
"" •- O U 00 VJ
U 5 2 JS 00 a.
1 stre;
.S: Q jj c
and job hangi
rateg
copi
tean
c •- .c
c -a cd
u c £: 4J OO
u "5
u 3)2 cd •-• " ^ o
O a> -r* w J3 u 00 •-S 00 %
a
c ^^3 c l
a 5 »>13 2 .E «
l .E i j Cd c o o
u o C S 2i -^
H o W to S
u
00 o E
— U o 3 00
12. o 00
C
c c 3,
Sr2
•-3 . E
ll
la ON
^ 0
u _ed c o 3 _;,
<i; o —
Is ^
3 00 N u o »- L2
8 M>«
3 —'
Ji 00
«^ cd O, td
C
cd
gg 2 II ECd ^
EE S 00 ^ <e CJ
T3 C
00 r C O
cd O
00 2
c ^-
^ s«
QQ I 2 S
l II
o ^
a:
00 te g^
ES
s II
00 1-^ cd cd
o d tn cd
II II 4> '—'
•S -c
3" a §.6o
- 1 3 S.SP^
J^ w (0 S c
cd.>; ^ tS o
o !d 13 . , 2
tn o ^-^ /-^ 3 ^ S^ P>S4
E •^ a, § so 5
•S
00 c if -x: o X)«
c E - ^ . § "2 o
'5. 3 qj C
U c i= te Cd E
a « o S Cd -5 U, S
cd
c "2 O0T3
o - E S
2
S2 8
<C tn
••5 y y o •£ 2
cd cd
o
a. /-• O J 3 C O
H CJ ts n o
00
N
55 ^cd S
o 'E —
u u OX) "
u •« c ^
c ^ w
pol
•g™
3 '-^
3
T3
r3
Is •O
22
so
li
iso
cd g c c .E -^
=
cd
£? ^ b u
T3 JS
1^ If 1) ^
111
O
00
cd
(J
15 1-3 -5 «*
If
cd T3 3
C/5 U Z 5 (£.E < ^
"5 S ^
as
o
as N o
o -o — 00
oo
as §1^
§1
... o
«2
"I as 00
as
Cd h 00
.2 as CJ
B
N
Q 3 J
08 cd
CT3 §•
y-SD
cd
II
o 2=
1 II _
^3 O
I-
a
2 ,
52
o ti "^
'^
i% g -^ 13
E
c c 5^ 2 c .2 ^ cd
ba O
f!^
i: .2S. S <N ""
cd
00 cd "^ *-• "5
cd
3 SE Cd 0 0 ^
'oo
tn x: >«
.g^ °" i* c 8 ^ •= 2 c
11 I
O flJ CJ
^% o -s
00 rt ; -
S •—' ®
'>
"o
o -o
u
CJ
>-<
tn
cd
4.^ Is 11 o « cd
c3 cd ^
JO
tn
tn
•So «
a^ C .>
"Oa *^ oh
o ld|.2
o 'S C
ao oo §•2; .2
on -z: >
cd 'fr^
C tn C 'S O „
is
E o
2 i«
o
I
. . u cd
CU Wa rs
13 —
O 1^
tltlll
1 1 - 3 .>
o o
00 0 0 Cd
2 g ^ 00.2 E yo 00 cd a , g cd " O
^* ^^ J^ *O ^ -^
"S. •= 5 -o u c > C «1 M '^^ . ^ cd - C cd
•i'3 i -o
U
o •z; "i: JC a.
H 5 ow U x> cd III
DM "5 cd
Is o. ooG
2S 8 OaE a
o.
o
< o
u
<3 ^ Q-E 3-s
3
tn C 'S CJ
go
tn tn
tn C
XI
ill
z:
1) ^ 00
_O
c 00
•a s" -z:
O
o T^
:t; cd
U P c
o
F
.8 S §
a> ^
00 u
3
r v -<-.' rra
c =
S
^
g.r i
tn
00 3 C •s 2
^c *" OPJ= -Ti
C qs O ^ cd t: u
Cd Q ,
'o. E '-S )^
(-, CJ O
•3 Jl 2 2 -T; tn
H u ,cd tn C tn -t-^ tn O Ua
>-.S tn S • — cd <" C
o en o 0 0 O
« 2 C -S i2 .2 o
<«_.•=; u
.2,2
fc Cd
00
2 c
cn • —
C cd
00
o
cd ^ ^
c o CO
cd o
fa * ^ 2
Cd X -^"Oa 3
> s: C
JJ 8 ^ E ^ r^ C^ >>oo
o. E c C* C tn
O u u
o ^^
I
cd
cd SB ^8 •EE.E E
U.E DSD ^ g (U 2 E 3
> «5
T3
oo
> oo
as
oo C
as cd oo
a c as
T3 Ui 00
1 c c
o u
g| cd
g c
5 4>
tn
as
tn
Z
.11
en " . " I cd
X
I
cd o o
u o o
>. I3 asr
*-* a\ 1^
o
o tis
O f xT'rtv
00
cd
tn
=
I I
8 o
bo"
, so
d ' '^.
17 O
•2S O,ro
3 00
gl o f
O 00 I
ti ob U
3 i2 - ? S o d j= 2 a- fll
^ 2
.^"^ o g « ? u 2 c cd2 II - £ - • 0 . ^c t^
«
^ cd C
••g .> § S J s
Cd u C
tn
tn
aO
00
S o
cd •—
O "^
Ll — tn 00
^ tn .iir e td £•13 <^ Eg O
f~-8-aka
S C cd cd tn tn
O - ^^
«5 -
2 - 6 'cL O 3
o ti; X) o
.26ao^"^ ._ g « cd
"
•=* ° 2 .a S'S ^3 u
iill e.2
.2 O
XI ti 00 as o
00
d «>
c
(u 00 ti •^ p! 5
8.^ EI .2 ."2 :5 =^
il cd • o 2 V cd
]> o
2 >
t^
2 2
cd 5
«
E
U
4>
P <—
o
tn
5 13 •g 00
c as 00 cd
c <=> XI .E g
00 1 cd
^^
00
.E
c
cd
..
00
a:- ig" Mis
•" 5o oo a o a. S^ 0
os tn O
8 c - '*" g ofe « as g Cd E
00 .'.tJ"?" ^
o 't/3t n>W u e - :
^ M l C II N E II
SJ 8.2 ^ § g. •0? i i Cd
c .J u cd ^ "O S o .E ^ jri ka - 5 _O X) ^
'5, •g «i o c
o (2 I §• E '-S 8 oa .2, o U o
c
U cd
LU E NS-OU .ESE £
00
o cd
c u ^.S
cd °ob
1
c3
tn
tn
U
£u)
0
0
•C
u
>>
00
cd
o
a
S
C
tn
T3
la
tn
0 cd
^1 II
o c •- u tn
en c>
cd >
o 8^^ g ^1 i2iS
tn
C tn '-^
ka SO
tn 1) ro
cd
li
</) CO
^ N
Cfl s
00
as
c^ 2
c ja
cd o
.E 00 ka Cd
: 3 CU
2
CO XI OH
O
^ 2 A en
a
u
d--2i J o
'w
o
fT cd
II -S I
tn U
^^-^
u
nil
C O
II ^ 2 "S Si C
ifiil S
Cd
I." •— J -
00
Cd
cd
a— r. a> C
-3 00 5 Q. O 00
• vH ' *• C *
3
tn •E s :2r
O y= o S o
1) ..3 .5a .—
ka (J O J5
00
C
. i s S"3-,
'a
o 2 *^ *£3 ^ tn
O u — C V > C
U CJ ka 'O ' 3 cd
£.2 2 "a 00 y E
•4-rf C MJ q^ 1>
tn CO Cd ^ . ^ ka * O
00
g 2 « 00 00
00
o o C C
u CA '5
O ;5 D*
e3 ao o •« r:
o 2 ^
ods
O
o— c
S 2 i2° uo
S to |g S E
S'E
•5 g * C CA
3
S
Cd
â o
O U 13
Cd O CJ ka
a o2
13 c CA CA
u
c
cd
00
I «-H tn ka cd
> 4)
51
U CA
2S 8 ^
E
cd w
w cd
W.E
2 '»•
g as CJ •B2
! ^
Sd.u
•ol cd '-^ C
>>.'3 2 3 <N £ .
cd g tn «.•
C C tn >o «=r II
O O
8.a
II28
tn u
111
-o « o
cd
cd
cd
u
"5. S U tn S)
2n ka ka
tt, 13 o
cd
J? — M O . OJ
u u a.
cd
U 8
"> t 1)
CA ^.^ O OD
C cd
aoo^
•o as
I « Cd '-^ cd ^^"^
g 00
o
3
Is O
tn
'5 cd
U in
O "3 O
c o ooja a
o o cd q •Z3 c y o
•a O . g >»
2 tn 00
E u a E U O< :3a
gas S cd O
is tn
so tn I ^.«
tn
Jj
*oo]ti
U
>
d 2i E
II
cd.E-S
j= a £
00^ IJi
g c o
C
.2 S
O
& o a
td |> 13U
ka O g SPÊ'I 2-«c
.5t
.S "• Cd 3 (J
tn u .ti §8
o o
III
tn
O 00 cd 00 2
P po
11.2
C J3 C •S
u c
o
a
"o S'o C cd
O ...
.'
C
'•5 2 cd S «=
tj .-.tn o
00 1.2 cd (J tn
?* fe cd
-^
'5-
U
o
cd cd
> cd
H 1^ o
nil ab
ka cd ^
c c ^
iht
o •o cd i>
tn
ka tn
u 0 '33 'S o
u en CJ cd
•0
A
g tn O
111
111 c aa
0u
CJ c
00 c
kJ cd | o
5es, tl
flu ence (
copin
^ c
1%"sa
00
13 S 2
cd ™ 00 c
o c
2 .5c'-2
•« o u O O. tn
g ô8 0
tn C
00 <>a O P
00^
8 g &• U 00 «^ t^ •
feet
res
tn 0 C O .
tn - c 00 "O
tka
U .ti
••o'cL
O tn •s c
.E U cd
ut: > 00 o CA
^ ^
E ^ -^^
o c E
iil.i it
0) CA ed
"5 T3
3
1
X
tn
ka
Q S 2
Ui 0
a UJ CA CA
n 00
:S.^ o
!7 B 3 !!:'§
3
ob
> o
•^
cd c
cd u o C^ o
cd o 1) 00
< 3 - 7' ^
11
II "^
^^
O jr C
g 00 ^ II 2^
' o cd tn
C ^ > E II
cd " O •i tn C
O r-
I
cd
C II
Cd I- o cd
C/3
ro
00 cd
a vo as
^ -O 00 • 0 00
as a z
S c as as «.a
cd cd r r cd >^
<N
S E <«
^
.a °
cd ^
u
cd
u
2
r 1 0
2tn
ll o ^
1/3
COPING WITH JOB STR ESS 491
coverage of important, recognized coping concepts? Third, is the coping measure specific! That
is, does it clearly reflect important distinctions that have emerged in the coping literature to
separate coping from other constructs and to illustrate important conceptual details about
the nature of coping?
To further define the comprehensiveness and specificity criteria, we drew important conceptual
dimensions from coping theory (e.g. Beehr and Baghat, 1985; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984;
Schuler, 1985) and coalesced recurring conceptual distinctions noted by researchers or observed
in the content of the measures. This is not to say that other conceptual distinctions might
not also be valuable. Rather, we offer these conceptual dimensions as both prominent and
applicable to job stress research. We see them as threshold criteria that enable us to build
a working evaluative framework to be potentially refined or expanded.
Conceptual definition
As can be seen in Table 1, some researchers are relatively imprecise or casual about offering
a clear statement of a conceptual definition of coping. In some cases the reader must infer
a definition. Thus, an initial evaluation criteria in our framework is whether or not the researchers
have clearly and explicitly stated the conceptual definition on which the coping measure is
based.
Unless the authors specifically state how coping is being defined, it can be unclear which
statement or statements in the introductory discussion serve as the base for the coping scale.
Once the conceptual definition is isolated, researchers can make an initial assessment as to
whether or not the coping scale is generally consistent with the definition. As is evident from
the integrative conceptual definition provided earlier, several specific criteria emerge and these
are discussed later under 'Specificity
Comprehensiveness
Comprehensiveness includes two coping dimensions: Focus of coping'—The target toward which
the coping behavior is directed—the problem (situation at hand) or the individual emotional
reactions; and 'Method of coping'—The mechanism or mode the person uses during the coping
process—cognitive versus behavioral, proactive/control versus escape/resignation, and social
versus solitary. Comprehensive studies would therefore exhibit both focus and method of coping
components.
Focus of coping: problem versus emotion

