View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
EXAMINING ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN COPING WITH STRESS AND
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY ASSESSED BY THE MINNESOTA
MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY-2-RESTRUCTURED FORM
A dissertation submitted to
Kent State University in partial
Fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Ashley M. Holbert
August, 2014
ii
Dissertation written by
Ashley M. Holbert
Ph.D., Kent State University, 2014
M.A., Kent State University, 2010
B.A., Kent State University, 2006
Approved by
_________________________________ , Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee
Yossef Ben-Porath
_________________________________ , Members,
John Gunstad
_________________________________ ,
John Updegraff
_________________________________ ,
Susan Roxburgh
_________________________________ , Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee
Clare Stacey
Accepted by
_________________________________ , Chair, Department of Psychology
Maria Zaragoza
_________________________________ , Interim Dean, Arts and Sciences
James L. Blank
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. ix
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
The Person-Situation Debate and Contemporary Theories of Coping ....................3
Situational Theories ........................................................................................4
Dispositional Theories ....................................................................................6
Interaction of Situational and Dispositional Theories ....................................7
Brief Overview of Coping Assessment....................................................................8
Psychometric properties of Self-Report Coping Instruments .......................12
Applications of Coping Self-Report Instruments .................................................20
Coping and Personality .................................................................................20
Coping and Psychopathology .......................................................................27
The Current Investigation .....................................................................................34
The Reactions to Stress Inventory ................................................................34
The MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) .........................................................36
Goals of the Study .........................................................................................41
Conceptual Questions and Hypotheses of the Study ....................................42
METHOD ..........................................................................................................................52
Participants .............................................................................................................52
Measures ................................................................................................................53
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form
(MMPI-2-RF) ..............................................................................................53
The Reactions to Stress Inventory-Dispositional (RSI-D) ............................55
The Reactions to Stress Inventory-Situational (RSI-S) ................................56
Situational Characteristics ............................................................................57
Procedures ..............................................................................................................59
Statistical Analyses .......................................................................................60
RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................67
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................148
Research Questions and Findings ........................................................................148
General Summary and Implications ....................................................................199
Limitations and Future Directions .......................................................................201
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................205
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 The RSI Scales .......................................................................................................37
2 The MMPI-2-RF Scales .........................................................................................38
3 Predicted Associations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D Scales ....................43
4 Hypothesized Associations between the MMPPI2-RF and RSI-S Scales .............48
5 Correlations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D Scales .....................................68
6 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPPI-2-RF Scales in
Predicting RSI-D Problem of Confrontation ........................................................80
7 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Problem Analysis........................................................................................81
8 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Self-Examination .......................................................................................81
9 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Self-Reassurance ........................................................................................82
10 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Seeking Advice ...........................................................................................83
11 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Seeking Emotional Support ........................................................................84
12 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Emotional Suppression ..............................................................................85
13 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Denial ........................................................................................................86
14 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Fantasizing .................................................................................................88
vi
15 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Avoidance ...................................................................................................88
16 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Passive Acceptance ....................................................................................89
17 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Over-Reaction.............................................................................................90
18 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Spirituality .................................................................................................91
19 Correlations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-S Scales......................................93
20 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Problem Confrontation .............................................................................103
21 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Problem Analysis......................................................................................104
22 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Self Examination ......................................................................................105
23 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Self-Reassurance ......................................................................................105
24 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Seeking Advice .........................................................................................107
25 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Emotional Support ...................................................................................108
26 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Emotional Suppression ............................................................................109
27 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Denial ......................................................................................................110
28 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Fantasizing ...............................................................................................111
vii
29 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Avoidance .................................................................................................112
30 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Passive Acceptance ..................................................................................113
31 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Minimization ...........................................................................................114
32 Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Over-Reaction ..........................................................................................115
33 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Problem Confrontation Scores ...................118
34 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Problem Analysis Scores ...........................120
35 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Self-Examination Scores .............................122
36 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Self-Reassurance Scores .............................124
37 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Seeking Advice Score ................................126
38 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Emotional Support Scores .........................128
39 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Emotional Suppression Scores ...................130
40 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Denial Scores .............................................132
41 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Fantasizing Scores .....................................134
42 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Avoidance Scores ......................................136
viii
43 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Passive Acceptance Scores ........................138
44 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Minimization Scores ...................................140
45 Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational
Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Over Reaction Scores .................................142
46 Results of Z-Tests comparing RSI-D and RSI-S Z Scores by
MMPI-2-RF Scale ................................................................................................145
47 Supported Hypotheses about Associations Between the MMPI-2-RF
Scales and Dispositional Coping ........................................................................150
48 Supported Hypotheses About Associations between the MMPI-2-RF
Scales and Situational Coping ............................................................................176
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Yossef S. Ben-Porath, for his mentorship
and guidance throughout my academic career at Kent State University. He has
continually encouraged me to think critically, provide a solid rational for my thoughts
and ideas, and to convey my thoughts in a clear, concise, and accurate manner. My work
with Dr. Ben-Porath has also assisted me in strengthening my conceptualization of
research projects and in developing strong clinical and academic writing skills. Lastly, I
appreciate his support and guidance regarding my professional development.
I would also like to recognize several other individuals who provided unwavering
support and encouragement to me throughout my graduate career. Thank you to my
parents, Dr. Michael Smith and Patricia Smith, for their enduring love, continued belief
in me, and for showing and instilling in me the value of higher education and a strong
work ethic. The values you worked so hard to instill in me certainly helped to set me up
for success! Also, a special thank you to my husband, Douglas Holbert, who continues to
demonstrate the value in carving out your own career path and persevering to achieve
success. Doug, your strength and determination are a true source of inspiration and
encouragement to me. This endeavor would have seemed impossible without each of you
by my side and I am forever grateful and appreciate! Thank you!
A.M.H.
1
INTRODUCTION
Over the past few decades, researchers have debated about the types of strategies
that individuals use to cope with stressful encounters. Parker and Endler (1992) asserted
that individuals cope with stress by using the same strategies across situations, such as
using a set of preferred coping strategies. This phenomenon has been labeled
dispositional coping. On the other hand, Folkman and Lazarus (1985) argued that
individuals engage in situational coping to handle stress. This type of coping is
influenced by the specific characteristics of a given situation. Thus, the authors suggest
that the coping strategies utilized by an individual will vary and change across stressful
encounters. Folkman and Lazarus (1985) argued further that coping with stress is a
dynamic process, and that individuals utilize both dispositional and situational coping
responses to address stressful encounters.
Empirical research has demonstrated associations between personality
characteristics and dispositional as well as situational coping responses. For example,
numerous researchers have linked the Five Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1985)
constructs to various dispositional coping strategies (e.g., McWilliams, Cox, & Enns,
2003). Several FFM constructs have also been linked empirically to situational coping,
(e.g., Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-Leger, 2004). However, the specific patterns of
association between personality constructs and particular types of dispositional and
situational coping have varied across studies.
2
Previous research has also demonstrated associations between dispositional and
situational coping and psychopathology. More specifically, research findings have
indicated that both dispositional and situational coping responses are linked to general
psychological distress and specific psychological disorders (e.g., Punamaki, et al., 2008;
Segal, Hook, & Coolidge, 2001; Vollrath, Alnaes, & Torgersen, 1996). In contrast with
the personality and coping literature, the associations found between psychological
dysfunction and coping have been largely consistent, as similar types of dispositional and
situational coping responses have been linked to increased psychopathology.
The current study aims to expand on previous empirical research regarding
dispositional and situational coping responses and their associations with personality
characteristics and psychopathology. Specifically, much of the previous research has
focused narrowly on particular personality traits or certain psychological disorders (i.e.,
PTSD). This study will rely on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-
Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011) to assess a broad
range of personality and psychopathology variables. This study begins with a brief
overview of the person-situation debate and how that debate served as a framework for
the development of contemporary coping theories. Next, an overview of coping
assessment is provided, which includes a discussion of the psychometric properties of the
most common or most frequently used coping self-report instruments. The discussion of
coping self-report measures contains information about both psychometric strengths and
weaknesses found in previous research. Next, a review of the literature on coping and its
associations with personality and psychopathology is provided. This review focuses
3
particularly on the Five Factor Model and the more limited research conducted with the
Personality Psychopathology Five model (Harkness & McNulty, 1994). Research on
associations between psychopathology, including general psychological functioning and
symptoms of specific disorders, and coping is reviewed next. In the current investigation
portion of the study, a detailed description of the rationale behind and development of the
Reactions to Stress Inventory-Dispositional (RSI-D; Ben-Porath, unpublished) and the
Reactions to Stress Inventory-Situational (RSI-S; Windover, 2001) instruments is
provided, followed by a summary of previous research that incorporated the two
measures. A brief description of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-
Restructured Form is then provided, and differences between this MMPI instrument and
its earlier counterpart, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 are noted.
Finally, the goals, conceptual questions, and hypotheses of this study are discussed in
detail to provide a conceptual framework for this study.
The Person-Situation Debate and Contemporary Theories of Coping
The person-situation debate is inherent in the conceptualization of various coping
processes. For several decades, researchers have been interested in understanding and
analyzing the factors that influence behavior, including behavior that is consistent both
over time and across situations. Exploration of potential factors led to an ongoing debate,
where researchers, such as Mischel (1984), argued that an individual’s behavior is largely
shaped by the particular characteristics of a situation. On the other side of the debate,
some authors asserted that stable personality traits were responsible for the production of
a given behavior (Kenrick & Funder, 1988; Costa & McCrae, 1986). A third argument in
4
this debate is that behavior results from an interaction between personality traits and the
characteristics of the situation (Endler, 1983; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1980). Most
contemporary viewpoints have stressed the importance of integrating personality traits
and the characteristics of the situation when examining behavior (Funder, 2006; Mischel
& Shoda, 1995).
Both historic and contemporary coping theories have been influenced in part by
the person-situation debate, as the coping theories also seek to account for behavior;
however, coping theories focus more specifically on behaviors exhibited in response to
stressful circumstances. Additionally, the three main factors associated with the person-
situation debate, including personality traits, characteristics of the situation, and the
interaction of personality and the situation, closely parallel the three main categories of
contemporary coping models. Thus, the current coping theories may be considered a
specific instance of the person-situation debate.
Situational Theories
In line with the “situation” argument from the person-situation debate, situational
coping theory asserts that coping behavior is influenced by the unique conditions within a
particular situation. Situational coping theories state that an individual’s coping response
is dependent on the specific circumstances of a stressful situation, such as the presence or
absence of other individuals; therefore, as the characteristics of the situation vary, so will
the individual’s response to the stressful situation. Situational coping theories further
argue that the way an individual responds to a stressor changes across events due to those
5
unique characteristics of each event (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985); thus, consistent
behavior across stressful events is not necessarily expected.
A study by Folkman and Lazarus (1985) demonstrated that individuals exhibited
different coping responses across three phases of a stressful event (i.e., a college midterm
exam). The researchers administered the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ), a self-
report instrument designed to assess a broad range of cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral coping strategies, to their participants. Their participants completed the WCQ
at three different time points: before the exam (anticipatory stage), following the exam
before grades were received (waiting stage), and after grades were received (outcome
stage). The researchers hypothesized that the three different stages of the stressful event
would elicit different coping responses from the students at both the group and individual
levels. For example, in the outcome stage, students had to manage their thoughts and
feelings associated with the grade they earned on the test. Therefore, as all three stages
had different characteristics or factors at play, the researchers anticipated the students’
coping responses would vary accordingly. The results of their study demonstrated that all
students utilized both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies across the
three situations; however, students also used varying combinations of eight different
coping responses, as the stage of the study changed (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Thus,
the authors concluded that students modified their coping responses as a result of the
changing situational characteristics they encountered.
6
Dispositional Theories
Dispositional coping theories are closely linked to the “person” side of the
person-situation debate. Similar to personality characteristics or styles in the person-
situation debate, dispositional theories hold that individuals employ specific coping styles
when faced with a stressful situation, regardless of the situational characteristics present
(Parker & Endler, 1992). Researchers have proposed that dispositional coping may be the
result of an individual’s personality traits, which are believed to remain stable over time
and account for behavioral consistency across situations in dispositional coping (Carver,
Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Parker & Endler, 1992). Another potential explanation for
dispositional coping behaviors is that individuals develop a standard set of coping
responses to utilize in response to stressful encounters, rather than coping behaviors
being the sole product of stable personality traits (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989).
One study demonstrated that individuals employed dispositional coping
responses in reliable ways. Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) developed a self-report
instrument, the COPE, to address concerns that none of the existing coping measures
assessed dispositional coping styles. The instrument included a set of dispositional scales
that were used to investigate whether stable coping responses were utilized by individuals
in stressful encounters. The results of their study indicated that the instrument reliably
assessed dispositional coping strategies across several stressful situations. However,
stable coping strategies were also linked to longstanding personality characteristics, such
as optimism and trait anxiety. The authors concluded that individuals tend to utilize
preferred, stable (i.e., dispositional) coping strategies across stressful encounters;
7
however, they were unable to determine whether the dispositional coping strategies
resulted from personality characteristics or other underlying factors (Carver, Scheier, &
Weintraub, 1989). Therefore, whereas dispositional coping strategies have been
demonstrated in previous research, researchers have not yet determined the specific
underlying mechanisms that are responsible for the production of dispositional coping
behaviors.
Interaction of Situational and Dispositional Theories
The Cognitive Theory of Stress and Coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984) is a third type of coping model that unifies both dispositional and
situational viewpoints into a single theory by examining the interaction between
situational and dispositional coping behaviors. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) stated that
individual (i.e. dispositional) factors and environmental (i.e. situational) factors have a
dynamic and bi-directional association in a stressful encounter, suggesting that the factors
influence one another in various ways to produce coping behaviors. According to Lazarus
and Folkman (1984), the association between the dispositional and situational factors is
determined by the individual encountering the stressful circumstances through the
processes of primary and secondary appraisal.
Primary appraisal is the first step in this process, wherein the individual evaluates
whether a given stressor is personally threatening and what they stand to gain or lose
from the stressful encounter (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). If the stressor is considered
non-threatening during primary appraisal, no further action is taken. However, if the
stressor is determined to be potentially harmful, the individual will next engage in
8
secondary appraisal. Secondary appraisal occurs when the individual evaluates their
potential response options, which are aimed at either reducing the threat or improving the
likelihood of benefiting from the stressful encounter (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Primary and secondary appraisal culminates in the coping process. Folkman and
Lazarus (1985) defined coping as the cognitive and behavioral efforts made by an
individual to manage the demands of the person-environment interaction in a stressful
encounter. Thus, coping is the tangible action taken to manage a stressful encounter.
Lazarus and colleagues (1984) asserted that coping can be either situational,
dispositional, or an interaction of situational and dispositional factors, which
collaboratively determine the coping responses utilized.
Brief Overview of Coping Assessment
Coping was initially believed to be an unconscious process, where both adaptive
and maladaptive mechanisms resulted from stressful circumstances. The adaptive
responses were coined coping mechanisms, whereas the maladaptive responses were
labeled and considered defense mechanisms (Parker & Endler, 1992). For example, Freud
(1933) considered defense mechanisms to be a set of unconscious responses, such as
repression, rationalization, and projection, exhibited by an individual in response to threat
and/or conflict. He postulated that individuals did not recognize that they used these
processes to address negative life events, and he considered them to be pathological
responses because they typically resulted in maladaptive outcomes (Freud, 1933).