This major distinction highlights perhaps the most widely-accepted conceptual dimensions in
the coping literature (Edwards, 1988). The pioneering work on role stress by Kahn, Wolfe.
Quinn, Snoek and Rosenthal (1964) and an extensive research program by Lazarus and his
colleagues (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) has solidified the value of distinguishing between prob-
lem and emotion-focused coping. Kahn et al. (1964) proposed a two category typology: Class
I Coping (task situation, problem-solving) and Class II Coping (dealing with emotional or
anxiety reactions). In subsequent research (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), the labels 'Problem-
focused and emotion-focused coping' have become popular. Problem-focusing coping is defined
as efforts aimed at altering the person-environment transaction and emotion-focused coping
refers to efforts aimed at regulating the emotions.
Several of the measures summarized in Table 2 were based on this problem/emotion-focus
distinction (e.g. Anderson, 1976; Kirmeyer and Dougherty, 1988; Manzi, 1986). For example.
in Anderson s (1976) study of small business owner-managers, the coping strategy, obtaining
resources to counter loss' was classified as problem-focused while "withdrawal' was classified
as emotion-focused.
Other researchers have proposed a third category, appraisal-focused coping (Billings and
Moos, 1981; Latack, 1986; Moos and Billings, 1982). Appraisal-focused coping, sometimes
referred to as cognitive reappraisal, consists of modifying the meaning or cognition of the
situation. Empirical data, however, is more supportive of the two global distinctions of problem-
or emotion-focused (Mitchell, Cronkite and Moos, 1983; Moos et al., 1983).
As the numerous coping dimensions in Table 2 reveal, however, the global distinction of
problem/emotion-focused coping is insufficiently specific to capture the various subdimensions
that have emerged in coping research. Empirical analyses of the Ways of Coping Checklist,
for example, (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980) have identified subscales within the a/jr/ori problem/
emotion-focused categories. The number and content of these subscales differs across samples.
Aldwin and Revenson (1987) factor-analyzed the Ways of Coping Checklist and identified
four emotion-focused factors, three problem-focused factors and one factor which combined
both problem and emotion-focused strategies—support mobilization. In another sample, one
general problem-focused factor emerged with six emotion-focused subscales (wishful thinking,
help-seeking/'avoidance, growth, minimize threat, emotional support and blame selO (Coyne
etal., 1981).
In addition, Latack s (1986) coping measure, which specifically focused on job stress, included
items that measured problem-focused (direct action), appraisal-focused (cognitive reappraisal)
and emotion-focused (symptom-management). Empirical evaluation did not confirm separate
dimensions for problem-focused and appraisal-focused. Rather, these dimensions were more
clearly understood according to the method of coping (control/escape)as discussed in the next
section.
Method of coping: cognitive/behavioral; control/escape; social solitary