However, during the 1960’s and 1970’s, the conceptualization of coping shifted
from an unconscious process to a conscious one that can be measured empirically (Parker
9
& Endler, 1992). Although there were several previous attempts to assess coping, few
single, stand-alone coping self-report instruments had been created. Additionally, many
of the instruments or scales previously available had little empirical research to support
their use. Therefore, coping researchers sought to develop independent instruments to
assess more current coping conceptualizations and theories, using more
psychometrically-sound techniques.
For example, Byrne’s Repression-Sensitization Scale (Byrne, 1961) was one the
earliest and most widely known attempts to assess specific types of defense mechanisms
(Parker & Endler, 1992). Byrne (1961) argued that an individual’s defense mechanisms
existed on a continuum, with avoidance-type responses (i.e. repression) at one end and
approach-types responses (i.e. sensitization) at the opposite end of the spectrum. The
author proposed that individuals employing repression as a defense mechanism be
classified as internalizers, who often forgot anxiety-arousing situations, and preferred to
utilize avoidance and forgetting when faced with stressful stimuli (Byrne, 1961). On the
other hand, Byrne (1961) described individuals using sensitizing defenses as more likely
to employ the strategies of rationalization, intellectualization, and humor, and having the
ability to admit inadequacy and failure.
Byrne (1961) created the Repression-Sensitization Scale utilizing a combination
of six Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley,
1943) scales. The author selected items for the scale that were purported to measure the
repression-sensitization dimension based on previous research by Altrocchi, Parsons, and
Dickoff (1960). Altrocchi, Parsons, and Dickoff (1960) utilized the Denial subscale
10
(contained within scale 7) of the MMPI to assess repression, as this was consistent with
the previous research (cf. Gordon, 1959; Hatfield, 1958). However, these researchers
added the L and K scales to the Denial subscale because the subscale was too short to be
a stand-alone measure (Altrocchi, Parsons, & Dickoff, 1960). Altrocchi and colleagues
then selected Scale 7 to examine sensitizing mechanisms, citing its usefulness in
assessing the sensitizing defense mechanisms in previous research, such as that of
Hatfield (1958). Scores were also added from scale 2 and the Welsh’s Anxiety scale to
“help reduce measurement error” (Altrocchi, Parsons, & Dickoff, 1960, p. 68); however,
no specific information was provided regarding why scale 2 and Welsh’s Anxiety were
specifically selected. These scales were then configured into an index. Specifically, total
scores from scales 2 and 7, were added together with scores on the Welsh’s Anxiety
scale. Total scores from L and K were added to the Denial subscale total, and this
combination of scores was subtracted from the combined score derived from scales 2, 7,
and Welsh’ Anxiety scale.
Byrne (1961) attempted to account for problems with earlier coping assessment
instruments in developing his measure, including reducing the item overlap between the
MMPI scales contained in Altrocchi and colleagues’ (1960) index and simplifying scale
interpretation. Therefore, Byrne (1961) created a new scoring system and slightly
modified the 1960 scale to correct for the problems identified with the earlier version of
the scale (Altrocchi, Parsons, & Dickoff, 1960). Byrne’s (1961) scoring system ensured
that all items were only scored once and that items scored inconsistently were omitted.
Additionally, scores were somewhat easier to interpret, as high scores were representative
11
of individuals using sensitization and low scores were indicative of individuals using
repression.
Regarding psychometric properties, Byrne (1961) examined reliability and
demonstrated that his scale’s internal consistency estimate was .88. To determine test-
retest reliability estimates, Byrne (1961) administered the instrument to 75 college
students on two occasions approximately six weeks apart. The results indicated that test-
retest reliability estimate was .88.
Byrne (1961) correlated the scores of his scale with several other instruments
believed to assess other types of defense mechanisms, such as facilitation and inhibition.
The results indicated that the Repression-Sensitization Scale was significantly associated
with the defenses of facilitation and inhibition (r = .76), which are two proposed defense
mechanisms believed to parallel the repression-sensitization dimension (Byrne, 1961).
Consistent with Byrne’s (1961) hypotheses, sensitization was also significantly
associated with negative self-descriptions (r = .62) from the Self Activity Inventory
(Worchel, 1957). This particular finding was consistent with previous research that
demonstrated that repressing individuals tended to describe themselves in a more positive
manner than sensitizers (Altrocchi, Parsons, & Dickoff, 1960). Scores on Byrne’s (1961)
scale were also associated with deviant-response bias (r = .42; r = .33) in an adjective
checklist completed by two different groups of college students. This result suggested
that both sensitizers’ and repressors’ defense mechanisms influenced the way they
responded to adjectives on the checklist (Byrne, 1961). The results further indicated that
Byrne’s (1961) scale was not significantly associated with a measure of intelligence,
12
which he claimed was consistent with previous research. Thus, the author concluded that
this scale demonstrated adequate to good reliability and construct validity (Byrne, 1961).
Whereas Byrne’s (1961) Repression-Sensitization Scale significantly improved
research on specific defense mechanisms, his scale was not a true stand-alone instrument,
as it could not be administered without completing the full MMPI, and the scale was not
part of the routine MMPI scoring, which was also problematic.
To advance coping assessment research, numerous independent self-report
measures were developed to assess individual coping behaviors during the 1980’s and
1990’s. These instruments asked the test-taker to provide information about the specific
types of coping strategies they employed during a particularly stressful encounter.
Several of the measures developed assessed both situational and dispositional coping
strategies; however, some instruments assessed only one of the two common strategies.
Examples of the more prominent coping self-report assessment instruments created
during that timeframe include: Ways of Coping Checklist/ Ways of Coping Questionnaire
(WCC; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; WCQ; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988), Miller Behavioral
Style Scale (MBSS; Miller & Mangan, 1983), Life Situations Inventory (LSI; Feifel &
Strack, 1989), Coping Style Scale (CSS; Nowack, 1989), and the COPE (Carver, Scheier,
& Weintraub, 1989).
Psychometric Properties of Self-Report Coping Instruments
The Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC) is one of the earliest self-report coping
instruments developed by Folkman and Lazarus (1980), and it was created to assess
Folkman and Lazarus’ (1980; 1984) Cognitive Theory of Stress of Coping. The original
13
WCC was revised in 1988 and became the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ;
Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). The revised WCQ contained eight scales, which are grouped
into one problem-focused, six emotion-focused, and one mixed problem and emotion-
focused subscale, and was intended to measure a broad range of cognitive and behavioral
coping strategies.
The test-retest reliability and discriminant and convergent validity of the WCC
and WCQ are unknown, and have yet to be examined systematically. Additionally, the
underlying factor structure of the WCQ has been found to be somewhat sample
dependent, as several studies have demonstrated 8-factor solutions (Aldwin & Revenson,
1987; Smyth & Williams, 1991; Atkinson & Violato, 1993), 7-factor solutions (Mishel &
Sorenson, 1993), and 4-factor solutions (Parker et al., 1993).
The Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS) was developed by Miller (1980) to
create an empirically supported coping self-report instrument. It is intended to
discriminate between individuals who cope by seeking out additional information (i.e.
monitors) and those who distract themselves from the stressful event (i.e. blunters). The
instrument describes four stressful situations, and each is followed by eight questions
rated on a yes/no response format (Miller, 1980), with half of the questions being related
to monitoring responses and the remaining questions being related to blunting strategies.
The MBSS scales demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency reliability,
with estimates ranging from .67 to .98 in three different samples (Miller, 1987; Garvin &
Kim, 2000). Miller and Mischel (1986) calculated test-retest reliability coefficients in an
14
unpublished manuscript and the results demonstrated test-retest estimates ranging from
.72 for the monitoring subscale to .75 for the blunting subscale (Miller, 1987).
The construct validity of the MBSS was examined in several studies. Muris and
Schouten (1994) factor analyzed MBSS responses and demonstrated that a 2-factor
solution was most appropriate, with one monitoring and one blunting factor. Garvin and
Kim (2000) provided support for the convergent validity of the MBSS by demonstrating
moderate associations, that ranged from .30 to .51, between the MBSS monitoring
subscale and a measure of preference for information in short-term illnesses. The authors
concluded that the results of their study were consistent with previous research that a
preference for obtaining information during an illness was linked to the coping response
of monitoring (Garvin & Kim, 2000). Finally, the MBSS demonstrated adequate
discriminant validity, as significant associations were not present between the MBSS and
measures of trait anxiety and depression, Byrne’s Repression-Sensitization Scale, and a
measure of Type A personality (Miller, 1987; Miller & Mangan, 1983).
Feifel and Strack (1989) developed the Life Situations Inventory (LSI) to assess
coping responses in middle-aged (age 40-64) and elderly (age 65-92) individuals, across
five different situations involving conflict (i.e., decision making, loss in competition,
dealing with frustration, conflict with an authority-type figure, and disagreement with a
peer). The instrument examines three major coping strategies - problem-solving,
avoidance, and resignation (Feifel & Strack, 1989). The psychometric characteristics of
the inventory have been largely unreported. To date, no empirical research has explored
the test-retest reliability, and the construct, criterion, or content validity of the instrument.
15
The Coping Style Scale (CSS) was developed by Nowack (1989) to assess four
coping styles on the approach-avoidance continuum, including intrusive positive
thoughts, intrusive negative thoughts, avoidance, and problem-focused coping. Nowack’s
(1989) instrument does not assess any type of coping strategy aimed at reducing the
negative emotions associated with a stressor. The test-retest reliability of the CSS has not
yet been examined and validity information for the CSS has not yet been examined or
published in empirical research.
Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) developed the COPE to assess a more
comprehensive array of coping facets from a more theoretically-based perspective. The
COPE scales assess both situational and dispositional coping because the authors
believed that both variables influenced the production of behavior in response to a
stressful encounter (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). The items on both the
dispositional and situational COPE are identical, but the situational version of the COPE
instructed test takers to reference a single, specific stressful encounter and report the
coping behaviors they used to manage their stress.
Results of several studies have suggested varying factor solutions with the
number of factors ranging from 8 to 13 (Costa & Gouveia, 2008; Kallasmaa & Pulver,
2000; Kleijn, VanHeck, & VanWaning, 2000; Zhang, Huang, & Ye, 1998). Only one
study, conducted by Sica and colleagues (1997), produced the same 13-factor solution as
Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989). Additionally, whereas the test authors report that
situational COPE scales generally possess psychometric properties similar to that of the
dispositional COPE scales, the authors do not provide the data in support of their claims.
16
Thus, specific psychometric information about the situational COPE scales is largely
unavailable.
The Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI; Amirkhan, 1990) was designed to address
the strengths and weaknesses associated with both the theoretical and empirical
approaches to coping scale construction. Amirkhan (1990) developed the instrument to
assess three basic coping strategies, including problem-solving, seeking social support,
and avoidance. The problem-solving dimension assessed by the CSI is akin to Folkman
and Lazarus’ (1980) problem-focused coping, seeking social support strategies include
actively searching for human contact from others, and avoidance strategies were
considered to be coping responses that involved some form of withdrawal (Amirkhan,
1990).
Amirkhan (1990) computed alphas for each of the three scales CSI scales and
results indicated high internal reliability, with values ranging from .84 to .93. Reliability
coefficients for the CSI were also calculated in a sample of college students and members
from the community, and the test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from .77 to .86
(Amirkhan, 1990).
Regarding the construct validity of the CSI, a majority of studies have
demonstrated that a 3-factor solution best fit the responses on the CSI (e.g., Desmond,
Shevlin, & MacLachlan, 2006). However, Ager and MacLachlan (1998) demonstrated
that a 4-factor solution was most appropriate in their study, as the authors suggested the
avoidance factor should be split into two separate factors of withdrawal and distraction.
17
Amirkhan (1990) examined the convergent validity of the CSI by correlating
responses on the CSI and WCC, which also measures coping behaviors and strategies.
Associations between the conceptually-related scales of the CSI and WCC were in the
small to moderate range (r = .27 to .55). However, due to the substantial item overlap
between the WCC and CSI instruments, correlations are likely to be somewhat inflated
(Amirkhan, 1990). The test author also examined the discriminant validity of the CSI,
and, as anticipated, negative correlations were found between negative emotions and
behaviors, such as depression, and the problem-solving scale of the CSI (Amirkhan,
1990).
With regard to criterion validity, Amirkhan (1994) demonstrated that an
individual’s CSI scores corresponded to their self-selected coping group chosen prior to
experiencing electrical shock. Amirkhan (1994) also found that students enrolled in a
Critical Thinking course demonstrated more problem-solving behaviors and fewer
avoidance actions at the end of the semester; while, their counterparts enrolled in an
Introductory Psychology course did not demonstrate any significant changes over the
semester. Finally, Amirkhan (1994) also illustrated that individuals just beginning
substance abuse treatment reported engaging in more avoidance coping behaviors on the
CSI; whereas individuals enrolled in treatment for a longer period of time reported using
more problem-solving and seeking social support strategies.
The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS; Endler & Parker, 1990a)
was created to provide a comprehensive assessment of coping responses, including those
aimed at addressing the stressor itself, the negative emotions associated with the stressor,
18
or avoiding the stressor, from a dispositional perspective. The test authors also intended
to develop a more psychometrically-sound coping instrument in an attempt to address the
problematic psychometric characteristics associated with other coping instruments, such
as unstable, variable factor structures, low reliability estimates, and menial convergent
and discriminant validity. To achieve this end, Endler and Parker (1990a) incorporated
both theoretical and empirical approaches into test development of the CISS, and the final
instrument contained 48 items, rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The authors classified
items into the factors: Task-Oriented Coping, Emotion-Oriented Coping, and Avoidance,
and the Avoidance factor was subdivided into a Distraction and a Social Diversion factor
(Endler & Parker, 1990b).
A situation-specific version of the CISS, the CISS-SSC, was developed by Endler,
Kantor, and Parker (1994). The authors modified the CISS by making the instructions
situation-specific and reducing the total number of items to 21. CISS items were removed
based on low item-total correlations demonstrated in a series of studies with college
undergraduates (Endler, Kantor, & Parker, 1994). The CISS-SSC was purported to assess
the same three broadband coping dimensions as that of the CISS, but the Avoidance
factor was no longer subdivided.
The CISS has demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency reliability, with
coefficients ranging .70 to .92 across several studies (Endler & Parker, 1990a; 1994).
Internal consistency estimates for the CISS-SSC were demonstrated to range from .70 to
.84 in a study by Endler and Parker (1990a). The test authors also examined the test-retest
reliability of the CISS, and their results showed test-retest estimates ranged from .51 to
19
.73 (Endler & Parker, 1990a). Test-retest reliability has not been explored with the CISS-
SSC.
Several studies (e.g., Desmond, Shevlin, & MacLachlan, 2006; Rafnsson, et al.,
2006) have examined the factor structure of the CISS using diverse samples. The great
majority of these studies demonstrated factor structures that parallel the 3-factor structure
illustrated by Endler and Parker (1990a; 1993; 1994).
The test authors investigated the convergent construct validity of the CISS by
correlating it with two alternative coping assessment instruments, namely the CSI and the
Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ; Bond & Vaillant, 1986). As anticipated, moderate
associations were demonstrated between the CISS Task-Oriented scale and its conceptual
counterparts on the CSI and DSQ, and a similar pattern was demonstrated for the
Emotion-Oriented and Avoidance CISS scales (Endler & Parker, 1994).