This second conceptual dimension provides order to the numerous subdimensions that have
emerged within the global problem/emotion-focused categories. That is, problem- or emotion-
focused coping can be comprised of a variety of methods.
First, and most basically, coping can be cognitive (mental strategies and self-talk) and beha-
vioral (taking action or doing something). For example, emotion-focused coping can take a
cognitive form as in trying to see the positive side of things (Billings and Moos, 1981) or
thinking about the stressful situation as an opportunity to learn and develop new skills (Latack,
1986). Emotion-focused coping can also be behavioral in method such as exercising more or
smoking (Billings and Moos, 1981). Many well-known symptom-management coping strategies
fall into the emotion-focused behavioral category, popularly referred to as the "gelusil, jogging,
and gin approach (Switzer, 1979). Similarly, problem-focused coping can also be cognitive
such as taking extra care to plan and organize (Latack, 1986; Parasuraman and Cleek, 1984)
or behavioral, such as trying to find out more about the situation (Billing and Moos, 1981).
Although the cognitive/behavioral coping distinction is a prominent theme in the coping
literature, some measures are ambiguous on this point. This issue is explored later when we
illustrate how to apply the framework to coping measures. It is sufficient to note here, however,
that many researchers separate cognitive coping, which refers to self-talk, mental planning
and other solitary cognitive activity from behavioral coping, or more readily-observable be-
havioral actions.
The distinction between proactive/control-oriented methods versus escapist/avoidance
methods is also evident. For example, in evaluating a job-related coping measure Latack (1986)
found that items clustered in dimensions that reflected two methods: Control and Escape. Control
strategies showed a proactive, take-charge approach (e.g. making a plan of action, thinking
positively about one's capabilities). Escape strategies consisted of staying clear of the person
or situation or trying not to get concerned about it. Clearly, the proactive, control approach
differs conceptually from escapist strategies but each can focus on the problem or the emotional
reactions.
This control-escape distinction has been confirmed in other coping measures. For example,
O'Neill and Zeichner (1985) grouped items into two control methods (active cognitive and
active behavioral) and one escape method (avoidance). A review of coping dimensions in Table
2 repeatedly suggests that control-oriented strategies such as action (Ilfeld, 1980) or optimistic
action (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978) are empirically distinct from escape-oriented strategies such
as rationalization-resignation (Ilfeld, 1980) and substitution of rewards and selective ignoring
(Pearlin and Schooler, 1978).
A third category of coping method is social versus solitary. Coping can utilize methods that
involve other people or it can be done alone. For example, one can seek out information
from others about the job (Feldman and Brett, 1983) or one can remind oneself that work
isn t everything (Latack, 1986). The concept of'cooperative task reduction' (Lang and Marko-
witz, 1986) is, by definition, a social coping method whereas "doing things by myself instead
of with other people' (Osipow and Spokane, 1984) reflects an explicit choice not to use social
coping.
The social coping dimension is evident in many coping measures, probably because social
support has emerged as a central concept in coping research (see Cohen and Wills, 1985 for
a review). In particular, the role that social support may play in generating coping strategies
has been explicitly highlighted of late (e.g. Latack, 1989; Thoits, 1986).
Specificity
Specificity refers to three major distinctions: 'Coping versus coping effectiveness'—The clarity
with which the dimensions tap coping rather than coping effectiveness; 'Coping behaviors versus
coping style or coping resources'—The extent to which the dimensions focus on coping behaviors
rather than stable traits or resources habitually used; and 'Stress management applications'—The
extent to which the dimensions suggest stress management applications. Measures which are
specific do not include effectiveness criteria, coping style or resources. More specific measures
also examine coping in terms of behaviors with stress management applications.
Coping versus coping effectiveness

Job-related coping items should allow for independent assessment of coping and coping effective-
ness. Coping measures do not always make this distinction. For example. Burke and Belcourt
(1974) confound coping and coping effectiveness with the stem used to generate responses.
By asking respondents for ways they had found useful in handling tensions and pressures
of their jobs, they are measuring coping and coping effectiveness together—at least they are
assessing one effectiveness measure, namely the respondents judgement of 'useful' Similarly,
a coping item labeled a priori as maladaptive' contains both coping ('Working harder .. ')
and coping effectiveness ( ' . . . but making more mistakes^ Parasuraman and Cleek, 1984).
Some of the Osipow and Spokane (1984) items imply effective coping as well. For example,
the statement 'I find engaging in recreational activities relaxing' implies by one effectiveness
criteria at least, relaxation, that the person is already coping "effectively'. Similarly, the statement
'Once they are set, I am able to stick to my priorities' implies a certain resolution or efficacy
as does, 'I am able to put the job out of my mind when I go home' Although the majority
of items do not contain such clear implications of coping effectiveness, this discussion exemplifies
the kind of conceptual analysis that researchers could use to evaluate the specificity of items
relative to coping versus coping effectiveness distinctions.
We argue that coping measures should specifically address coping, not coping effectiveness.
The a priori labels, conceptual definitions and coding schemes as well as the coping items
should point us toward independent assessment of a range of both coping and outcome variables
that constitute data on effects and effectiveness. Thus, researchers can evaluate one specificity
dimension by examining first the author's conceptual definition and then both the stem and
item content of the coping questionnaire in order to insure that coping is measured independently
of coping outcomes. (See Lazarus DeLongis, Folkman and Gruen (1985) and Aldwin and Reven-
son (1987) for a discussion).
Coping processes versus coping style versus coping resources

The second specificity dimension is the extent to which it is clear that the coping measure
assesses coping processes (thoughts and actions) in specific stressful transactions as opposed
to a stable coping style or coping resources regularly used. This is perhaps the thorniest concep-
tual dilemma that emerges from this review. That is, how specific does the stressful transaction
have to be to qualify as "specific'? Researchers have taken different approaches and ultimately
the decision must be made according to each researchers' conceptualization of the stress process
and research purpose.
There are studies of life stress that focus on specific roles in life such as work, family, economic
and social (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978; Ilfeld, 1980). In these studies, the stressful transaction
is the individual's relationship with that particular role. The coping measure then assesses how
people deal with stress in these specific life roles.
There are, however, more specific approaches. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) focus on a specific
"encounter' They ask respondents to recall specific stressful incidents that occurred recently
and respond with a particular incident in mind. Others ask respondents about a particular
type of common job stress (role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, etc.) and ask for specific
coping strategies in each of these situations (Lang and Markowitz, 1986; Latack, 1986). Still
others approach coping from the standpoint of a specific occupation, and have develop>ed coping
items for a specific job, as did Kirmeyer and Dougherty (1988) in their study of police officers.
Finally, Osipow and Spokane's (1984) measure asks about resources that people have to "counter-
act the effects of occupations stress' and assesses the extent to which various actions and thoughts
characterize the person s approach on a regular basis.
Clearly, asking someone what s/he does on a regular basis differs in level of conceptual
specificity from asking for specific thoughts and behaviors in a specific stressful incident or
types of incidents on the job. However, complex models of coping must account for both
the strategies an individual draws upon in situations as well as coping resources because coping
depends upon coping resources. Although Osipow and Spokane (1984) specify their intent
to develop a generic occupational stress measure, the item content provides a conceptual frame
for coping assessed by determining the extent which someone utilized various resources in
a particular stressful situation.
As our discussion has suggested, the issue of coping versus coping style or coping resources
is raised to a large extent by the stem and response scale of the measure. Asking an individual
to respond with a specific stressful encounter in mind (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) is more
effective in assessing coping behaviors whereas asking an individual to adopt a more global
perspective about what s/he does to counteract the effects of occupational stress (Osipow and
Spokane, 1984) is more likely to tap characteristic style or habitual use of various coping
resources. It has been suggested that situational specificity is addressed in coping measures
that solicit responses to a particular stressful encounter. Occupational specificity refers to
measures that operationalize general coping dimensions in terms specific to an occupation.
This distinction is important, because situational specificity is achieved by the orientation of
the entire measure, whereas occupational specificity is achieved by the content of the items
themselves"
At some point, asking about a situation that is very general or asking about regular use
of certain coping strategies equates to assessing a cross-situationally stable coping style or
coping resources. On the other hand, development of measures that are highly job specific
retards the evaluation of complex coping models because of lack of generalizability. We recom-
mend a middle-range strategy which is discussed under 'Future research' in the concluding
section of the paper.
Stress management application

The final criteria is applicability of empirical results to stress management in organizations.
That is, to what extent does the coping measure suggest specific management interventions
and training for employees in how to deal with stress on the job?
Academic researchers have been criticized for focusing on research that does not tie closely
to practical organizational problems (Behrman and Levin, 1984). Clearly, the field of manage-
ment knowledge cannot be advanced if it is driven solely by pragmatic concerns. Inherent
in coping research, however, is the ultimate application of this knowledge to reducing the
high costs of stress in organizations. Economic projections and continued growth in workers
compensation claims related to job stress lend a particular urgency to the management impli-
cations of research in this area. In addition, the current wave of organizational restructuring
has layered a new form of stress on managers and employees that has intensified the pressure
on researchers for management solutions.
Furthermore, the specificity-generalizability balance may be a difficult one to achieve because
contextual influences are critical factors in understanding job stress. Since organizational cultures
undoubtedly influence the types of coping strategies used, management may want a specialized,
organization-specific approach as a base for stress management interventions. On the other
hand, coping research argues for sufficiently generic measures so that other researchers might
use the measure to advance theoretical understanding.
Therefore, one conceptual issue is in fact a practical one: What do these measures suggest
for helping managers address coping and stress management? Clearly, the more general the
situation and coping behaviors assessed, the less specific will be the possible suggested alterations
to employee behavior, work organization structure and processes, management strategy and
employee training. Thus, the more general coping measures in Table 2 are more ambiguous
relative to implications for managerial intervention.
Having explained the major dimensions of the evaluative framework, comprehensiveness and
specificity, we now illustrate how these dimensions can be utilized to evaluate job-related coping
measures, and conclude with several recommendations for future coping research.
The authors express appreciation to an anonymous reviewer for this idea.

Evaluative framework applied to job-reiated coping measures: An

illustration
To show how the framework might be used by researchers examining or developing job-related
coping measures. Table 3 illustrates the evaluative dimensions with a 2 x 2 matrix which
highlights focus, method and specificity. The value of this conceptual framework is twofold.
It imposes order on the burgeoning coping literature and it supplements traditional psychometric
criteria for scale development and evaluation.
First, the framework provides order and integration to the rapidly growing literature on
general as well as job-related coping. This enormous literature can appear disorganized and
unrelated, especially to researchers who are in the initial phases of a research program on
this topic, or to researchers who wish to integrate coping concepts into other naturally-related
organizational research domains such as organizational entry^ or careers (Latack, 1989).
Second, it provides a valuable supplement to traditional psychometric criteria such as factor
analysis or measures of internal consistency. Although more concrete, these measures sometimes
yield conflicting results relative to the usefulness or the potential improvement of a particular
coping measure.
The remainder of the discussion applies the various conceptual dimensions to examples of
coping measures drawn from Table 2. Although we have focused on job stress, the approach
offered here is applicable to any coping measure and other research purposes.
Evaluating comprehensiveness: Focus and method

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

This cross-classification by focus and method was chosen because this four-way conceptual
distinction was widely acknowledged in both the theoretical and empirical literature (e.g. Billings
and Moos, 1981; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Sample items that appear in Table 3 (cells
A, B, C and D) were drawn from the coping measures that focused on job stress or general
measures that included job-related coping dimensions (see Table 2). Placing items in the appropri-
ate cell illustrates how coping measures could be unbundled along conceptual lines to evaluate
this most basic aspect of comprehensiveness. Those measures that are comprehensive would,
at a minimum, contain items that tap these four basic conceptual dimensions. For example,
a cognitive item is: 'I think about how I might best handle the problem' (Carver et al., 1989).
Although the item in cells C and D have been selected to illustrate the distinction between
four subdimensions of coping (control/escape; social/solitary), it should be noted that these
dimensions could also be nested. In cell C, for example, 'Ask caller to hold ... is both a
social and a control strategy. Similarly, 'Express your irritation to other work colleagues just
to be able to let off steam' (cell D), is both a social and an escape coping strategy.
Furthermore, some items are generally written such that they are ambiguous relative to the
' Wanous, J. P. Personal conversation, January 13,1989.

COPING WITH JOB STR ESS 497
Table 3. Evaluative framework applied to coping measures

FOCUS
Problem/task Emotions/reactions
Method* Control: Control:
Planning, organizing and prioritizing Try to think of myself as a winner — as
assignments (Parasuraman and Cleek, someone who always comes through; Get
1984) mad at yourself and tell yourself that you
could have avoided the situation (Dewe,
1985)
Cognitive
Escape: Escape:
Try to pay attention only to your Tell yourself difficulties are unimportant
duties in order to overlook difficulties (Fleishman, 1984); I am able to put my
in your work situation (Menaghan and job out of my mind when I go home
Merves, 1984) (Osipow and Sopkane, 1984)
A B
C D
Social: Social:
Sit down and talk things out (Ilfeld, Express your irritation to other work
1980) colleagues just to be able to let off steam
(Dewe, 1985)
Solitary: Solitary:
I do what has to be done, one step at Spend time on a hobby (O'Hare and
a time (Carver et al., 1989) Tamburri, 1986)
Control: Control:
Behavioralt Ask callers to hold; delay or leave Had no emotional reaction (McCrae,
undone some of normal job 1984) not communicating distress to
responsibilities (Kirmeyer and anyone (Parkes, 1984)
Dougherty, 1988)
Elscape: Escape:
Got busy with other things in order to Change to a nonwork activity (Burke and
keep my mind off the problem (Billings Belcourt, 1974); taking pills, smoking
and Moos, 1981) more (Feldman and Brett, 1983)
Critical specificity questions:
(1) Coping rather than coping effectiveness?
(2) Coping thoughts and actions as contrasted with coping style or coping resources?
(3) Applicability to job stress situations?
•Cognitive coping methods have a solitary classification.
tThe four subdimensions of behavioral coping are not mutually exclusive, but rather could be nested (e.g. in cell
C, 'Ask callers to hold ...' is both a social and control strategy. See text, p. 496.
Other subdimension. For example, 'Got busy with other things' (cell C) could be escape/solitary
or escape/social depending on what those 'other things' were.
An initial evaluation of the comprehensiveness dimension could look at the representation
across the four cells of coping items within a particular coping measure. In some measures,
not all four cells are represented. For example, Kirmeyer and Dougherty (1988) assessed only
problem-focused behavioral coping (cell C). The Osipow and Spokane (1984) measure has fewer
problem-focused behavioral strategies (cell C) and emphasizes items that fall within the other
three cells (A, B and D). Violanti et al. (1985) assess only emotion-focused cognitive coping
(cynicism—cell B) and emotion-focused behavioral coping (alcohol use—cell D). This is not
a criticism of these measures per se; there are research-driven reasons for selecting certain
coping dimensions. The point is that focusing on certain coping dimensions and excluding
others should be a conscious theoretical choice. Researchers will want to examine coping measures
to determine if the measure is comprehensive vis-a-vis their research purpose.
If items cannot be clearly classified into one cell, item content may contain both behavioral
and cognitive strategies. For example, 'Analyzing the situation and changing the strategy of
attack' (Burke and Belcourt, 1974; Howard, Rechnitzer and Cunningham, 1975) is suggestive
of both cognitive and behavioral strategies. Although the cognitive/behavioral distinction is
not always a clean one, some items in coping measures conceptually confound cognitive and
behavioral coping even when the distinction could be made according to the definitions offered
earlier. That is, references to cognitive coping emphasize solitary, mental activities; behavioral
coping strategies emphasize doing something, taking action. Although one could argue that,
broadly speaking, all coping has both cognitive and behavioral components, we believe that
this qualitative distinction is a major point for future coping research. Clearly, analyzing the
situation emphasizes thinking while changing the strategy of attack suggests doing or taking
action. In a coping item that refers to planning and organizing (Parasuraman and Cleek, 1984),
we could argue that planning is the more clearly cognitive aspect whereas organizing is more
suggestive of taking action. Finally, although people may solicit social support in order to
implement cognitive strategies, the action of soliciting social support is qualitatively distinct
from the thoughts that are facilitated by the social support that is obtained.
Since the evaluative framework is intended to help researchers develop new measures as
well as revise existing measures, we believe that despite the ambiguities, continued efforts to
distinguish the qualitative differences between cognitive and behavioral action coping are import-
ant. Whether or not these strategies or orthogonal or oblique remains an empirical question.
Fvidence indicates that cognitive and behavioral items may cluster together in some samples
while in other cases, factors that are only behavioral or cognitive appear (Latack, 1986; O'Neill
and Zeichner, 1985; Siegler and George, 1983). Many existing measures have not fared too
well on traditional psychometric criteria, and this problem may be due, in part, to conceptually
confounding cognitive and behavioral coping. If we do not at least attempt to separate these
constructs in the wording of our measures, these empirical questions cannot be addressed.
One value of the framework would be to spur revision or adaptation of existing coping measures
so that empirical questions about qualitative differences in the nature of coping can be further
explored.
Finally, measures of coping that are less comprehensive may originate with the conceptual
definition that frames the measure. For example, Pearlin and Schooler's (1978) definition casts
coping in terms of alleviating emotional distress. It is not surprising, therefore, that two of
the three occupational coping factors were emotion-focused strategies (substitution of rewards
and selective ignoring). If researchers agree that our coping definition is appropriate for job
stress research, then a review of researchers' conceptual definitions may preview the coping
dimensions that are emphasized in the measure.
Other dimensions that define method of coping are illustrated in Table 3: control versus
escape and social versus solitary. These evaluative dimensions, as noted earlier, constitute import-
ant comprehensiveness considerations.
Social versus solitary