Endler and Parker (1994) utilized yet another approach to examine construct
validity by exploring associations between CISS scores and symptoms of
psychopathology demonstrated to be present by previous empirical research (cf. Endler,
1988; Nowack, 1989). The results of the study suggested that, as hypothesized, the
emotion-oriented and distraction CISS scales were highly associated with psychiatric
symptomatology and moderately associated with depression (Endler & Parker, 1990a).
Conversely, the Task-Oriented and Social Diversion coping responses were negatively
associated with depression.
The predictive validity of the CISS was examined in a study by Endler and Parker
(1994). Two samples completed the CISS and the CISS-SSC several months apart and
20
each sample was directed to reference a different stressor. The results demonstrated
moderate to high correlations (i.e., .40 to .71) between the Task-Oriented, Emotion-
Oriented, and Avoidance scales of the CISS and the CISS-SSC. Additionally, several
significant, but smaller negative correlations were found between CISS and CISS-SSC
scales that were not conceptually related (i.e. Task-Oriented Coping and Avoidance). The
authors concluded that the dispositional coping styles assessed by the CISS are linked to
congruent types of situation-specific coping, as measured by the CISS-SSC (Endler &
Parker, 1994).
Applications of Coping Self-Report Instruments
Since their development approximately two decades ago, the coping self-report
instruments have been applied in two main categories of research. The first area of
research includes using the coping self-report instruments to explore the associations
between coping behaviors and personality variables. Another application of the coping
self-report instruments involves the investigation of potential links between the coping
process and psychological symptoms and disorders. These two areas of research have a
long-standing history, and they continue to be investigated in more contemporary
research using coping measures developed more recently as well.
Coping and Personality
An extensive empirical research literature focuses on examining and quantifying
associations between personality variables and coping processes. Much of the research in
this area has focused on examining associations between the Five-Factor Model (FFM;
21
Costa & McCrae, 1985) and coping responses. McWilliams, Cox and Enns (2003) noted
that the FFM was typically used in this line research because of the comprehensiveness of
the model and Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007) argued that the FFM traits are largely
stable across cultures and age groups, which they offered as an explanation for the
model’s continued application in current research.
One study that examined associations between the FFM, as assessed by the NEO-
PI-R, and dispositional coping responses, as measured by the CISS, was conducted by
McWilliams, Cox, and Enns (2003). The results of this study demonstrated that the
personality traits of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism
were each linked to dispositional coping responses of the CISS. Additionally, the authors
expanded their findings by also examining associations between personality traits and
psychological problems. McWilliams, Cox, and Enns’ (2003) results indicated that
Neuroticism was associated with increased levels of psychopathology; whereas,
Conscientiousness and Extraversion were linked to lower levels of psychological distress.
Therefore, the authors suggested that personality traits are linked to both dispositional
coping and psychopathology. However, they also argued that personality traits alone do
not adequately predict psychopathology, but rather a combination of personality traits and
dispositional coping responses best predicted psychological distress (McWilliams, Cox,
& Enns, 2003).
Another study that examined coping behaviors and personality variables was
conducted by Jang, et al. (2007). These authors administered a shortened version of the
Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations, the CISS-SF, and the NEO Five Factor
22
Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) to 171 pairs of adult twins. The CISS-SF
(Cohan, Jang, & Stein, 2006) is a 21-item version of the CISS that assesses Emotion-
Oriented, Task-Oriented, and Social Diversion and Distraction (i.e. avoidance) coping
behaviors from a dispositional perspective. Jang and colleagues (2007) were interested in
investigating the associations between coping styles and personality variables.
The results of the study suggested that personality variables account for a
significant amount of the variance (i.e., 9%) in predicting dispositional coping behaviors.
Specifically, the results indicated that the personality traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Openness, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness were each associated with dispositional
coping responses (Jang, et al., 2007). Additionally, the personality trait of Neuroticism
demonstrated the largest number of associations with various types of dispositional
coping. The associations of the largest magnitude were demonstrated between
Neuroticism and Extraversion and emotion-oriented, task-oriented, and social diversion
dispositional coping (Jang, et al., 2007). However, a combination of Neuroticism and
Extraversion was most strongly associated with dispositional distraction. Therefore, the
authors concluded that the personality traits of Neuroticism and Extraversion most
strongly influence the individual’s preferred set of coping strategies used to handle
stressful situations.
Bouchard, Guillemette, and Landry-Leger (2004) explored associations between
situational coping, dispositional coping, and personality traits. The authors administered
the COPE to assess dispositional coping styles, the WCQ to examine situational coping
strategies, and the NEO-FFI to measure personality traits to 233 college undergraduate
23
students. Bouchard and colleagues’ (2004) results suggested that personality traits, when
evaluated as a group, added incrementally, beyond gender, in predicting both situational
and dispositional coping behaviors, and personality traits were demonstrated to share
almost equal amount of variance with both situational and dispositional coping.
Specifically, Neuroticism, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were each
associated with the use of both dispositional and situational coping; however, the each
personality trait exhibited a slightly different pattern of associations with different
dispositional and situational coping responses. In particular, dispositional and situational
problem solving were both negatively associated with Neuroticism and positively
associated with Extraversion and Conscientiousness. Similarly, dispositional and
situational distancing-avoidance was positively associated with Neuroticism, negatively
associated with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-
Leger, 2004). The authors concluded that particular personality traits moderately
influence the types of situational and dispositional coping behaviors employed by an
individual (Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-Leger, 2004).
Finally, a meta-analysis conducted by Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007)
provided a comprehensive review of the studies that examined relations between
personality and coping. The studies they examined were conducted between 1980 and
2004, and included 124 published studies, with 165 independent samples. Connor-Smith
and Flachsbart (2007) required the studies included in the meta-analysis to incorporate
some specific measures of the FFM and coping responses. The authors argued that
empirical studies in the area of coping and personality had provided mixed results;
24
therefore, Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007) sought to examine these studies in more
detail in an attempt to make more meaningful distinctions regarding the associations
between personality and coping.
The results of the meta-analysis conveyed several important findings.
Specifically, all of the FFM personality traits, including Extraversion, Conscientiousness,
Openness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism each significantly predicted both
dispositional and situational coping. The results of the study also showed that the
personality traits of Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness tended to be more
strongly associated with dispositional versus situational coping strategies; however,
Openness and Conscientiousness demonstrated comparable associations across both
dispositional and situational coping responses. It was also determined that the personality
traits typically more strongly predicted dispositional versus situational coping responses
(Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). Also, the pattern of results indicated that particular
personality traits tend to be associated with specific types of coping responses. For
example, coping strategies focused on problem solving were associated with
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness and inversely associated with
Neuroticism. Another example is coping focused on addressing negative emotions was
negatively linked to Extraversion and positively linked to Neuroticism (Connor-Smith &
Flachsbart, 2007). Thus, the authors argued that personality traits more strongly predicted
dispositional coping responses in their study, and this finding has been largely supported
in previous research (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007).
25
In summary, previous research has established that personality traits are linked to
both dispositional and situational coping. However, it appears that the connection
between personality traits and dispositional coping responses may be stronger than that
between personality traits and situational coping. It remains unclear whether the
association between personality traits and dispositional coping is just simply stronger due
to the engrained nature of both constructs or whether fewer studies have systematically
investigated associations between personality and situational coping. Regardless, future
studies would benefit from including measures of both dispositional and situational
coping to lend some clarity to their associations with personality traits.
The Personality Psychopathology Five Model and coping. The Personality
Psychopathology Five model (PSY-5), developed by Harkness and McNulty (1994),
offers an alternate dimensional view of personality. Specifically, Harkness and McNulty
(1994) argued that the FFM was more a measure of normal personality functioning and
the model was less useful when applied in clinical settings, as it did not adequately assess
abnormal personality functioning. Harkness, McNulty, and Ben-Porath (1995) created the
MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology 5 (PSY-5) Scales to assess personality traits
associated with both normal functioning and clinically significant difficulties. One
advantage of these scales over previous personality models is that they represent a
dimensional approach to assessing abnormal personality markers, predicated on the
notion that these phenomena are continuous, rather than taxonic (Graham, 2006).
The PSY-5 Scales of Aggressiveness (AGGR) is a measure of offensive and
instrumental forms of aggression motivated by the desire for power and influence
26
(Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995). Psychoticism (PSYC) assesses a disconnect
from reality, including having hallucinations and delusions (Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-
Porath, 1995). Disconstraint (DISC) measures maladaptive personality characteristics
linked to impulsivity, risk-taking, and non-conformity with traditional beliefs and
behaviors (Graham, 2006). Lower levels of this dimension are associated with over-
control. Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism (NEGE) assesses a predisposition to
experience emotions, such as worry, guilt, and sadness (Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-
Porath, 1995). Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality (INTR) is linked to a limited
capacity to experience joy and positive emotions and being socially introverted at the
high end and an increased a capacity to experience joy and positive emotions and being
sociable and having energy at lower levels.
To date, only a single study has examined associations between coping responses
and the PSY-5 scales. Windover (2001) explored the ability of personality traits to predict
situational and dispositional coping behaviors. The results of the analyses demonstrated
that the Aggressiveness (AGGR) scale was not significantly associated with any
situational coping behaviors; however AGGR was related to a dispositional tendency to
cope with a stressful encounter by examining one’s role in its production. In addition,
both Psychoticism and Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism were related to both
situational and dispositional avoidance types of coping responses. The Disconstraint scale
was associated with situational and dispositional coping, specifically turning to religion
as a way to cope with stress. Finally, PSY-5 Introversion demonstrated significant
negative associations with situational and dispositional coping responses focused on
27
understanding and reducing the stressor, and several positive associations were
demonstrated between the Introversion scale and situational and dispositional coping
strategies characterized by handling the negative emotions resulting from the stressor.
Although Windover’s (2001) results parallel previous research of coping and
personality traits in some areas they diverge in others. For example, the hypothesis that
the situational coping responses of Problem Analysis, Self-Examination, Passive
Acceptance, and Minimization of the RSI-S would be significantly associated with
personality, as assessed by the PSY-5 Scales was not supported (Windover, 2001).
Additionally, Windover (2001) anticipated associations to be present between the PSY-5
Aggressiveness scale and the situational coping scales of the RSI-S; however, the results
of the study did not support the hypothesis. Therefore, additional research exploring the
PSY-5 model and coping is warranted in order to gain a better understanding of the
associations between normal and abnormal personality traits and coping.
Coping and Psychopathology
Another large area of coping research has focused on the exploring associations
between coping behaviors and psychopathology. Research on coping and
psychopathology has tended to fall into two general categories: coping and general
psychopathology and coping and specific psychological disorders.
Coping and general psychopathology. Several studies have explored
associations between dispositional and situational coping strategies and general
psychopathology or distress. One of the general trends demonstrated by these studies is
28
that particular dispositional and situational coping strategies, namely those focused on
addressing negative emotions associated with the stressor, were typically associated with
higher levels of general distress and psychopathology (e.g., Flett, Blankstein, &
Obertynski, 1996; Vollrath, Alnaes, & Torgersen, 1996). Additionally, other dispositional
coping responses, typically those aimed at reducing or managing the stressor itself, have
been demonstrated to be inversely associated with symptoms of psychopathology and
positively linked to more adaptive functioning (e.g., Vollrath, Alnaes, & Torgersen,
1996; McWilliams, Cox, & Enns, 2003). However, this same pattern of associations has
not been demonstrated for situational coping.
For example, McWilliams, Cox, and Enns (2003) investigated associations
between dispositional coping strategies and general symptoms of psychological
dysfunction. The results showed that dispositional coping responses focused on actively
addressing the stressor itself were inversely associated with psychological difficulties;
while the opposite pattern of associations was present between dispositional coping
aimed at reducing negative emotions and psychopathology (McWilliams, Cox, & Enns,
2003). Finally, the dispositional coping mechanism of distraction, in which an individual
uses other activities as a means to distract themselves from thinking about the stressor,
was not found to be associated with psychopathology. McWilliams, Cox, and Enns
(2003) interpreted the results of their study as evidence to support that various forms of
dispositional coping responses are differentially associated with psychological distress.
Additionally, a study conducted by Punamaki and colleagues (2008) explored
links between dispositional and situational coping responses and a variety of
29
psychological symptoms, including those associated with PTSD, depressive disorders,
somatoform disorders, and general psychological distress in a sample of Palestinian
political ex-prisoners. The results of this study indicated that dispositional coping styles
were associated with PTSD symptomatology, as well as general psychological distress.
On the other hand, situational coping responses were linked to PTSD and somatoform
symptomatology and general psychological distress (Punamaki, et al., 2008).
Additionally, the types of dispositional and situational responses found to be linked to
psychological dysfunction varied across the different psychological difficulties. For
example, the dispositional constructive and distraction coping responses were associated
with general psychological distress; whereas, the situational coping responses of
avoidance and denial were significantly associated with general psychological distress
(Punamaki, et al., 2008).
Coping and specific psychological disorders. Empirical research has
demonstrated two broad findings regarding associations between Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) symptoms and coping with stress. First, associations between PTSD
symptoms and situational coping strategies have been explored using combat-related
samples (Fairbank, Hansen, & Fitterling, 1991). Fairbank, Hansen, and Fitterling (1991)
compared the coping responses of three samples of veterans, including one group of
combat veterans with PTSD, one group of combat veterans without PTSD, and one group
of veterans who did not experience any traumatic events or actual combat (i.e., non-
combat veterans). The results of their study conveyed that each group used slightly
different situational coping responses to deal with a specific situation of combat-related
30
stress. For example, the combat veterans with PTSD used more situational coping
strategies more frequently than any other group and the non-combat veterans tended to
use situational coping responses directed towards the stressor itself (Fairbank, Hansen, &
Fitterling, 1991).
Additionally, associations have been reported between dispositional coping
strategies and self-reported symptoms of PTSD in a sample of law enforcement officers
(Haisch & Meyers, 2004). Specifically, Haisch and Meyers (2004) demonstrated that law
enforcement officers employing the dispositional coping strategies: turning to
alcohol/drugs, avoidance, seeking emotional support or venting emotions, and failing to
address the stressor itself also reported experiencing higher levels of PTSD symptoms.
Thus, the authors argued that individuals utilizing those dispositional coping styles were
at an increased likelihood to develop psychopathology, particularly symptoms of PTSD
(Haisch & Meyers, 2004).
With regard to symptoms of depression, Catanzaro, Horaney, and Creasy (1995)
investigated links between situational coping responses and symptoms of depression in
an elderly community sample. The authors demonstrated that situational avoidance and
ventilation coping responses were both positively associated with symptoms of
depression (Catanzaro, Horaney, & Creasy, 1995). However, situational ventilation
coping responses were demonstrated to be independently associated with depressive
symptoms; whereas, situational avoidant coping was only significant when examined in
conjunction with other coping responses. Additionally, the authors also asserted that
situational coping responses focused on addressing negative emotions were also
31
associated with higher levels of depressive symptomatology, and this finding was
supported by previous research (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1986; Catanzaro, Horaney, &
Creasy, 1995).