The social versus solitary distinction mainly applies to cells C and D. As the items in cells
A and B (Table 3) suggest, cognitive coping is by definition mostly solitary. Comprehensive
measures would include both social and solitary activities, particularly given the interest in
COPI NG WITH JOB STR ESS 499
social support. Furthermore, since social support specific to the workplace is emerging as a
critical variable in understanding job stress, it may be important to include items that specifically
tap coping related to various work-related support sources (e.g. supervisors, coworkers).
Evaluating comprehensiveness of coping measures would include an examination of whether
or not both social and solitary behavioral items are included. For example, in measures of
coping related to role overload, Lang and Markowitz (1986) include both "cooperative task
reduction' (e.g. delegation and getting help from others) and "unilateral task reduction (e.g.
cutting back on work). In contrast, the item, 'Express feelings to self and others' (Dewe, 1987)
combines both solitary and social coping. It may be important not only to cover both social
and solitary coping, but also to separate social and solitary items so that social and solitary
coping effects can be specifically evaluated.
Control/escape
The control versus escape distinction is also important. Clearly, a strategy that involves discus-
sion with supervisors or making a plan of action is quite different conceptually than simply
avoiding the situation or trying not to think about it. Although there has been an historical
bias against escapist strategies and "defense mechanisms' (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), studies
of relaxation methods and exercise suggest that periodic escape is a necessary component of
coping. Furthermore, escape strategies that are cognitive in nature, including denial processes,
may in fact be a very valuable coping mode in situation where the person is not yet ready
to deal actively with the problem or where the situation is not amenable to change (see Lazarus
and Folkman, 1984, pp. 134-138). An illustration of a cognitive escape item is 'I cope by
forgetting about the restructuring until it happens' (Ashford, 1988).
Our review of coping measures indicates that several of the job-related coping measures
emphasize problem-focused coping that is both behavioral and control-oriented (e.g. 'Take
some action to get rid of difficulties'; Fleishman, 1984). Scales that mention control-oriented
cognitive strategies in the problem-focused category tend to be limited to mental planning
or organizing. Few scales cover control-oriented emotion-focused categories (e.g. 'Try to think
of myself as a winner'; Latack, 1986).
Escape-oriented behavioral strategies apply mainly to cell D. That is, these strategies, by
definition tend to not be problem-focused because they are designed to get the person away
from the situation. Very few job-related studies assess escape-oriented behavioral strategies
(e.g. 'When I need a vacation, I take one'; Osipow and Spokane, 1984). This omission of
escape/avoidance items makes the measure less comprehensive.
We have noted two coping dimensions within cells B and D that have been de-emphasized
in job stress research. To make job-related coping measures more comprehensive, researchers
could include more control-oriented emotion-focused coping as well as escape-oriented be-
havioral coping.
Evaluating specificity of coping measures

After examining the comprehensiveness dimension, the list of specificity dimensions in the lower
portion of Table 3 guides evaluation of the extent to which measures make important, specific
distinctions relative to job stress: Coping versus coping effectiveness, coping versus coping
style or coping resources, and applicability to stress management in organizations.
In using the critical specificity questions to examine coping measures contained in the studies
listed in Table 2, we found that some of the items implied coping effectiveness versus coping
dimensions. For example, 'Obtaining resources to counter initial loss' (Anderson, 1976); and
'Accept the job as it is and not let it get to you' (Dewe, 1987). In each case a high score
on the coping measure would suggest a successful or effective outcome.
We were also able to identify coping measures which were assessing coping style or resources
rather than coping thoughts and actions. For example, the general question posed by Shinn,
Rosario, Morch and Chestnut (1984) 'What do you do to cope with the stress and strain of
your particular job?' while very specific in terms of applicability to job stress has strong coping
style and/or coping resource implications. In cell C of Table 3, the Solitary item from Carver
et al. (1989) states, 'I do what has to be done, one step at a time' implies a certain style of
coping on a regular basis.
Relative to applicability to job stress situations, the items in Table 3 show varying degrees
of specificity. Items in cell D are probably the most general in focus. As is evident in some
of the items, however, it is possible to make them job-focused (e.g. 'Express your irritation
to other work colleagues .. '). Other items have no connection to job situations and reflect
strategies for getting away from the job to hobbies or other symptom-management strategies
such as taking pills. At the other end of the continuum are items such as that from Kirmeyer
and Dougherty (1988), which applies only to jobs where it is appropriate to place callers on
hold.
There are two points for researchers to bear in mind relative to job specificity. First, although
it is appropriate for some emotion-focused items to focus on areas unrelated to job situations
because they deal with management of symptoms, it is important to make at least some coping
items in all four cells specifically applicable to job situations. Studies of job-related stress and
social support (e.g. Payne, 1980; Schlossberg and Leibowitz, 1980; Seers, McGee, Serey and
Graen, 1983) confirm the importance of coping that is rooted in and supported by the workplace.
Second, if items are very occupationally-specific, they cannot be generalized across a variety
of jobs. Both of these points should be kept in mind as researchers consider the potential
impact of theirfindingson stress management interventions.
The evaluative framework presented here would be a useful tool for stress management inter-
ventions in organizations. It is clear that stress management interventions have primarily targeted
individual-level coping (Ivancevich, Matteson, Freedman and Phillips, 1990). Furthermore, these
programs tend to be aimed at escape-oriented emotion-focused coping (e.g. relaxation training)
or at cognitive emotion-focused coping (e.g. cognitive modification training). Stress researchers
continue to be critical of organizational efforts aimed at symptoms rather than fostering indivi-
dual control over conditions of working life (Karasek and Theorell, 1990). Clearly, a review
of Table 3 suggests that interventions can target numerous other types of individual coping
strategies that are more problem-focused and control-oriented. The framework presented here
could be used to review the scope of stress management efforts with an eye toward taking
a more comprehensive and preventive approach to stress management interventions.
Future research on coping: Suggested strategies