Flett, Blankstein, and Obertynski (1996) conducted a study similar to that of
Catanzaro, Horaney and Creasy (1995), except these authors examined links between
dispositional coping and depressive symptomatology using a college undergraduate
sample. The authors utilized a correlational design to examine the associations and the
findings from this study demonstrated that there were no significant associations present
between the dispositional coping strategies of diversion and avoidance and symptoms of
depression (Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996). Additionally, the results suggested
that depressive symptoms were positively linked to the dispositional coping responses
focused on reducing negative emotions and the dispositional coping response of
distraction. Finally, Flett, Blankstein, and Obertynski (1996) demonstrated that a negative
association was present between depression and those dispositional coping strategies
aimed at addressing the stressor itself. The strongest association was present between
dispositional coping strategies intended to reduce an individual’s negative emotions and
symptoms of depression, and this finding is consistent with Catanzaro, Horaney, and
Creasy’s (1995) research with situational coping and symptoms of depression.
Additionally, Vollrath, Alnaes, and Torgersen (1996) examined links between
dispositional coping responses and symptoms of nine Axis I disorders. The results of
their study indicated that the patterns of associations between the various types of
dispositional coping and symptomatology varied across the different disorders. More
32
specifically, engagement in dispositional active coping, or coping focused towards
addressing the stressor itself, was inversely associated with symptoms of anxiety,
somatoform, dysthymia, and thought disorders, and alcohol dependence (Vollrath,
Alnaes, & Torgersen, 1996). Additionally, the dispositional coping response of
distraction was linked to increased symptoms of dysthymia, thought, and delusional
disorders. Furthermore, Vollrath, Alnaes, and Torgersen (1996) demonstrated that
dispositional disengagement was linked to increased symptoms associated with thought
disorder. Similarly, the results of the study also suggested that use of dispositional
venting of emotions as a way to cope with stress was associated with symptoms of
anxiety, somatoform, depressive, and thought disorders, as well as alcohol dependence.
Finally, the dispositional coping strategy of using alcohol and drugs to cope with stress
was linked to increased thought and delusional disorder symptomatology. Interestingly,
bipolar/manic symptoms were not predicted by coping in the any of the analyses
conducted in this study, and the authors indicated the lack of findings with bipolar/manic
symptoms is likely due to the instability of the disorder (Vollrath, Alnaes, & Torgerson,
1996). Finally, Vollrath, Alnaes, and Torgersen (1996) argued that the results of their
study demonstrate that the dispositional coping styles of focusing on and venting of
emotions and drug and/or alcohol use are two of the most significant predictors of mental
health deterioration.
With regard to personality disorders, a study by Segal and colleagues (2001)
investigated associations between personality disorders and dispositional coping styles in
both younger and older adults. The authors administered the COPE and the Coolidge
33
Axis II Inventory (CATI; Coolidge, 1993) to assess coping behaviors and personality
disorder symptoms. The results indicated that younger adults reported higher levels of
Cluster A and Cluster B Personality Disorders symptoms and demonstrated a tendency to
use the dispositional coping responses of humor, avoidance, and alcohol/drug use (Segal,
Hook, & Coolidge, 2001). However, the results suggested older adults reported higher
levels of Cluster A and Cluster C Personality Disorder symptomatology and were more
likely to employ the dispositional coping responses of religion and restraint (Segal, Hook,
& Coolidge, 2001). Therefore, the authors interpreted the results of their study as
evidence to suggest that younger adults with higher levels of personality disorder
symptoms have more difficulty coping with stressful encounters; whereas, older adults
have less difficulty coping with stressful encounters and tend to experience fewer
psychological problems (Segal, Hook, & Coolidge, 2001).
Whereas previous empirical research has examined relations between coping
responses and psychopathology, particularly PTSD, many of the affective and thought
disorders, such as anxiety and psychotic disorders, are underrepresented in this line of
research. Therefore, prospective studies should include alternate Axis I and Axis II
conditions to expand upon the understanding of associations between coping and
psychological dysfunction.
34
The Current Investigation
The Reactions to Stress Inventory
The coping self-report instruments reviewed earlier have significant psychometric
shortcomings, which prompted the development of the Reactions to Stress Inventory-
Dispositional (RSI-D; Ben-Porath, unpublished). The measure was designed to address
specific psychometric concerns about the narrow conceptual focus used in developing the
existing coping instruments, the limited reliabilities of the measures, and the fact that
assessment of protocol validity was completely ignored by these instruments.
The existing coping instruments tended to focus on the broad band or higher-order
coping constructs, but they did not adequately assess or distinguish between cognitive
efforts and actual behaviors associated with coping responses. Therefore, these
instruments do not allow for specific behavioral predictions. Furthermore, concerns
regarding the reliability of the existing coping measures were present because the
individual scales contained within a given instrument tended to be quite short, and shorter
scales can be less reliable than longer ones. Finally, none of the current coping self-report
measures included scales that assessed for possible invalid responding, and the
instruments were scored and interpreted regardless of the response style used by the test
taker in completing the measure.
The RSI-D was developed through an iterative process focused on assessing very
specific coping responses while improving the psychometric characteristics of the
instrument. The first stage of development involved collecting written narratives from
35
college students regarding how they coped with a stressful situation in the past. Content
analyses of these narratives resulted in a list of 196 possible coping responses and these
items were combined to create a self-report instrument rated on a Likert scale. This
preliminary RSI-D was then administered to several groups of college students and the
results were factor analyzed to examine the underlying structure of the RSI-D (Windover,
2001). The RSI-D was then revised, as items were rewritten, omitted, and added to the
instrument to more adequately assess the dimensions demonstrated in the factor analyses.
The iterative development process led to the final version of the RSI-D, which contains
136 items rated on a five-point Likert scale.
One unique feature of the RSI-D, compared to other coping instruments, is the
inclusion of a set of validity scales to examine the interpretability of scores in individual
protocols. The Inconsistent Responding Scale assesses whether the test taker engaged in
non-content based random responding. The Inconsistent Affirmation Scale measures the
test-taker’s frequency of reporting coping responses inconsistently; while; the
Inconsistent Negation Scale examines the frequency with which the test-taker
inconsistently denied engaging in certain coping responses.
Additionally, building on the framework of the RSI-D, the Reactions to Stress
Inventory- Situational (RSI-S; Windover, 2001), was developed to assess situational
coping responses. The RSI-D items were reworded to the past tense to allow the test-
taker to reference a specific situation and a sixth response option was added to the Likert
scale to account for the possibility that certain coping responses may not be applicable in
a given situation (Windover, 2001).The RSI-S shares the strengths of the RSI-D, in that it
36
assesses protocol validity and provides comprehensive coverage of the various coping
constructs. Table 1 provides a list and description of each RSI scale, and both the RSI-D
and RSI-S contain the same scales. The RSI-D and RSI-S were used in a study by
Windover (2001) to examine interactions between dispositional and situational coping
and personality characteristics. The results of the study demonstrated that dispositional
and situational coping responses were linked to personality characteristics and also that
certain types of coping responses tend to be more stable, while others are more
influenced by the characteristics of the particular situation (Windover, 2001).
The MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form)
The measure of personality and psychopathology used in the current investigation
is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF;
Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011; Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011). The MMPI-2
RF is a 338-item revised version of the MMPI (Butcher, et al., 2001), designed to
“represent the clinically significant substance of the MMPI-2 item pool with a
comprehensive set of psychometrically adequate measures” (Tellegen & Ben-Porath,
2008/2011, p.1). The test consists of a total of 51 scales including: nine Validity Scales,
three Higher-Order scales, nine Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, twenty-three Specific
Problems (SP) Scales, two Interest Scales, and five revised versions of the
Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales. Table 2 provides the name, abbreviation, and a
brief description of each MMPI-2-RF scale.
A significant change to the MMPI-2, and a first step toward the MMPI-2-RF, was
the construction of the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales (Tellegen, Ben-Porath,
37
Table 1. The RSI Scales
Validity Scales
Inconsistent Responding Assesses for non-content based random responding
Inconsistent Affirmation Assesses for the test taker's tendency to endorse
inconsistent coping responses
Inconsistent Negation Assesses for the test taker's tendency to deny using
consistent coping responses
Coping Scales
Problem Confrontation Coping responses that includes actions taken towards
directly confronting a stressor
Problem Analysis Coping strategy involving generating options that could be
used to respond to the stressor
Self-Examination Coping process where an individual explores his/her role in
the creation of the stressor
Self-Reassurance Coping response characterized by reassuring onself about
their ability to handle a stressor
Seeking Advice Coping strategy involving seeking input from others
regarding how to respond to a stressor
Seeking Emotional Support Coping response characterized by seeking comfort from
others
Emotional Suppression Coping process focused on suppressing one's emotional
reactions to the stressor
Denial Coping strategy that helps the individual deny that a
stressor exists
Fantasizing Coping response that involves imagining that a stressor
will simply disappear
AvoidanceCoping process characterized by circumventing a stressor
Passive Acceptance Coping strategy where an individual accepts a stressor
without attempting to resolve it
Minimization Coping response aimed at minimizing the significane of a
stressor
Over-Reaction Coping strategy involving being overly distressed by a
stressor
Spirituality Coping with a stressor by relying on spiritiual beliefs
38
Table 2. The MMPI-2-RF Scales
Validity Scales
VRIN-r Variable Response Inconsistency- Random responding
TRIN-r True Response Inconsistency- Fixed responding
F-r Infrequent Responses- Responses infrequent in the general population
Fp-r Infrequent Psychopathology Responses- Responses infrequent in psychiatric
populations
Fs Infrequent Somatic Responses- Somatic complaints infrequent in medical
populations
FBS-r Symptom Validity- Somatic and cognitive complaints associated at high
levels of over-reporting
RBS Response Bias Scale- Exaggerated memory complaints
L-r Uncommon Virtues- Rarely claimed moral attributes or activities
K-r Adjustment Validity- Avowals of good psychological adjustment associated
at high levels with under-reporting
Higher-Order (H-O)
Scales
EID Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction- Problems associated with mood and
affect
THD Thought Dysfunction- Problems associated with disordered thinking
BXD Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction- Problems associated with under-
controlled behavior
Restructured Clinical
(RC) Scales
RCd Demoralization- General unhappiness and dissatisfaction
RC1 Somatic Complaints- Diffuse physical health complaints
RC2 Low Positive Emotions- Lack of positive emotional responsiveness
RC3 Cynicism- Non-self-referential beliefs expressing distrust and a generally
low opinion of others
RC4 Antisocial Behavior- Rule breaking and irresponsible behavior
RC6 Ideas of Persecution- Self-referential beliefs that others pose a threat
RC7 Dysfunctional Negative Emotions- Maladaptive anxiety, anger, irritability
RC8 Aberrant Experiences- Unusual perceptions or thoughts
RC9 Hypomanic Activation- Over-activation, aggression, impulsivity, and
grandiosity
39
Table 2. (Continued)
Specific Problems
(SP) Scales
Somatic Scales
MLS Malaise- Overall sense of physical debilitation, poor health
GIC Gastrointestinal Complaints- Nausea, recurring upset stomach, and poor
appetite
HPC Head Pain Complaints- Head and neck pain
NUCNeurologial Complaints- Dizziness, weakness, paralysis, loss of balance, etc.
COG Cognitive Complaints- Memory problems, difficulties concentrating
Internalizing Scales
SUI Suicidal/Death Ideation- Direct reports of suicidal ideation and recent
suicide attempts
HLP Helplessness/Hopelessness- Belief that goals cannot be reached or problems
solved
SFD Self-Doubt- Lack of confidence, feelings of uselessness
NFC Inefficacy- Belief that one is indecisive and inefficacious
STW Stress/Worry- Preoccupations with disappointments, difficulty with time
pressure
AXY Anxiety- Pervasisve anxiety, frights, frequent nightmares
ANP Anger Proneness- Becoming easily angered, impatient with others
BRFBehavior-Restricting Fears- Fears that significantly inhibit normal activities
MSF Multiple Specific Fears- Fears of blood, fire, thunder, etc.
Externalizing ScalesJCP Juvenile Conduct Problems- Difficulties at shool and at home, stealing
SUB Substance Abuse- Current and past misuse of alcohol and drugs
AGG Aggression- Physically aggressive, violent behavior
ACT Activation- Heightened excitation and energy level
Interpersonal Scales
FML Family Problems- Conflictual family relationships
IPP Interpersonal Passivitiy- Being unassertive and submissive
SAV Social Avoidance- Avoiding or not enjoying social events
SHY Shyness- Bashful, prone to feel inhibited and anxious around others
DSF Disaffiliativeness- Disliking people and being around them
40
Table 2. (Continued)
Interest Scales
AES Aesthetic-Literary Interests- Literature, music, the theater
MEC
Mechanical-Physical Interests- Fixing and building things, the outdoors,
sports
Personality Psychopathology
Five (PSY-5) Scales
AGGR-r Agressiveness-Revised- Instrumental, goal-directed aggression
PSYC-r Psychoticism-Revised- Disconnection from reality
DISC-r Disconstraint-Revised- Under-controlled behavior
NEGE-r
Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism-Revised- Anxiety, insecurity,
worry, and fear
INTR-r
Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised- Social disengagement
and anhedonia
McNulty, Arbisi, & Graham, 2003). The RC Scales were derived from factor analyses of
the original Clinical Scales to identify the major distinctive component of each scale. A
large common factor among the clinical scales was placed into a new scale,
Demoralization (RCd). Each of the remaining RC scales represents a major distinctive
component of one of the eight original Clinical Scales. The authors of the RC Scales
indicated that they were not intended to constitute a comprehensive MMPI-2 assessment
of psychopathology and personality characteristics and that some of the facets of these
scales warrant independent assessment. Thus, the MMPI-2-RF was developed to add
substantive scales that assess constructs either not targeted by the RC scales or
warranting more specific assessment (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). The
methodology used to construct the various substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF
paralleled the development of the RC Scales to a large extent (Tellegen & Ben-Porath,
2008/2011).
41
The substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF are organized into a three-tiered
hierarchical structure. The Higher-Order Scales provide a broadband framework with
which to organize information obtained from the test. The three dimensions measured by
these scales, including emotional, thought, and behavioral dysfunction, tap psychological
factors relevant to the assessment of psychopathology and general maladaptive
psychological functioning. Additionally, the RC Scales, can also be linked to symptoms
of psychopathology, as can the more narrowly-focused SP Scales. The revised PSY-5
scales were designed to measure variables associated with more longstanding adaptive
and maladaptive personality characteristics.
Goals of the Study
The goals of the current study are to expand upon previous research by examining
associations between personality and psychological dysfunction and coping with stress.
This study will examine a wider array of psychological constructs than the very specific
disorders that were the focus of previous research. Specifically, this study will explore
associations between stable (i.e., dispositional) and short-term (i.e., situational) coping
responses and personality and psychopathology variables as assessed by the MMPI-2-RF.
This study aims to determine whether examining a broad range of personality and
psychopathology constructs improves the prediction of dispositional and/or situational
coping strategies.
42
Conceptual Questions and Hypotheses of the Study
(1) Which personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF, are associated with the dispositional coping styles assessed
by the RSI?
With regard to personality and coping, previous empirical research has
demonstrated significant links between dispositional coping and personality. More
specifically, the results from the studies of Bouchard, et al., (2004), Connor-Smith and
Flachsbart (2007), Jang, et al., (2007), McWilliams, Cox, and Enns (2003), and
Windover (2001), suggest that associations will be present between the dispositional
scales of the RSI-D and MMPI-2-RF scales that assess both internalizing and
externalizing characteristics, and Table 3 provides a summary of the hypothesized
associations between personality and psychopathology, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF
scales, and the dispositional coping responses of the RSI-D. It is anticipated that
associations will be found between the RSI-D scales and MMPI-2-RF scales in the
Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction (EID) hierarchy, specifically the scales: EID, RC2,
RC7, STW, AXY, ANP, BRF, MSF, NEGE-r, and INTR-r. Additionally, associations
are hypothesized to be present between interpersonal difficulties associated with
internalizing, as measured by the MMPI-2-RF scales FML, IPP, SAV, and SHY, and
dispositional coping. Regarding the externalizing dysfunction, associations also are
hypothesized to be present between the MMPI-2-RF scales of the Behavioral/
Externalizing Dysfunction (BXD) hierarchy, principally the scales of BXD, RC4, RC9,
43
Table 3. Predicted Associations Between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D Scales.
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
H-O Scales
EID − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
THD − − − − − + + + + + + + + +
BXD − − − − − − + + + + − + + −
RC Scales
RCd − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
RC1 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
RC2 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
RC3 − − + − − − + + + + + + + −
RC4 − − + − − − + + + + − + + −
RC6 − − + − − − + + + + + + + −
RC7 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
RC8 − − + − − + + + + + − + + −
RC9 + + + + + + + + + + − + + −
SP Scales
Somatic Scales
MLS − − − − − − + + + + + + + +
GIC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +
HPC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +
NUC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +
COG − − − − − − + + + + + + + +
Internalizing
Scales
SUI − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
HLP − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
SFD − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
NFC − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
STW − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
AXY − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
ANP − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
BRF − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
MSF − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
Note: + = positive association; − = inverse association; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA =
Problem Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice;
SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D = Denial; F =
Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR =
Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.
RSI-D Scales
44
Table 3. (Continued)
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
Externalizing
Scales
JCP − − − − − − + + + + − + + −
SUB − − − − − − + + + + − + + −
AGG − − − − − − + + + + − + + −
ACT + + + + + − − + + + − + + −
Interpersonal
Scales
FML − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
IPP − − + − − − + + + + + + + +
SAV − − + − − − + + + + + + + +
SHY − − + − − − + + + + + + + +
DSF − − − − − − + + + + + + + −
PSY-5 Scales
AGGR-r − − − − − − + + + − − − + −
PSYC-r − − + − − + + + + + + + + −
DISC-r − − − − − − + + + + − + + −
NEGE-r − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
INTR-R − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
Note: + = positive association; − = inverse association; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA =
Problem Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice;
SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D = Denial; F =
Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR =
Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.
RSI-D Scales
45
JCP, SUB, AGG, ACT, AGGR-r, and DISC-r and the dispositional coping scales of the
RSI-D.
Previous research has also demonstrated that links exist between dispositional
coping and symptoms of general psychological distress (McWilliams, Cox, & Enns,
2003; Punamaki, et al., 2008). Therefore, it is hypothesized that associations will be
found between dispositional coping and the MMPI-2-RF scales EID, RCd, RC2, RC7,
SUI, HLP, SFD, NFC, STW, AXY, ANP, BRF, MSF, NEGE-r, and INTR-r, all of which
assess general psychological distress.
Findings from previous studies have also suggested that certain types of
dispositional coping strategies are associated with specific symptoms of psychological
disorders, including Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depressive disorders (e.g.,
Major Depressive Disorder), thought, delusional, and somatoform disorders, drug and/or
alcohol use, and Cluster A, B, and C Personality Disorders (Haisch & Meyers, 2004;
Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996; Vollrath, Alnaes, & Torgersen, 1996; Segal,
Hook, & Coolidge, 2001). Thus, it is hypothesized that the dispositional coping scales of
the RSI-D will be positively linked to PTSD symptomatology, as assessed by the
following MMPI-2-RF scales: EID, RCd, RC7, SUI, HLP, SFD, NCF, STW, AXY,
ANP, BRF, MSF, NEGE-r, and INTR-r. Associations are also anticipated between
symptoms of depression, measured by the EID, RCd, RC2, SUI, HLP, SFD, NFC, and
INTR-r scales of the MMPI-2-RF and the RSI-D scales. In addition, it is hypothesized
that dispositional coping, as measured by the RSI-D, will be associated with the
symptoms of thought and delusional disorders, as assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales
46
THD, RC6, RC8, PSYC-r. Furthermore, associations are anticipated between the RSI-D
scales and alcohol and/or drug use, as assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales: BXD, RC4,
RC9, JCP, SUB, AGG, ACT, AGGR-r, and DISC-r. Also, somatoform symptomatology,
as assessed by the RC1, MLS, GIC, HPC, NUC, and COG MMPI-2-RF scales, is
hypothesized to be linked to the dispositional coping strategies contained within the RSI-
D. Dispositional coping responses, as assessed by the RSI-D, are additionally anticipated
to be associated with Cluster A, B, and C Personality Disorder symptoms, assessed by all
of the substantive MMPI-2-RF with the exception of RCd, RC1, MLS, GIC, HPC, NUC,
COG, HLP, MSF.
Finally, previous research has demonstrated that particular forms of dispositional
coping were associated with more adaptive psychological functioning and less
psychological distress (McWilliams, Cox, & Enns, 2003; Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski,
1996; Vollrath, Alanes, & Torgersen, 1996). Thus, it is hypothesized that select RSI-D
scales will be associated with all of the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales.
(2) Which combination of personality and psychopathology constructs,
assessed by MMPI-2-RF scale sets, best predict dispositional coping
responses on the RSI-D?
Multivariate analyses will be conducted to explore associations between
combinations of personality and psychopathology-related constructs and dispositional
coping. No specific hypotheses are offered for these exploratory analyses.
47
(3) Which personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF, are associated with situational coping responses assessed
by the RSI?
Although fewer studies have examined the associations between situational
coping responses and personality, previous research has suggested that situational coping
has also been linked to both internalizing and externalizing characteristics (e.g., Bouchard
et al., 2004; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Windover, 2001). Table 4 provides a list
of the anticipated associations between personality and psychopathology, as assessed by
the MMPI-2-RF scales, and situational coping, as measured by the RSI-S. It is
hypothesized that situational coping will be associated with the construct of internalizing,
measured by the MMPI-2-RF scales EID, RC2, RC7, STW, AXY, ANP, BRF, MSF,
NEGE-r, and INTR-r. Also, associations are anticipated between interpersonal difficulties
associated with internalizing dysfunction, including the MMPI-2-RF scales FML, IPP,
SAV, and SHY, and situational coping. Regarding externalizing dysfunction, associations
are hypothesized to be present between the scales BXD, RC4, RC9, JCP, SUB, AGG,
ACT, AGGR-r, DISC-r of the MMPI-2-RF and the situational coping scales of the RSI-S.
Additionally, empirical research has examined links between situational coping and
psychopathology, and the results of these studies indicate that situational coping is
associated with general psychological distress and symptoms of PTSD, somatoform, and
depressive disorders (Punamaki, et al., 2008; Fairbank, Hansen, & Fitterling, 1991;
Catanzaro, Horaney, & Creasy, 1995). Subsequently, it is anticipated that situational
coping will be associated with general psychological distress, as assessed by the MMPI-
48
Table 4. Hypothesized Associations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-S Scales
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
H-O Scales
EID − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
THD
BXD − − − − − − + + + + − + + −
RC Scales
RCd − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
RC1 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
RC2 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
RC3 − − + − − − + + + + + + + −
RC4 − − − − − − + + + + − + + −
RC6
RC7 − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
RC8
RC9 + + + + + − − + + + − + + −
SP Scales
Somatic Scales
MLS − − − − − − + + + + + + + +
GIC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +
HPC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +
NUC − − − − − − + + + + + + + +
COG − − − − − − + + + + + + + +
Internalizing
Scales
SUI − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
HLP − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
SFD − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
NFC − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
STW − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
AXY − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
ANP − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
BRF − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
MSF − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
Note: + = positive association; − = inverse association; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA =
Problem Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice;
SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D = Denial; F =
Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR =
Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.
RSI-S Scales
49
Table 4, (Continued)
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
Externalizing
Scales
JCP − − − − − − + + + + − + − −
SUB − − − − − − + + + + − + − −
AGG − − − − − − + + + + − + − −
ACT + + + + + − − + + + − + − −
Interpersonal
Scales
FML − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
IPP − − + − − − + + + + + + + +
SAV − − + − − − + + + + + + + +
SHY − − + − − − + + + + + + + +
DSF − − − − − − + + + + + + + −
PSY-5 Scales
AGGR-r − − − − − − + + + − − − + −
PSYC-r
DISC-r − − − − − − + + + + − + + −
NEGE-r − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
INTR-R − − + − − + + + + + + + + +
Note: + = positive association; − = inverse association; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA =
Problem Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice;
SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D = Denial; F =
Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR =
Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.
RSI-S Scales
50
2-RF scales of EID, RCd, RC2, RC7, SUI, HLP, SFD, NFC STW, AXY, ANP, BRF,
MSF, NEGE-r, and INTR-r. In addition, it is hypothesized that the situational coping
scales of the RSI-S will be linked to PTSD symptomatology, measured by the EID, RCd,
RC7, SUI, HLP, SFD, NFC, STW, AXY, ANP, BRF, MSF, NEGE-r, and INTR-r.
Associations are also anticipated between symptoms of depression, measured by the
MMPI-2-RF scales of EID RCd, RC2, SUI, HLP, SFD, NFC, and INTR-r scales in
particular, and situational coping, as assessed by the RSI-S. Finally, symptoms of
somatoform disorders, as assessed by the RC1, MLS, GIC, HPC, NUC, and COG MMPI-
2-RF scales, are hypothesized to be associated with situational coping.
Several significant differences between questions 1 and 3 should be noted.
Whereas disordered thinking, alcohol/drug use, personality disorder, and more adaptive
functioning are anticipated to be associated with dispositional coping (i.e., conceptual
question 1), these phenomena have not been linked to situational coping, and therefore
they are not included in the hypotheses generated for conceptual question 3.
(4) Which combination of personality and psychopathology constructs,
assessed by MMPI-2-RF scale sets, best predict situational coping
responses on the RSI-S?
As just discussed in question # 2, exploratory multivariate analyses will be
conducted to examine associations between combinations of MMPI-2-RF scales and
situational coping behavior as measured by the RSI-S.
51
(5) Which combination of situational variables, rated by participants and
judges, and personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF scales, best predict situational coping on the RSI-S?
Expanding upon the results of question # 4, exploratory analyses will be
conducted to determine whether incorporating particular characteristics of the stressful
situation, such as confrontability, timing, duration, and type/category of stressful
situation, improves or significantly predicts situational coping responses. Although these
analyses are exploratory, it is generally hypothesized that including situational variables
will significantly predict and/or improve the prediction of situational coping responses on
the RSI-S, however, more specific hypotheses cannot be offered.
(6) Are personality and psychopathology constructs, as assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF, differentially associated with the dispositional coping
assessed by the RSI-D versus the situational coping assessed the RSI-S?
The analyses associated with questions # 1 and # 3 will determine which MMPI-
2-RF personality and psychopathology constructs are associated with dispositional
coping responses, as assessed by the RSI-D, and situational coping responses, as assessed
by the RSI-S. However, those analyses will not determine whether significant differences
exist between the magnitude of the associations demonstrated between the MMPI-2-RF
and the RSI-D and the MMPI-2-RF and the RSI-S. Therefore, exploratory analyses will
be conducted to examine which MMPI-2-RF personality and psychopathology constructs
are more strongly linked to dispositional versus situational coping. Since these analyses
are exploratory in nature, specific hypotheses cannot be offered.
52
METHOD
Participants
Participants were selected from 487 undergraduate students from a large,
Midwestern university who volunteered to take part in a study in return for extra credit in
a psychology course in which they were enrolled. After excluding missing and
incomplete data, 424 individuals were eligible for inclusion in the study.
Individuals were also excluded if they produced invalid MMPI-2-RF protocols,
based on the criteria in the MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual: Cannot Say [CNS] raw score
≥ 18, Variable Response Inconsistency [VRIN-r] and/or True Response Inconsistency
[TRIN-r] T ≥ 80, Infrequent Responses [F-r] T = 120, or Infrequent Psychopathology
Responses [Fp-r] T ≥ 100. Participants that produced invalid RSI-D protocols based on
the criteria outlined by Ben-Porath (unpublished): Inconsistent Affirmation and
Inconsistent Negation > 2, and Inconsistent Responding > 5, were also excluded from this
study. Individuals that produced invalid RSI-S protocols based on the criteria outlined by
Windover (2001): Inconsistent Affirmation > 2, Inconsistent Negation > 3, and
Inconsistent Responding > 6 were also excluded. In summary, all participants were
required to produce valid MMPI-2-RF, RSI-D, and RSI-S protocols in order to be eligible
for inclusion in this study. Application of these criteria resulted in a final sample of 343
individuals. A comparison of the individuals producing valid and invalid test protocols
revealed no significant differences among the participants with regard to age or
53
education. However, chi-square analyses demonstrated that men were more likely to
produce invalid protocols than women. The results also suggested that Caucasian
individuals were more likely to produce invalid protocols than individuals of any other
race.
After removing incomplete and invalid protocols the final sample contained 116
men and 227 women, with ages ranging from 18 to 43 years (M = 19.4; SD = 2.3).
Educational levels within the sample ranged from 12 to 18 years (M = 12.4; SD = 0.8).
The sample was 88% Caucasian, 6% African American, 1% Asian, 1% Hispanic, and 4%
had other or mixed ethnicities, including American Indian or biracial ethnicities (e.g.,
Caucasian and African American) for example.
Measures
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2- Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF)
The MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011; Tellegen & Ben-Porath,
2008/2011) is a self-report inventory containing 338 items that are rated on a
dichotomous, true/false response format. The scales on the MMPI-2-RF are structured in
a hierarchical framework and include: nine Validity Scales, three Higher-Order (H-O)
scales, nine Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, twenty-three Specific Problems (SP)
Scales, two Interest Scales, and five revised Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales.
The Validity Scales include seven revised MMPI-2 measures, namely Variable
Response Inconsistency [VRIN], True Response Inconsistency [TRIN], Infrequency [F],
Infrequency Psychopathology [Fp], Symptom Validity [FBS], Lie [L], and Correction
54
[K], and two new scales, namely the Infrequent Somatic Responses [Fs] Scale and the
Response Bias (RBS) Scale (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). The three Higher-
Order Scales were developed to measure personality and psychopathology at their
broadest levels. The next level of the hierarchy includes the Restructured Clinical (RC)
Scales, which are identical to the RC scales of the MMPI-2 (Ben-Porath & Tellegen,
2008/2011). The RC Scales assess distinctive core components of the Clinical Scales,
while parsing out the repeated measurement of the construct of demoralization. The next
level of the hierarchy includes the 23 Specific Problems (SP) Scales and two Interest
Scales. These scales aim to measure particular somatic, internalizing and externalizing
facets, interpersonal problems, and general interests of individuals. Extensive empirical
data regarding the psychometric characteristics of the MMPI-2-RF are provided in the
Technical Manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011).
The final set of MMPI-2-RF scales is the Personality Psychopathology Five
(PSY-5), which are revised versions of the similarly named MMPI-2 scales. Harkness
and McNulty (2007) used an iterative process consisting of both internal and external
analyses to revise the PSY-5 scales for the MMPI-2-RF. They removed 22 of the 96
items that transferred from the MMPI-2 to the MMPI-2-RF and added 30 new items. This
resulted in five non-overlapping scales consisting of 104 items. According to Harkness
and McNulty (2007), the revised PSY-5 scales demonstrated lower intercorrelations and
analogous external validity, compared to the original scales. However, they still assess
the same dimensional models of personality pathology (Ben-Porath & Tellegen,
2008/2011).