The preceding discussion and illustration points toward suggested strategies to advance future
research on coping with job stress in organizations. Specifically, we suggest use of the evaluative
framework in choosing existing coping measures or developing new coping measures, the pursuit
of a middle-range strategy relative to situational specificity of coping, and the continued broaden-
ing of research on stress management intervention in organizations.
The framework illustrated in Table 3 serves as a conceptual blueprint for selecting from
among previously-developed coping measures, for adapting measures for a particular situation
and for development of new coping measures. In this process, researchers could perform an
analysis similar to that provided in our preceding discussion to insure that coping measures
used will be both comprehensive and specific in light of important themes that have emerged
in coping theory and research.
Second, the issue of situational specificity merits further attention. One strategy is a middle-
range' approach to the dilemma of job-specific versus general coping measures. Clearly, we
cannot develop measures specific to every job situation or generalizability of findings will be
a problem. A middle-range approach would be to identify categories or types of stress situations
from organizational research. For example, role conflict and role overload are common stressors.
More recently, job loss and the stressors unique to specific roles (e.g. boundary spanners) or
organizational events (e.g. restructuring) have been identified. These represent categories of
specific job stress situations that are sufficiently common to be a useful specific focus. It is
possible to identify common themes in these situations that will service as the fabric for specific
content of coping measures.
We suggest that researchers might want to begin with one of the more job-oriented coping
measures and compare it to the general measures for missing content that should be added.
Alternatively, researchers could adapt the general measures to focus on job stress among a
particular occupational group or setting. This strategy may make it possible to tie empirical
efforts to both theory and stress management solutions. An example of this approach is reflected
in a recent adaptation of Latack s (1986) coping measure (Kinicki and Latack, 1990). Theory-
based coping items that originally dealt with role stress were reworded to apply specifically
to job loss. Another example is Ashford's (1988) study of strategy for coping with organizational
transitions, which focused on employees of the Bell System during divestiture.
The focus of this paper has been the conceptual content of the coping measures. However,
an important additional focus for establishing construct validity would be evaluation of the
linkages between coping and other variables in the nomological net. Preliminary to use of
coping measures for model testing, evidence of convergent and discriminant validity should
be presented. This would involve examining relationships between coping measures and a variety
of theoretical correlates including individual variables (e.g. stress symptoms. Type A personality,
self-esteem) and environmental factors (e.g. social support). In addition, the examination of
construct validity should include the process dimension—i.e. coping is dynamic and changes
over time. Examination of this aspect of coping theory has been hampered by the fact that
the majority of the studies have been cross-sectional. It has been argued that coping research
is an area where longitudinal studies are not only recommended but required (Latack, 1986).
It has been noted that several research issues related to stress management interventions
(SMI's) need attention, including a stronger theory base, targeting situational stressors and
focusing on relapse prevention (Ivancevich et al., 1990). The evaluative framework here could
be used to broaden this stream of research along the lines suggested.
First, the framework guides the theoretical development SMI research. As previously noted,
the current narrow focus on symptom-management strategies reflects implicit assumptions about
the conceptual domain of coping. Clearly, the cells in Table 3 convey a much broader theoretical
domain to be attended to in SMI research.
Additional studies that target situational stressors are needed. Using the framework provided
here, future studies on SMI's could focus on situation stressors directly relevant to various
categories of coping. For example, many of the problem-focused coping strategies suggest situa-
tional interventions such as participation, supervisory coaching training, conflict management
skills, etc. The situational interventions should make it more likely that people can use certain
types of control or social coping strategies.
Finally, a focus on relapse prevention studies suggests utilizing coping as a dependent variable.
To date, outcome variables have been limited to attitude and stress symptom measures. Coping
outcomes have been generally overlooked. Studies of relapse prevention dictate assessment
of coping over time. Does an individual's use of various coping strategies change or broaden
as a result of the intervention? Do these coping strategies hold over time? The use of the
evaluative framework presented here could inform both the theoretical scope and empirical
rigor of future SMI studies as we look toward increasing our capability for preventive stress
management.
To conclude, the evaluative framework offered here is presented as a departure point. As
such, additional evaluative dimensions may emerge as recurring themes. As our knowledge
of coping continues to accumulate, new dimensions may be added to the framework and existing
ones may be refined. Our goals were to provide a mechanism for imposing meaning on a large
body of research, a set of criteria for choosing among existing coping measures and a conceptual
blueprint for developing new measures or for adapting existing measures specifically to job
stress. In the process, a summary of coping measures applicable to job stress was provided
and important conceptual issues for research were discussed. Ultimately, we hope this analysis
will move us forward toward theoretically-based coping measures that can be used for testing
complex coping models and for contributing solutions to costly stress management problems
in organizations.
References
Aldwin, C. M. and Revenson, T. A. (1987). 'Does coping help? A reexamination of the relation between
coping and mental health'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 337-348.
Anderson, C. R. (1976). 'Coping behaviors as intervening mechanisms in the inverted-U stress-performance
relationship'. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 30-34.
Amirkhan, J. H. (1990). 'A factor analytically derived measure of coping: The coping strategy indicator'
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1066-1074.
Ashford, S. J. (1988). 'Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions'. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 19-36.
Beehr, T. A. and Bhagat, R. S. (Eds.) (1985). Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations: An Integrated
Perspective, Wiley, N.Y.
Behrman, J. N. and Levin, R. I. (1984). 'Are business schools doing their job?' Harvard Business Review,
62, 140-146.
Billings, A. G. and Moos, R. H. (1981). 'The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating
the impact of stressful life events'. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139-157.
Billings, A. G. and Moos, R. H. (1984). 'Coping, stress, and social resources among adults with unipolar
depression'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 877-891.
Burke, R. J. and Belcourt, M. L. (1974). 'Managerial role strain and coping responses'. Journal of Business
Administration, 5(2), 55-68.
Burke, R. J. and Weir, T. (1980). 'Coping with the stress of managerial occupations . In: Cooper, C. L.
and Payne, R. (Eds) Current Concerns in Occupational Stress, Wiley, Chichester, U.K., pp. 299-335.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F. and Weintraub, J. K. (1989). 'Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically
based approach'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.
Cohen, S. and Wills, T. A. (1985). 'Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis'. Psychological
Bulletin, 9S, 310-351.
Cooper, C. L. and Payne, R. (1988). Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work, Wiley, Chichester,
U.K.
Coyne, J. C , Aldwin, C. and Lazarus, R. S. (1981). 'Depression and coping in stressful episodes'. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 439-447.
Dewe, P. J. (1985). 'Coping with work stress: An investigation of teachers' actions'. Research in Education,
33, 2 7 ^ 0 .
Dewe, P. J. (1987). 'Identifying strategies nurses to cope with work stress', Journal of Advanced Nursing,
12,489-497.
Edwards, J. R. (1988). 'The determinants and consequences of coping with stress'. In: Cooper, C. L.
and Payne, R. (Eds) Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work, Wiley, Chichester, U.K.,
pp.233-263.
Feldman, D. C. and Brett, J. M. (1983). 'Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new hires and
job changers'. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 258-272.
Fleishman, J. A. (1984). 'Personality characteristics and coping patterns'. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 25, 229-244.
Fleming, R., Baum, A. and Singer, J. (1984). 'Toward and integrative approach to the study of stress'.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,939-949.
Folkman, A. F. (1982). 'An approach to the measurement of coping'. Journal of Occupational Behavior,
3,95-158.
Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. (1980). 'An analysis of coping behavior in a middle-aged community
sample'. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C , Delongis, A. and Gruen, R. J. (1986). 'Dynamics