55
Finally, MMPI-2-RF scales will be scored from individual responses to the
MMPI-2 items. Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008/2011) demonstrated that individuals
completing the two versions of the test produce interchangeable scores on the MMPI-2-
RF scales.
The Reactions to Stress Inventory- Dispositional (RSI-D)
The RSI-D (Ben-Porath, unpublished) is a 136-item self-report inventory. The
response format is a 5-point Likert-type scale, with potential response options ranging
from (A) “I never respond this way” to (E) I always respond this way” (Windover, 2001).
The items are scored into 3 validity scales and 14 scales that measure different types of
coping strategies. The 3 validity scales, namely Inconsistent Affirmation, Inconsistent
Negation, and Inconsistent Responding, are intended to assess for non-content based
invalid responding and inconsistent responding that would affect the interpretability of
the coping scales.
Additionally, the 14 coping scales are labeled: Problem Confrontation, Problem
Analysis, Self-Examination, Self-Reassurance, Seeking Advice, Seeking Emotional
Support, Emotional Suppression, Denial, Fantasizing, Avoidance, Passive Acceptance,
Minimization, Over-Reaction, and Spirituality. These coping scales aim to provide a
comprehensive assessment of various coping responses, including strategies aimed at
reducing the negative emotions associated with a given stressor and strategies directed at
managing the stressor itself.
Regarding reliability, the RSI-D dispositional coping scales demonstrated internal
consistency estimates ranging from .68 to .95, indicating the items contained within each
56
scale are assessing a similar construct and, overall, the scales possess adequate internal
consistency.
To examine test-retest reliability, the RSI-D was administered to 105 college
students twice on the same occasion, and correlation coefficients for that sample ranged
from.70 to .92 (Handel & Ben-Porath, 1998). The measure was also administered to a
sample of 103 college students, approximately one day apart, and test-retest estimates
ranged from .54 to .92 (Handel & Ben-Porath, 1998). Two community samples were also
administered the RSI-D to establish the instrument’s reliability. Test-retest reliabilities
for 258 community members, who took the test twice on the same occasion, ranged from
.73 to .94, and correlation coefficients ranged from .68 to .91 for a sample of 124
community members who took the test twice, one week apart (Handel & Ben-Porath,
1998). Windover (2001) further examined the test-retest reliability of the RSI-D, and the
instrument was completed by a group of college undergraduates on two occasions, one
week apart. The results demonstrated that reliability coefficients ranged from .68 to .86 in
that sample. Thus, the RSI-D has consistently demonstrated adequate test-retest
reliability.
The Reactions to Stress Inventory- Situational (RSI-S)
The RSI-S (Windover, 2001) is an adaptation of the RSI-D that was developed to
assess coping responses from a situational perspective. The RSI-S contains 136 items,
rated on a 6-point, rather than 5-point, Likert scale of the RSI-D. The additional RSI-S
response option is “This response was not relevant for my situation,” which gives
participants an opportunity to indicate that a particular coping response was irrelevant to
57
their personal situation. To assess situational coping, the RSI-D items were reworded to
the past tense, to allow participants to more easily relate to a specific stressful situation
they identified (Windover, 2001). The RSI-S is scored using the same format of the RSI-
D, as scores on the 3 validity scales and 14 coping scales are generated based on item
responses.
Regarding reliability, Windover (2001) examined the test-retest reliability of the
RSI-S scales that were administered to the same group of participants on two separate
occasions, approximately one week apart. Windover (2001) demonstrated that the RSI-S
possessed adequate test-retest reliability, with coefficients ranging from .63 to .89. The
results of the study also indicated that the RSI-S possessed comparable reliability
estimates for most scales, compared to the RSI-D; however, the dispositional scales of
Self-Examination and Fantasizing demonstrated somewhat higher reliability estimates
compared to their situational counterparts (Windover, 2001). To date, no additional
reliability or validity studies of the RSI-S have been published.
Situational Characteristics
Ratings were also completed by the participants, as well as three expert judges, in
order to provide information about situational characteristics of the stressful experience
referenced by the participant while completing the RSI-S. Agreement between a
minimum of two of the three judges was required in order for a given rating to be
included in this study. In particular, three ratings were completed by both the participants
and the judges, included ratings of the confrontability, duration, and timing of the
stressful situation, and these ratings were made on a dichotomous scale.
58
The confrontability of the situation examined whether the participant had some
way to directly address the stressor itself. For example, a stressor that was considered
confrontable was a college exam, as an individual can prepare in advance for the exam by
studying; however, a stressor that was not considered confrontable was the death of a
loved one. Participants and judges rated confrontability as “1” if the individual was not
able to directly address the stressor and “2” if the individual was able to take some action
to alleviate the stressor.
Regarding duration, this situational characteristic explored whether the stressor
persisted for more than one day. Ratings of “1” for duration indicated the stressor lasted
less than or equal to one day and ratings of “2” meant that the stressor persisted for more
than one day. An example of a stressor that endured less than one day is taking a college
exam and an example of stressor persisting for more than one day is preparing to take a
college exam.
The situational characteristic of timing pertained to whether coping began while
the stressor was ongoing or the coping began only after the stressor occurred. A rating of
“1” was given if the coping began while the stressor was ongoing and a rating of “2”
indicated that the individual began coping after the stressor already occurred. Being
diagnosed with a serious medical condition or illness, such as cancer or diabetes, is an
example of situation in which the individual began coping with the stressor while it was
ongoing and coping with the death of a loved one is an example of a situation where the
individual began coping after the stressor (i.e., death) occurred.
59
The judges also examined the stressful situations to determine which type or
category of stressor best described the stressor, and they subsequently provided a rating
that indicated the broad category of the stressor the participant referenced while
completing the RSI-S. The specific types or categories of the stressful situation were
classified into one of 12 broad categories, such as breaking rules or laws (N = 3), job
stress (N = 17), money/financial problems (N = 6), health concerns (N = 6), intrapersonal
issues (N = 3), interpersonal problems (N = 48), sex-related problems (N = 4), and
important decisions (N = 7). Another category the judges frequently used to describe the
stressor was significant life changes (N = 90), and this category included stressors such as
moving away from home for the first time or beginning college, for example. The
category of negative life events (N = 14) contained those stressors that may have
negatively impacted one’s life, such as experiencing the death of a loved one or being
involved in a motor vehicle accident. Another category, problems of others (N = 18),
captured those stressors that involved a friend or family member’s personal problem that
impacted the participant in some manner. Finally, the category of other (N = 19) was
included to account for those stressors that did not fit into one of the other 11 categories
just described.
Procedures
The data included in this study are archival and were collected at a Midwestern
university in the late 1990’s. All individuals who participated in this study were required
to be 18 years of age or older, as is consistent with the requirements for administration of
the MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). Individuals participated in this
60
study in exchange for extra credit for one of their undergraduate psychology courses. The
measures administered in this study included the MMPI-2, a demographic questionnaire,
and a set of extra-test measures. Included in this set of extra test measures were the RSI-
D and RSI-S. Lastly, in accordance with ethical considerations and confidentiality, all
identifying personal information was removed from the data.
Statistical Analyses
The research questions outlined in the Introductory chapter were addressed with
the following analyses.
(1) Which personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF, are associated with the dispositional coping styles assessed
by the RSI?
To address the first research question of the study, Pearson Product Moment
correlations were calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales and each of the
coping scales on the RSI-D. Due to the large number of analyses being conducted, a
Bonferroni correction was applied and the level of statistical significance required for
interpretation was set at .001 (i.e., .05/42). Correlations that did not meet the more
stringent statistical significance level were not interpreted. Because some inflation of
correlation coefficients was anticipated owing to shared method variance, rather than
relying solely on statistical significance when interpreting the correlations, only those
correlations that met or exceeded a medium effect size (r = .30; Cohen, 1988) were
interpreted.
61
(2) Which combination of personality and psychopathology constructs,
assessed by MMPI-2-RF scale sets, best predict dispositional coping
responses on the RSI-D?
To address the second research question, a series of linear regression analysis
were conducted. The MMPI-2-RF scales served as the independent variables and
individual scale scores from the RSI-D were the dependent variables in the regression
analyses. A total of 14 sets of regression analyses were conducted to determine which
combination of personality and psychopathology constructs best predicted each type of
dispositional coping, as examined by the RSI-D.
Independent variables were entered into each of the regression analyses using a
forward step-wise procedure. Separate regression analyses were conducted with the
independent variables for each of the regression analyses corresponding with the
hierarchical structure of the MMPI-2-RF. Specifically, the independent variables for the
first regression analysis included the Higher-Order Scales, the independent variables for
the second regression analysis were the Restructured Clinical Scales, the Specific
Problems Scales served as the predictor variables for the third analysis, and the fourth
regression analysis included the Personality Psychopathology Five Scales as the
independent variables. A final regression analysis utilized a set of mixed predictors
spanning across the levels of the MMPI-2-RF measurement hierarchy, and these
predictors were selected for inclusion only if they previously demonstrated a significant
beta weight in one of the four regression analyses. Conducting separate regression
analyses based on the hierarchical structure of the MMPI-2-RF determined whether
62
certain RSI-D scales were better predicted by lower- or higher-level MMPI-2-RF
constructs. Additionally, the final regression analysis also determined the extent to which
the MMPI-2-RF constructs can optimally predict RSI-D variance.
(3) Which personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF, are associated with situational coping responses assessed by
the RSI?
To address the third research question of the study, Pearson Product Moment
correlations were calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales and each of the
coping scales on the RSI-S. Due to the large number of analyses being conducted, a
Bonferroni correction was applied, and the level of statistical significance required for
interpretation was set at .001 (i.e., .05/42). To account for shared method variance, only
those correlations that met or exceeded a medium effect size (r = .30; Cohen, 1988) were
interpreted.
(4) Which combination of personality and psychopathology constructs,
assessed by MMPI-2-RF scale sets, best predict situational coping
responses on the RSI-S?
To address the fourth research question, a series of linear regression analyses
were conducted. The MMPI-2-RF scales served as the independent variables and
individual scale scores from the RSI-S were the dependent variables in the regression
analyses. A total of 14 sets of regression analyses were conducted to determine which
combination of personality and psychopathology constructs best predicted each type of
situational coping, as examined by the RSI-S.
63
Independent variables were entered into each of the regression analyses using a
forward step-wise procedure. Separate regression analyses were conducted with the
independent variables for each of the regression analyses corresponding with the
hierarchical structure of the MMPI-2-RF. Specifically, the independent variables for the
first regression analysis included the Higher-Order Scales, the independent variables for
the second regression analysis were the Restructured Clinical Scales, the Specific
Problems Scales served as the predictor variables for the third analysis, and the fourth
regression analysis included the Personality Psychopathology Five Scales as the
independent variables. A final regression analysis utilized a set of mixed predictors
spanning across the levels of the MMPI-2-RF measurement hierarchy, and these
predictors were selected for inclusion only if they previously demonstrated a significant
beta weight in one of the four regression analyses. Conducting separate regression
analyses based on the hierarchical structure of the MMPI-2-RF determined whether
certain RSI-S scales were better predicted by lower- or higher-level MMPI-2-RF
constructs. Additionally, the final regression analysis also determined the extent to which
the MMPI-2-RF constructs optimally predicted RSI-S variance.
(5) Which combination of situational variables, rated by participants and
judges, and personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF scales, best predict situational coping on the RSI-S?
Analyses were also conducted to explore whether situational characteristics
significantly predicted or added incrementally to the prediction of situational coping
responses on the RSI-S. To address this inquiry, a series of hierarchical regression
64
analyses was conducted. The MMPI-2-RF scales and situational variables served as the
independent variables and the scores on the various RSI-S scales served as the dependent
variables. A total of 14 sets of regression analyses were conducted to determine whether
the situational variables, namely the confrontability, duration, and timing of the stressor,
as well as the type or category of the stressful situation, significantly predicted or added
incrementally to the prediction of situational coping responses, beyond the variance
accounted for by the MMPI-2-RF scales.
Two sets of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted for each RSI-S scale
because the situational variables were rated by participants and trained judges.
Independent variables were entered into each of the regression analyses using a forward
step-wise procedure. In the first set of analyses, select MMPI-2-RF scales were entered
into the first block, and these predictors were selected for inclusion only if they
previously demonstrated a significant beta weight in the linear regression analyses
conducted to address research question # 4 (i.e., scales from various levels of the MMPI-
2-RF measurement hierarchy that previously demonstrated they significantly predicted
situational coping). The situational variables, as rated by participants, were then entered
into the second block. A second hierarchical regression analysis was conducted and the
participant ratings of the situational characteristics served as the independent variables in
the first block and select MMPI-2-RF scales that previously demonstrated a significant
beta weight were included in the second block. Thus, the independent variables were
essentially entered in reverse order, as compared to the first regression analysis.
65
The second set of hierarchical regression analyses incorporated situational
variables that were rated by judges. The judges also provided ratings about the type or
category of the stressor, and this variable was included in the analyses, along with the
other situational variables. Agreement between two of the three judges regarding rating
of the situational variable was required in order for that predictor to be included in the
analyses. Similar to the first set of hierarchical regression analyses, select MMPI-2-RF
scales were entered into the first block, and these predictors were selected for inclusion
only if they previously demonstrated a significant beta weight in the linear regression
analyses conducted to address research question # 4 (i.e., scales from various levels of the
MMPI-2-RF measurement hierarchy that previously demonstrated they significantly
predicted situational coping). The situational variables, as rated by judges, were then
entered into the second block. A second hierarchical regression analysis was conducted
and the situational characteristics rated by judges served as the independent variables in
the first block and select MMPI-2-RF scales that previously demonstrated a significant
beta weight were included in the second block. Thus, the independent variables were
essentially entered in reverse order, as compared to the first regression analysis.
(6) Are personality and psychopathology constructs, as assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF, differentially associated with the dispositional coping
assessed by the RSI-D versus the situational coping assessed the RSI-S?
The correlational findings resulting from analyses conducted to address research
questions # 1 and # 3 were also used to evaluate whether personality and
psychopathology constructs are better able to predict dispositional or situational coping.
66
A Fisher’s r-to-z transformation was applied to all of the calculated correlations. The r-
to-z transformation converted the correlations onto the same metric, which allowed for
the correlations between the MMPI-2-RF scales and parallel scales from the two coping
instruments to be directly compared using a z-test (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2008). After the
transformation was applied, for every MMPI-2-RF substantive scale, a z-test comparing
the Fisher z statistics for dispositional coping and the Fisher z statistics for situational
coping was conducted. These comparisons determined which of the personality and
psychopathology constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF were preferentially associated
with dispositional versus situational coping responses. Due to the number of tests that
were conducted, a Bonferroni correction was applied, and the level of statistical
significance required for interpretation was set at .001 (i.e., .05/42).
67
RESULTS
(1) Which personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-
RF, are associated with the dispositional coping styles assessed by the RSI?
Zero order correlations were calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF
scales and each of the 14 coping scales on the RSI-D. Table 5 provides the results for the
correlational analyses. The correlations were required to meet two criteria for
interpretation in order to account for the large number of analyses being conducted. In
particular, the correlation was required to be statistically significant at p ≤ .001 (i.e.,
.05/42), as a Bonferroni correction was applied, and the correlation also had to reach or
exceed a magnitude of .3 or a medium effect size (r = .30; Cohen, 1988).