of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal coping and encounter outcomes', Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S. and Novacek, J. (1987). 'Age differences in coping processes'.
Psychology and Aging, 2, 171-184.
Goldstein, M. J. (1973). 'Individual differences in response to stress', American Journal of Community
Psychology,\,m-m.
Hall, D. T. (1972). 'A model of coping with role conflict: The role behavior of college educated women
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 471-486.
Havlovic, S. J. and Keenan, J. P. (1991). 'Coping with work stress: The influence of individual differences .
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality.
Holahan, C. J. and Moos, R. H. (1986). 'Personality, coping, and family resources in stress resistance:
A longitudinal analysis'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 389-395.
Howard, J. H., Rechnitzer, P. A. and Cunningham, D. A. (1975). 'Coping with job tension—effective
and ineffective methods'. Public Personnel Management, 4, 307-326.
Ilfeld, F W., Jr. (1980). 'Coping styles of Chicago adults: Description, Journal of Human Stress, 60,
2-10.
Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T., Freedman, S. M. and Phillips, J. S. (1990). 'Worksite stress management
interventions', American Psychologist, 45, 252-261.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, D. and Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organization Stress:
Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, Wiley, New York.
Karasek, R. and Theorell, R. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working
Life, Basic Books, New York.
Keita, G. P and Jones, J. M. (1990). 'Reducing adverse reaction to stress in the workplace: Psychology's
expanding role', American Psychologists, 45, 1137-1141.
Kinicki, A. J. and Latack, J. C. (1990). 'Explication of the construct of coping with involuntary job
loss'. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 339-360.
Kirmeyer, S. L. and Diamond, A. (1985). 'Coping by police officers: A study of role stress and type
A and type B behavior patterns'. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 6, 183-195.
Kirmeyer, S. L. and Dougherty, T. W. (1988). 'Work load, tension, and coping: Moderating effects of
supervisor support'. Personnel Psychology, 41, 125-139.
Landers, S. (1987). 'Rising work stress claims his employers right in the pocket' APA Monitor, August,
6-7.
Lang, D. and Markowitz, M. (1986). 'Coping, individual differences, and strain: A longitudinal study
of short-term role overload'. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 1, 195-206.
Latack, J. C. (1986). 'Coping with job stress: Measures and future directions for scale development'
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 377-385.
Latack, J. C. (1989). 'Work, stress and careers: A preventive approach to maintaining organizational
health'. In: Arthur, M. B., Lawrence, B. S. and Hall, D. T. (Eds) Handbook of Career Theory, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Lazarus, R. S. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Coping and Adaptation, Springer, New York.
Lazarus, R. S. Delongis, A., Folkman, S. and Gruen, R. (1985). 'Stress and adaptation outcomes: The
problem of confounded measures', American Psychologist, 40, 770-779.
Lazarus, R. S. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer Publications, New York.
Lazarus, R. S. and Launier, R. (1978). 'Stress-related transactions between person and environment'.
In: Pervin, L. A. and Lewis, M. (Eds) Perspectives in International Psychology, Plenum Press, New
York.
Manzi, P. A. (1986). 'Cognitive appraisal, stress, and coping in teenage employment'. The Vocational
Guidance Quarterly, 34, 160-170.
Matteson, M. T. and Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Controlling Work Stress: Effective Human Resource arul
Management Strategies, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
McCrae, R. R. (1984). 'Situational determinants of coping responses—loss, threat, and challenge'. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,433-448.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986). 'Personality, coping, and effectiveness in an adult sample'.
Journal of Personality, 54, 385-405.
Menaghan, E. G. (1983). 'Individual coping efforts: Moderators of the relationship between life stress
and mental health outcomes'. In: Kaplan, H. B. (Ed.) Psychological Stress: Trends in Theory and Research,
Academic Press, New York, pp. 157-191.
Menaghan, E. G. and Merves, E. S. (1984). 'Coping with occupational problems: The limits of individual
efforts'. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 406-423.
Mitchell, R. E., Cronkite, R. C. and Moos, R. H. (1983). 'Stress, coping and depression among married
couples'. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 433-448.
Moos, R. H. and Billings, A. G. (1982). 'Conceptualizing and measuring coping resources and processes'
In: Goldberg, L. and Breznitz, S. (Eds) Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects, Free
Press, New York, pp. 212-239.
Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. C , Billings, A. G. and Finney, J. W. (1983). The Health and Daily Living
Form Manual. Social Ecology Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford
University and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA.
Murphy, L. R. (1988). 'Workplace interventions for stress reduction and prevention'. In: Cooper, C. L.
and Payne, R. (Eds) Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work, Wiley, Chichester, U.K.,
pp. 301-339.
Newman, J. E. and Beehr, T. (1979). 'Personal and organizational strategies for handling job stress:
A review of research and opinion'. Personnel Psychology, 32, 1-43.
Newton, T. J. and Keenan, A. (1985). 'Coping with work-related stress'. Human Relations, 38, 107-126.
O'Hare, M. M. and Tamburri, E. (1986). 'Coping as a moderator of the relation between anxiety and
career decision making'. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 255-264.
O'Neill, C. P and Zeichner, A. (1985). 'Working women: A study of relationships between stress, coping
and health'. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 4, 105-116.
Osipow, S. H. and Spokane, A. R. (1984). 'Measuring occupational stress, strain and coping'. In: Oskamp,
S. (Ed.) Applied Social Psychology, Annual 5, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 67-86.
Parasuraman, S. and Cleek, M. A. (1984). 'Coping behaviors and managers affective reactions to role
stressors'. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 179-193.
Parasuraman, S. and Hansen, D. (1987). 'Coping with work stressors in nursing: Effects of adaptive
versus maladaptive strategies'. Work and Occupations, 14, 88-105.
Parkes, K. R. (1984). 'Locus of control, cognitive appraisal, and coping in stressful episodes'. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 655-668.
Payne, R. (1980). 'Organizational stress and social support'. In: Cooper, C. L. and Payne, R. (Eds) Current
Concerns in Occupational Stress, Wiley, Chichester, U.K., pp. 269-298.
Pearlin, L. J., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G. and Mullan, J. T. (1981). 'The stress process'. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356.
Pearlin, L. I. and Schooler, C. (1978). 'The structure of coping'. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
19,2-21.
Schlossberg, N. K. and Leibowitz, Z. (1980). 'Organizational support systems as buffers to job loss'.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17,204-217.
Schuler, R. S. (1985). 'An integrative transactional process model of coping with stress in organizations'.
In: Beehr, T. A. and Bhagat, R. S. (Eds) Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations: An Integrated
Perspective, Wiley, New York, pp. 347-374.
Seers, A., McGee, G. W., Serey, T. T. and Graen, G. G. (1983). 'The interaction of job stress and social
support: A strong inference investigation'. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 273-284.
Seiler, R. E. and Pearson, D. A. (1984). 'Dysfunctional stress among university faculty Educational
Research Quarterly, 9, 15-26.
Shinn, M., Rosario, M., Morch, H. and Chestnut, D. E. (1984). 'Coping with job stress and burnout
in the human services. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 864-876.
Siegler, I. C. and George, L. K. (1983). 'The normal psychology of the aging male: Sex differences in
coping and p)erceptions of life events'. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 16, 297-299.
Silver, R. L. and Wortman, C. B. (1980). 'Coping with undesirable life events'. In: Garber, J. and Seligman,
M. E. P. (Eds) Human Helplessness: Theory and Applications, Academic Press, New York, pp. 279-340.
Stone, A. A. and Neale, J. M. (1984). 'New measure of daily coping: Development and preliminary
results'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 892-906.
Suls, J. and Fletcher, B. (1985). 'The relative efficacy of avoidant and non-avoidant coping strategies:
A meta-analysis'. Health Psychology, 4, 249-288.
Switzer, L. (1979). 'Gelusil, jogging and gin: How executive educators deal with stress'. Executive Educator,
1, 27-29.
Thoits, P. A. (1986). 'Social support as coping assistance'. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
54,416^23.
Wanous, J. P. and Colella, A. (1989). 'Organizational entry research: Current status and future directions'.
In: Rowland, K. M. and Ferris, G. R. (Eds) Research in Personnel and Human Resources, JAI, Greenwich,
CT.
Violanti, J. M., Marshall, J. R. and Howe, B. (1985). 'Stress, coping, and alcohol use: The police connection'.
Journal of Police Science and Administration, 13, 106-110.
Yancik, R. (1984). 'Coping with hospice work stress'. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 2, 19-35.
Zappert, L. T. and Weinstein, H. M. (1985). 'Sex differences in the impact of work on physical and
psychological health', American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 1174-1178.
Appendix A. Methodology for coping measures

Author(s) Methodology
Job stress
Anderson (1976) Coding of critical incidents into coping categories
Burke and Belcourt Coping responses coded from answers to three open-ended questions, (e.g. 'Our
(1974) jobs occasionally demand a good deal from each of us. What ways have you
personally found useful in handling the tensions and pressures of your jobs?')
65 per cent of responses fell into five categories
Carver et al. (1989) Identified 12 coping factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 using principal-
factors factor analysis with an oblique rotation. For each scale Cronbach alpha
and test-retest reliabilities are calculated. Correlations between the coping scales
are also presented
Dewe (1985) Factor analysis used to identify one direct-action (problem-focused) and five
palliative (emotion-focused) coping factors
Dewe (1987) Identified six major coping strategies using principal components analysis
Feldman and Brett Coping measures developed from reviews of coping literature
(1983)
Havlovic and A modified version of the Latack (1986) coping scale was developed based upon
Keenan (in press) factor analysis
Howard et al. Coping techniques questionnaire based on Burke (1971)
(1975)
Illfeld (1980) A priori categories of coping across life roles; factor analysis identified two factors:
action and rationalization-resignation
Kinicki and Latack Eighteen judges place 39 coping items into five categories (control; escape;
(1990) symptom management; more than one of these; none of these strategies). Twenty
items showing content validity were factor analyzed
Kirmeyer and Subjects completed a modified version of the 'Ways of Coping' questionnaire
Diamond (1985) (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980). Items judged inappropriate or potentially offensive
were deleted, reducing the length of the questionnaire from 64 to 51 items
Kirmeyer and Problem focused coping items were used with a 5-point scale. ('... they rated
Dougherty (1988) how often they had (1) asked callers to hold while they finished dealing with
other complaints, (2) delayed or left undone some of their normal job
responsibilities, (3) spent less time than usual handling each request or complaint
from the public, (4) shortened conversations with other employees, and (5)
provided more or less individualized attention than usual to police officers who
radioed in with requests')
Lang and Measured coping strategies using a modified version of Hall's (1972) model
Markowitz (1986)
Latack (1986) Coping measures developed from review of coping literature. Assessed: action
to change stressor situation, cognitive reappraisal and symptom-management
coping. Cluster analysis suggested three subscales: control, escape, and symptom-
management
Manzi (1986) Utilized the Ways of Coping Checklist (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980)
Menaghan and Measured four specific occupational coping efforts: (Pearlin and Schooler's (1978)
Merves (1984) coping scales): direct action, comparisons, selective ignoring, and restricted
expectations
Appendix A (contd.)
Job Stress
Newton and To assess coping behavior respondents were asked 'How did you handle the
Keenan (1985) incident described above?' Responses were initially coded using a 29-category
coding frame. Reliability analysis of coping behavior coding frames yielded a
Cohen kappa value of 0.81. Initial 29 category coping set reduced to 15 because
of the similarity of categories. These 15 items were collapsed into five higher-order
classes of coping
O Hare and A modified version of the Latack (1986) coping scale was utilized. Factor analysis
Tamburri (1986) revealed four types of coping: support, efficacy, reactive and avoidant
O'Neill and A 20-item list of coping responses (modified version of the Billings and Moos
Zeichner(1985) (1981) 19-item checklist) was applied to a recent job stress event. Frequency and
level of effectiveness were rated on two separate 5-point Likert-type scales. Items
were grouped into three methods-of-coping categories and two focus-of-coping
categories
Osipow and Coping items for Personal Resources Questionnaire developed from review by
Spokane (1984) Newman and Beehr (1979)
Parasuraman and Coping measures developed by coding responses to open-ended questionnaire
Cleek (1984) asking for possible behavior by employees faced with stressful working conditions
Pasasuraman and Coping measured using a 15-item checklist. Factor analysis revealed problem-
Hansen (1987) solving and emotional coping factors
Ways of Coping Checklist (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980). Identified general,
Parkes(1984) direct, and suppression coping factors
Confirmatory factor analysis of Economic Coping items yielded evidence of
Pearlin £>/a/. (1981) 'positive comparisons' and 'devaluation' factors
Pearlin and Coping patterns assessed with items developed from exploratory interviews.
Schooler (1978) Factor analysis of occupational coping items showed substitution, optimistic and
ignoring coping factors
Seiler and Pearson Questionnaire which included items on coping methods. Principal components
(1984) analysis identified four coping factors: personal interest, comraderie, recreation,
and physical exercise
Shinny/a/. (1984) Individual coping responses assessed with the question. 'What do you do to cope
with the stress and strain of your particular job?' Responses were coded into
six coping categories
Violanti e/a/. (1985) Cynicism measured as a coping strategy on a 12-item scale adopted from
Niederhoffer (1967). Use of alcohol as a coping response determined by the answer
to the following statement: 'I have used alcohol to relieve the stress of police
work.' The item was scored on a 5-point scale
Zappert and Developed indexes measuring coping style and coping strain
Weinstein (1985)
General measures
Aldwin and Ways of Coping scale factor analyzed revealing: emotion-focused, problem-
Revenson (1987) focused, and combination coping strategies
Amirkhan (1990) Used factor analytic investigation which confirmed three fundamental coping
strategies
Billings and Moos Measured how individuals dealt with personal crisis or stressful life event with
(1981) 19 items. The items were grouped by method and focus of coping categories
Billings and Moos Revision and expansion of Billing and Moos (1981) coping measures
(1984)
508 J. C. LATACK AND S. J HAVLOVIC
Appendix A (contd.)
General measures
Coyne e/a/. (1981) Ways of Coping checklist (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980). Describe coping strategy
used for most recent stressful events
Fleishman (1984) Scale adapted from Pearlin and Schooler (1978). Factor analysis for work coping
yielded four factors similar to Pearlin and Schooler (1978)
Folkman and Ways of Coping checklist: Items covered defensive coping (avoidance),
Lazarus information-seeking, problem-solving, palliation, inhibition of action, direct
action, and magical thinking
Hall (1972) Coping behaviors coded from open-ended question, 'How do you deal with these
conflicts [experienced between your various roles in life]?'
Holahan and Moos Health and Daily Living Form (Moos et al., 1983) was utilized to measure
(1986) avoidance coping
McCrae (1984) Ways of Coping checklist (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980) and Coping
Questionnaire developed from coping literature. Factor analysis plus rational
judgement identified 28 separate coping scales—mean alpha = 0.63; four scales
were 1-item
McCrae and Costa Modified version of the Ways of Coping checklist (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980)
(1986) and 50 new items measuring coping mechanisms
Mitchell et al. Coping items from Moos, Cronkite, Billings and Finney (1983)
(1983)
Siegler and George Coding of open-ended responses according to matrix of coping orientation by
(1983) coping modes (Lazarus and Launier, 1978)
Stone and Neale Initial attempts to develop checklist based on a priori categories from coping
(1984) literature abandoned due to problems with internal consistency. Ultimately used
category labels with definitions and coded participant responses

Coping With Job Stress - A Conceptual Evaluation Framework For Coping Measures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coping With Job Stress - A Conceptual Evaluation Framework For Coping Measures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR. VOL.

Coping with job stress: A conceptual

0894-3796/92/050479-30520.00 Received 3 January 1990

Conceptual definition of coping

Table 1. Synopsis of coping definitions

dimensions identified by Schuler (1985) to define coping as a 'response to situations characterized

Coping measures: An evaluative framework

x: u^ ^ O ^itf flj ^*"

Focus of coping: problem versus emotion

Method of coping: cognitive/behavioral; control/escape; social solitary

Coping versus coping effectiveness

Coping processes versus coping style versus coping resources

Stress management application

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

Evaluative framework applied to job-reiated coping measures: An

Evaluating comprehensiveness: Focus and method

Problem/emotions and cognitive/behavioral

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

Table 3. Evaluative framework applied to coping measures

Social versus solitary

Evaluating specificity of coping measures

Future research on coping: Suggested strategies

Appendix A. Methodology for coping measures

You might also like