With regard to the RSI-D Problem Confrontation scale, inverse associations were
hypothesized between the MMPI-2-RF Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction hierarchy of
scales and the Problem Confrontation scale of the RSI-D. The results demonstrated
significant inverse associations between the EID Higher-Order (H-O) scale, and one
Restructured Clinical (RC) scale, namely RCd, and the RSI-D Problem Confrontation
scale. Several Internalizing Specific Problems (SP) scales, including SFD, NFC, and
AXY, as well as one Interpersonal SP scale, FML, were also negatively associated with
dispositional problem confrontation as hypothesized. Several statistically significant
associations were present between several other scales contained within the EID
hierarchy, including RC2, RC7, STW, ANP, and NEGE-r and Problem Confrontation;
68
Table 5. Correlations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D Scales
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
H-O Scales
EID -.30**
-.06 .30**
-.36**
-.01 -.03 .03 .28**
.37**
.22**
.08 -.02 .43**
-.04
THD -.15 -.10 .11 -.07 -.08 -.15 .02 .34**
.30**
.29**
.14 .09 .15*
-.01
BXD -.04 -.08 -.05 .01 -.12 -.19** .04 .06 -.02 .13 .02 .08 .00 -.28**
RC Scales
RCd -.30**
-.12 .23**
-.35**
-.03 -.08 .08 .27**
.34**
.23**
.13 -.01 .37**
-.08
RC1 -.21**
-.01 .26**
-.10 -.02 -.08 .04 .26**
.28**
.27**
.16*
.13 .21**
.09
RC2 -.23**
.02 .27**
-.32**
-.10 -.09 .07 .17*
.22**
.11 .03 -.02 .31**
-.07
RC3 -.23**
-.06 .05 -.10 -.01 -.12 .08 .34**
.28**
.31**
.21**
.05 .25**
-.02
RC4 -.14 -.08 .00 -.07 -.07 -.11 -.03 .12 .12 .21**
.04 .03 .08 -.21**
RC6 -.19*
-.09 .09 -.16*
-.02 -.11 .09 .32**
.30**
.27**
.15 .07 .16*
.05
RC7 -.26**
-.07 .21**
-.23**
.04 -.02 .01 .39**
.40**
.30**
.13 .02 .40**
.03
RC8 -.13 -.07 .18*
.00 -.07 -.15*
.02 .32**
.27**
.29**
.18*
.09 .19*
-.04
RC9 .02 -.08 -.09 .08 .03 -.05 -.01 .20**
.09 .15*
.07 .08 .06 -.09
SP Scales
Somatic Scales
MLS -.27**
-.06 .18*
-.27**
-.11 -.13 .09 .26**
.27**
.24**
.11 .06 .24**
-.13
GIC -.21**
-.06 .18*
-.18*
.03 .00 .01 .25**
.33**
.26**
.09 .04 .20**
-.01
HPC -.15 .00 .16*
-.11 -.02 -.06 .00 .12 .20**
.18*
.13 .09 .19*
.14
NUC -.19**
-.03 .20**
-.05 -.07 -.12 .02 .25**
.22**
.22**
.11 .11 0.15* .06
COG -.27**
-0.15* .13 -.17*
.00 -.09 .06 .34**
.31**
.24**
.16*
.02 .25**
-.04
Note: N = 169; * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .001; bold = medium or larger effect size; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis; SE
= Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D =
Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.
RSI-D Scales
69
Table 5 (Continued)
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
SUI -.19*
-.03 .16*
-.26**
-.07 -.03 .04 .03 .19*
.02 .01 -.09 .20**
-.07
HLP -.15*
-.03 .12 -.19**
.00 -.04 .04 .23**
.23**
.06 .16*
.04 .28**
.01
SFD -.30**
-.19**
.21**
-.32**
-.04 -.04 .08 .20**
.32**
.15 .11 -.02 .35**
-.08
NFC -.30**
-.03 .23**
-.24**
.09 .03 -.05 .42**
.42**
.30**
.21**
.06 .41**
.08
STW -.20**
.01 .20**
-.22**
.04 .00 -.02 .21**
.27**
.21**
.00 -.05 .43**
-.08
AXY -.31**
-.05 .26**
-.23**
-.09 -.07 .00 .32**
.37**
.30**
.11 .05 .32**
-.02
ANP -.24**
-.21**
-.02 -.19**
-.09 -.04 -.05 .30**
.23**
.24**
.03 .03 .28**
-.03
BRF -.14 .03 .20**
.05 .09 -.01 -.03 .25**
.33**
.15*
.15*
.04 .17*
.12
MSF -.15*
.02 .14 -.09 .03 .01 .02 .25**
.36**
.18*
.00 .07 .10 .19**
JCP -.04 -.05 -.02 .01 -.01 -.11 -.02 .06 .03 .12 .04 .04 -.02 -.14
SUB -.07 -.03 .03 -.01 -.08 -.13 .07 0.15* .09 .15*
.12 .12 .05 -.32**
AGG -.12 -.09 -.02 -.14 -.14 -.18*
.08 .19**
.16*
.16*
-.07 -.01 .13 -.12
ACT .00 .00 .07 .16*
.19**
.17*
-.19**
.27**
.16*
.06 .08 -.01 .15*
.11
FML -.30**
-.06 .15*
-.20**
-.03 -.03 -.07 .23**
.37**
.28**
.01 -.05 .31**
.04
IPP -.20**
-.03 .17*
-.15*
-.02 -.01 .04 .08 .17*
.04 .14 -.02 .21**
.00
SAV .06 .27**
.27**
-.08 -.01 -.10 .16*
-.07 .03 -.08 -.01 -.02 .18*
.01
SHY -.18*
-.02 .13 -.28**
.05 .09 -.01 .23**
.28**
.15*
.12 -.02 .33**
.00
DSF -.11 -.03 -.03 -.14 -.21**
-.32**
.39**
.02 .07 -.02 .02 .07 .00 -.06
Note: N= 169; * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .001; bold = medium or larger effect size; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis;
SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression;
D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR =
Spirituality.
RSI-D Scales
Externalizing Scales
Internalizing Scales
Interpersonal Scales
70
Table 5 (Continued)
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
PSY-5 Scales
AGGR-r .10 -.06 -.19*
.09 -.06 -.11 .04 .04 -.08 .04 -.08 .04 -.16*
-.06
PSYC-r -.11 -.06 .13 -.03 -.02 -.12 .02 .33**
.31**
.28**
.17*
.12 .17*
.00
DISC-r .04 -.03 -.07 .09 -.07 -.16*
.02 -.05 -.15* .04 .02 .09 -.06 -.31**
NEGE-r -.22**
-.06 .23**
-.22**
.08 .03 -.03 .36**
.36**
.28**
.08 -.02 .46**
.03
INTR-R -.07 .17*
.27**
-.24**
-.12 -.18*
.18*
-.06 .06 -.02 -.02 -.06 .18*
-.06
Note: N= 169; * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .001; bold = medium or larger effect size; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis;
SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression;
D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR =
Spirituality.
RSI-D Scales
71
however, these correlations approached, but did not reach a medium effect size. Several
MMPI-2-RF scales assessing somatic problems, such as RC1, MLS, GIC, and COG were
also statistically significantly inversely related to Problem Confrontation, but these
correlations did not meet the effect size requirement for interpretation. Two of the
interpersonal functioning scales of the MMPI-2-RF, RC3 and IPP, were also statistically
significant negatively associated with the RSI-D Problem Confrontation scale, as
anticipated; however, these associations did not reach a medium effect size as required
for interpretation. Finally, negative associations were anticipated between MMPI-2-RF
scales assessing thought dysfunction and behavioral/externalizing dysfunction and
Problem Confrontation; however, the results did not support these hypotheses.
With regard to the Problem Analysis scale, statistically significant inverse
correlations were present between the SFD, ANP, and SAV SP scales of the MMPI-2-RF
and the Problem Analysis scale, but the correlations did not reach a medium effect size as
required for interpretation. Additionally, although it was hypothesized that negative
associations would be present between the remaining substantive MMPI-2-RF scales and
the Problem Analysis RSI-D scale, none of the other calculated correlations met either of
the requirements for interpretation.
In examining the results for the Self-Examination scale, a positive association was
demonstrated between the EID MMPI-2-RF scale and the Self-Examination scale of the
RSI-D. Although none of the other calculated correlations met both requirements for
interpretation as anticipated, several of the correlations were statistically significant and
approached a medium effect size. More specifically, scales contained in the EID
72
hierarchy, including RCd, RC2, RC7, SFD, NFC, STW, AXY, BRF, NEGE-r, and INTR-
r, demonstrated statistically significant associations with the Self-Examination scale, but
the associations did not reach a medium effect size as required for interpretation.
Additionally, the Somatic Scales, RC1 and NUC, and an Interpersonal SP scale, SAV,
were also statistically significantly associated with Self-Examination; however, the
associations did not reach a medium effect size. Conversely, none of the MMPI-2-RF
scales contained within the Thought Dysfunction or Behavioral/Externalizing
Dysfunction hierarchies were significantly associated with the Self-Examination scale of
the RSI-D. Thus, those hypotheses were not supported by the results.
Several hypothesized inverse associations were present between the MMPI-2-RF
scales of EID, RCd, RC2, and SFD and the RSI-D Self-Reassurance scale. There were
also several other statistically significant associations that approached, but did not reach,
medium effect sizes. Specifically, dispositional self-reassurance was significantly
associated with RC7, SUI, NFC, STW, AXY, NEGE-r, and INTR-r as anticipated;
however, the magnitudes of these correlations ranged from .20 to .27. Similarly, one
somatic scale, MLS, and two interpersonal scales, FML and SHY were also statistically
significantly inversely associated with dispositional self-reassurance, but not to the level
required for interpretation. In contrast, inverse associations between the Thought
Dysfunction and Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchies of the MMPI-2-RF
and Self-Reassurance were not present as hypothesized.
Although inverse associations were hypothesized between the Seeking Advice
RSI-D scale and each of the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales, only two correlations met
73
the statistical significance requirement for interpretation. In particular, the correlations
between the ACT and DSF SP scales and the Seeking Advice scale were statistically
significant, but these correlations did not reach a medium effect size. None of the other
correlations calculated between the remaining substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF and
Seeking Advice met either of the requirements for interpretation.
The results for the correlations calculated between the Seeking Emotional Support
scale of the RSI-D and all of the substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF indicated that only
two correlations achieved statistical significance. Specifically, the correlations between
the H-O BXD scale and the Interpersonal Functioning SP DSF scale and the RSI-D
Seeking Emotional Support scale were both statistically significant; however, only the
correlation between DSF and Seeking Emotional Support exceeded a medium effect size.
In contrast, the anticipated associations between the remaining substantive MMPI-2-RF
scales and the Seeking Emotional Support RSI-D scale were not supported.
Associations were hypothesized to be present between the Emotional Suppression
RSI-D scale and each of the substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF. A single correlation
between the DSF Interpersonal SP scale and the RSI-D Emotional Suppression scale was
both statistically significant and exceeded a medium effect size. A statistically significant
inverse correlation was demonstrated between the Externalizing SP scale of ACT and the
Emotional Suppression scale as anticipated; however, the correlation did not reach a
medium effect size. None of the other calculated correlations met the requirements for
interpretation; therefore, the remaining hypothesized associations were not supported.
74
Many of the correlations demonstrated to be present between the Denial scale of
the RSI-D and MMPI-2-RF scales assessing emotional/internalizing difficulties, thought
dysfunction, and somatic difficulties were both statistically significant and exceeded a
medium effect size. In particular, scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing
Dysfunction hierarchy, namely RC7, NFC, AXY, ANP, and NEGE-r, the scales of the
Thought Dysfunction hierarchy, including THD, RC6, RC8, and PSYC-r, one Somatic
Scale, COG, and one interpersonal SP scale, RC3, were significantly associated with
Denial and the magnitude of the associations exceeded .3.
In addition, correlations between the MMPI-2-RF scales of EID, RCd, HLP, SFD,
STW, BRF, MSF, and the Denial scale were statistically significant and the magnitude of
the associations approached, but did not reach, a medium effect size. MMPI-2-RF scales
assessing interpersonal functioning, including FML, and SHY, and somatic problems,
including RC1, MLS, GIC, and NUC, were also statistically significantly associated with
the RSI-D scale of Denial; however, the magnitude of these correlations fell below a
medium effect size. Furthermore, several MMPI-2-RF scales assessing
behavioral/externalizing dysfunction, such as RC9 and ACT were also statistically
significantly linked to the Denial scale, but these associations did not achieve the
magnitude required for interpretation. Therefore, a majority of the hypotheses predicted
between the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales and the Denial RSI-D scale were upheld by
the correlational results.
Similar to the Denial scale, a large number of anticipated associations that met
both of the requirements for interpretation were demonstrated between the Fantasizing
75
scale of the RSI-D and scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing, Thought
Dysfunction, and Somatic MMPI-2-RF hierarchies. In particular, the results showed
statistically significant associations were present between the fantasizing scale and the
EID, RCd, RC7, SFD, NFC, AXY, BRF, MSF, and NEGE-r, THD, RC6, and PSYC-r,
and GIC and COG scales, and these correlations exceeded .3. Likewise, a statistically
significant association was demonstrated between the Interpersonal Functioning SP scale
of FML and the Fantasizing scale, and the magnitude of this association was larger than
.3.
Several other statistically significant correlations were present between the
Fantasizing scale and other MMPI-2-RF scales assessing emotional and thought
dysfunction, somatic complaints, and interpersonal functioning; however, these
correlations did not reach the required magnitude for interpretation. Several other scales
of the MMPI-2-RF EID hierarchy, including RC2, HLP, STW, and ANP were
significantly associated with the Fantasizing scale; however, these associations
approached, but did not reach, .3. Also, the RC8 scale, which is part of the THD
hierarchy, was significantly linked to the Fantasizing scale, but the magnitude of the
association fell just below .3. Regarding somatic problems, the MMPI-2-RF scales of
RC1, MLS, HPC, and NUC scales demonstrated statistically significant associations with
the Fantasizing scale, but these associations did not reach .3 as initially anticipated.
Lastly, the results showed the Fantasizing scale and Interpersonal Functioning SP scales
of RC3 and SHY were statistically significantly associated; yet, the magnitude of the
associations was below .3.
76
In examining the results for the Avoidance RSI-D scale, hypothesized
associations were demonstrated to be present between this scale and several MMPI-2-RF
scales assessing emotional/internalizing dysfunction and interpersonal functioning,
including RC7, NFC, AXY, as well as RC3. As hypothesized, the results indicated that
several other statistically significant associations were present between the Avoidance
scale and MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the EID hierarchy, such as EID, RCd,
STW, ANP, and NEGE-r; however, the magnitude of the correlations only approached .3.
Moreover, several MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the THD hierarchy, namely THD,
RC6, RC8, and PSYC-r demonstrated statistically significant associations with the
Avoidance scale as anticipated, but these correlations did not reach the magnitude
required for interpretation. Several MMPI-2-RF assessing somatic difficulties, including
RC1, MLS, GIC, NUC, and COG were also statistically significantly associated with the
Avoidance scale as hypothesized, but the magnitude of these correlations fell below .3.
Finally, the Avoidance scale was also statistically significantly associated with one
MMPI-2-RF scale assessing externalizing behavior, namely RC4, and one scale assessing
familial problems, specifically FML. However, the magnitudes of the correlations did not
reach .3.
The pattern of results demonstrated between the Passive Acceptance scale of the
RSI-D and the MMPI-2-RF scales was weak overall. None of the calculated correlations
met both of the requirements for interpretation; however, two of the associations were
statistically significant. More specifically, significant associations were present between
the Passive Acceptance scale and RC3, as well as an emotional/internalizing dysfunction
77
scale, NFC; yet, the magnitude of these associations approached.3. None of the other
calculated correlations reach the required level of statistical significance. Thus, a majority
of the anticipated associations between various MMPI-2-RF scales and the Passive
Acceptance scale were not supported by the results of this study.
None of the correlations calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales
and the Minimization scale of the RSI-D were statistically significant; therefore, the
hypothesized associations between these scales were not upheld.
The Over-Reaction scale of the RSI-D was significantly associated with many of
the MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction
hierarchy, as anticipated. In particular, the MMPI-2-RF scales of EID, RCd, RC2, RC7,
SFD, NFC, STW, AXY, and NEGE-r were statistically significantly associated with the
Over-Reaction scale and the magnitudes of these associations exceeded .3. Furthermore,
consistent with the hypotheses, two Interpersonal Functioning SP scales, FML and SHY,
were also statistically significantly associated with the Over-Reaction scale and the
magnitude of the associations rose above the level required for interpretation.
Also, consistent with the hypotheses, the Over-Reaction scale was also
statistically significantly associated with several other MMPI-2-RF scales assessing
emotional dysfunction, including SUI, HLP, and ANP, but the magnitude of these
associations did not reach a medium effect size. Two other MMPI-2-RF scales assessing
interpersonal problems, RC3 and IPP, were also statistically significantly associated with
the Over-Reaction scale; however, the magnitude of the associations fell below the level
required for interpretation. In addition, associations were present between several somatic
78
scales of the MMPI-2-RF, including RC1, MLS, GIC, and COG, but the correlations only
approached a medium effect size. Finally, none of the hypothesized associations between
the Over-Reaction scale and those MMPI-2-RF scales assessing behavioral/externalizing
dysfunction were supported by the results of this study.
Lastly, only two hypotheses regarding associations between the MMPI-2-RF
scales and the RSI-D scale of Spirituality were fully supported. The SUB SP scale and
the DISC PSY-5 scale, both of which are contained within the Behavioral/Externalizing
Dysfunction scale hierarchy, were statistically significantly negatively associated with the
Spirituality scale, and the magnitude of the correlations exceeded a medium effect size.
Several other hypotheses were partially supported, as statistically significant inverse
associations were demonstrated between other MMPI-2-RF scales assessing externalizing
problems, including BXD and RC4, and the Spirituality scale of the RSI-D. However, the
correlations only approached a medium effect size; therefore, these correlations were not
interpreted.
(2) Which combination of personality and psychopathology constructs,
assessed by MMPI-2-RF scale sets, best predict dispositional coping
responses on the RSI-D?
A series of linear regression analyses were conducted to examine which
personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, best
predicted the various types of dispositional coping responses on the RSI-D. For each RSI-
D scale, a set of five regression analyses were conducted to correspond with the
hierarchical structure of the MMPI-2-RF, and variables were entered into each of the
79
regression analyses using a forward step-wise procedure. In particular, the first regression
analysis included the Higher-Order (H-O) Scales, the second regression analysis
examined the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, the Specific Problems (SP) Scales
served as the independent variables for the third analysis, and the fourth regression
analysis incorporated the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales as the
independent variables. A final (i.e., fifth) regression analysis utilized a set of mixed
independent variables from various levels of the MMPI-2-RF measurement hierarchy,
and select MMPI-2-RF scales were only included in the analysis if they demonstrated a
significant beta weight in one of the prior regression analyses. Tables 6 through 18
provide the results for the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-D scales.
The results of the regression analyses predicting scores on RSI-D Problem
Confrontation scale are displayed in Table 6. The results indicated that the EID H-O scale
accounted for 9% of the variance in predicting dispositional problem confrontation. The
results also demonstrated the RCd scale accounted for 9% of the variance in predicting
scores on the RSI-D scale. The results of the analyses also conveyed that the SP scales
AXY, FML, SAV, and IPP collectively accounted for 21% of the variance in predicting
the dispositional coping response of problem confrontation. With regard to the PSY-5
scales, the results indicated that NEGE-r accounted for 5% of the variance in predicting
scores on the RSI-D Problem Confrontation scale. The results for the final, “mixed,”
regression analysis were identical to the results for the SP regression model, as the AXY,
FML, SAV, and IPP scales accounted for a total of 21% of the variance in predicting
dispositional problem confrontation.
80
Table 6. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Problem of Confrontation
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales EID .30 .09 .09 16.62 1, 167 .001 -.30*
RC scales RCd .30 .09 .09 16.88 1, 167 .001 -.30*
SP scales AXY, FML,
SAV, IPP .45 .21 .19 10.61 4, 164 .001
-.24*, -.24*,
.23*, -.22*
PSY-5 scales NEGE .22 .05 .04 8.37 1, 167 .004 -.22*
Mixed model AXY, FML,
SAV, IPP .45 .21 .19 10.61 4, 164 .001
-.24*, -.24*,
.23*, -.22*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
With regard to the RSI-D Problem Analysis scale, the results, illustrated in Table
7, conveyed that none of the H-O or RC scales significantly predicted the dispositional
coping response of problem analysis. In contrast, the results for the third analysis
demonstrated that the SAV, SFD, and ANP SP scales collectively accounted for 16% of
the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D Problem Analysis scale. The results also
demonstrated that the INTR scale accounted for 3% of the variance in predicting scores
on the dispositional problem analysis scale. The results of the final regression analysis
indicated that SFD and ANP accounted for 12% of the variance in predicting scores on
the RSI-D Problem Analysis scale.
Exploring the results for the RSI-D Self-Examination scale, which are presented
in Table 8, the first regression analysis demonstrated that EID accounted for 9% of the
variance in predicting the dispositional coping response of self-examination. The second
regression analysis indicated that RC2 accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting
scores on the RSI-D Self-Examination scale. The results also showed that the SP scales
81
Table 7. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Problem Analysis
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales ≡
RC scales ≡
SP scales SAV, SFD, ANP .40 .16 .15 10.75 3, 165 .001 .32*, -.21*, -.17*
PSY-5 scales INTR .17 .03 .02 4.78 1, 167 .03 .17*
Mixed model SFD, ANP .34 .12 .10 10.77 2, 166 .001 -.25*, -.17*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates that a beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates no
variables entered into the regression equation.
Table 8. Results of the Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in
Predicting RSI-D Self-Examination
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales EID .30 .09 .09 16.85 1, 167 .001 .30*
RC scales RC2 .27 .07 .07 13.21 1, 167 .001 .27*
SP scales SAV, AXY, DSF .37 .14 .12 8.73 3, 165 .001 .27*, .23*, -.17*
PSY-5 scales INTR, NEGE .32 .10 .09 9.28 2, 166 .001 .23*, .17*
Mixed model EID, SAV, DSF .37 .14 .12 8.79 3, 165 .001 .25*, .21*, -.17*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates that a beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates no
variables entered into the regression equation.
of SAV, AXY, and DSF collectively accounted for 14% of the variance. The fourth
analysis conveyed that the PSY-5 scales of INTR and NEGE accounted for a total of 10%
of the variance in the prediction of scores on the RSI-D Self-Examination scale. The
results for the final “mixed” regression analysis demonstrated that a combination of H-O
and SP scales best predicted the dispositional coping response of problem analysis. In
particular, the scales of EID, SAV, and DSF accounted for 14% of the variance in
predicting scores on the RSI-D Self-Examination scale.
82
The results for the regression analysis predicting scores on the RSI-D Self-
Reassurance scale are displayed in Table 9. The results for the first regression analysis
conveyed that the EID scale accounted for 13% of the variance in predicting the
dispositional coping response of self-reassurance. The results also illustrated that the RCd
and RC8 scales collectively accounted for 15% of the variance in predicting scores on the
RSI-D Self-Reassurance scale. In examining the results of the third regression analysis,
the scales of SFD, ACT, and SHY accounted for a total of 16% of the variance in
predicting the dispositional coping response of self-reassurance. The results of the fourth
regression analysis demonstrated that the PSY-5 scales INTR and NEGE accounted for
8% of the variance. The results of the “mixed” regression model conveyed that the
combination of one H-O scale, EID, and one SP scale, ACT, best predicted scores on the
RSI-D Self-Reassurance scale by accounting for 17% of the variance.
Table 9. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF scales in predicting
RSI-D Self-Reassurance
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales EID .36 .13 .12 24.89 1, 167 .001 -.36*
RC scales RCd, RC8 .39 .15 .14 14.44 2, 166 .001 -.42*, .17*
SP scales SFD, ACT, SHY .40 .16 .15 10.54 3, 165 .001 -.25*, .20*, -.19*
PSY-5 scales INTR, NEGE .29 .08 .07 7.54 2, 166 .001 -.19*, -.17*
Mixed model EID, ACT .41 .17 .16 16.79 2, 166 .001 -.38*, .20*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates that a beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
In predicting the dispositional coping response of seeking advice, the results,
which are illustrated in Table 10, indicated that none of the H-O, RC, or PSY-5 scales
significantly contributed to the predicting scores on the RSI-D Seeking Advice scale.
83
Conversely, the results demonstrated that the SP scales of DSF and ACT collectively
accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting dispositional seeking advice. Therefore,
the combination of two SP scales, DSF and ACT, best predicted scores on the Seeking
Advice scale of the RSI-D.
Table 10. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Seeking Advice
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales ≡
RC scales ≡
SP scales DSF, ACT .27 .07 .06 6.65 2, 166 .002 -.19*, .17*
PSY-5 scales ≡
Mixed model DSF, ACT .27 .07 .06 6.65 2, 166 .002 -.19*, .17*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates that a beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05, ≡
indicates that no variables entered into the regression equation.
With regard to the RSI-D Seeking Emotional Support scale, the results are
illustrated in Table 11, and the results demonstrated that BXD accounted for 4% of the
variance. The results also indicated that the RC8 scale accounted for 2% of the variance
in predicting dispositional seeking emotional support. Furthermore, the results of the
third regression analysis demonstrated that DSF, SHY, and MLS collectively accounted
for 16% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D Seeking Emotional Support
scale. The results of the fourth regression analysis conveyed INTR and DISC accounted
for 7% of the variance. The results of the final regression analysis, which examined a
mixed set of MMPI-2-RF scales, mirrored the results of the third analysis, which
illustrated that the combination of the SP scales of DSF, SHY, and MLS best predicted
84
the dispositional coping response of seeking emotional support, and accounted for 16%
of the variance.
Table 11. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Seeking Emotional Support
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales BXD .19 .04 .03 6.05 1, 167 .02 -.19*
RC scales RC8 .15 .02 .02 4.00 1, 167 .05 -.15*
SP scales DSF, SHY, MLS .40 .16 .14 10.43 3, 165 .001 -.36*, .24*, -.17*
PSY-5 scales INTR, DISC .27 .07 .06 6.55 2, 166 .002 -.22*, -.20*
Mixed model DSF, SHY, MLS .40 .16 .14 10.43 3, 165 .001 -.36*, .24*, -.17*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
The results for the RSI-D Emotional Suppression scale, which are presented in
Table 12, illustrated that none of the H-O or RC scales significantly predicted the
dispositional coping response of emotional suppression. The results also demonstrated
that the SP scales of DSF and ACT collectively accounted for 18% of the variance in
predicting scores on the Emotional Suppression scale of the RSI-D. The results further
illustrated that the PSY-5 scale of INTR accounted for 3% of the variance in predicting
scores on the RSI-D Emotional Suppression scale. The results of the final regression
analysis were identical to the results for the third regression analysis, which indicated that
the combination the SP scales of DSF and ACT best predicted the dispositional coping
response of emotional suppression.
85
Table 12. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Emotional Suppression
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales ≡
RC scales ≡
SP scales DSF, ACT .42 .18 .17 17.63 2, 166 .001 .38*, -.15*
PSY-5 scales INTR .18 .03 .03 5.87 1, 167 .02 .18*
Mixed model DSF, ACT .42 .18 .17 17.63 2, 166 .001 .38*, -.15*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡
indicates that no variables entered into the regression equation.
In examining the regression analyses for the RSI-D Denial scale, the results are
illustrated in Table 13, and they demonstrated that the THD and EID scales accounted for
a total of 15% of the variance. The results also showed that two RC scales, RC7 and RC3,
accounted for 17% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D Denial scale. The
results of the regression analyses also conveyed that the SP scales of NFC and ACT
collectively accounted for 21% of the variance in predicting dispositional denial. The
results of the fourth regression analysis illustrated that four PSY-5 scales, namely NEGE,
PSYC, DISC, and INTR accounted for a total of 21% of the variance in predicting scores
on the RSI-D Denial scale. Finally, the results of the “mixed” regression analysis
demonstrated that a combination of H-O, RC, SP, and PSY-5 scales, including NFC,
THD, DISC, RC3, and INTR optimally predicted the dispositional coping response of
denial by accounting for 29% of the variance.
86
Table 13. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting RSI-D Denial
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales THD, EID .39 .15 .14 14.48 2, 166 .001 .28*, .19*
RC scales RC7, RC3 .41 .17 .16 17.15 2, 166 .001 .29*, .18*
SP scales NFC ACT .46 .21 .20 21.78 2, 166 .001 .38*, .19*
PSY-5 scales NEGE, PSYC, DISC, INTR .46 .21 .19 10.96 4, 164 .001 .30*, .26*, -.19*, -.16*
Mixed model NFC, THD, DISC, RC3, INTR .53 .29 .26 13.03 5, 163 .001 .29*, .26*, -.21*, .17*, -.14*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
87
The results predicting scores on the RSI-D Fantasizing scale, which are presented
in Table 14, indicated that EID, THD, and BXD collectively accounted for 20% of the
variance. The second regression analysis demonstrated that a single RC scale, RC7,
accounted for 16% of the variance in predicting the situational coping response of
fantasizing. The results of the third regression analysis conveyed that three SP scales,
NFC, MSF, and FML accounted for 29% of variance in predicting scores on the
Fantasizing scale of the RSI-D. The results of the fourth regression analysis conveyed
that the NEGE, DISC, and PSYC PSY-5 scales collectively accounted for 22% of the
variance in predicting the dispositional coping response of fantasizing. Furthermore, the
results of the “mixed” regression analysis indicated that the combination of SP and H-O
scales, including NFC, MSF, FML, THD, and BXD best predicted scores on the RSI-D
scale of Fantasizing, as the scales collectively accounted for 34% of the variance.
With regard to the RSI-D Avoidance scale, the results are displayed in Table 15,
and the results of the first regression analysis indicated that the THD H-O scale
accounted for 8% of the variance in predicting the coping response of dispositional
avoidance. The results of the second regression analysis illustrated that the RC3 and RC1
scales accounted for 13% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D Avoidance
scale. The results also demonstrated that the SP scales of AXY, FML, SAV, SUI, and
NFC collectively accounted for 20% of the variance in predicting the dispositional coping
response of avoidance. The results of the fourth regression analysis showed that the
PSYC and NEGE PSY-5 scales accounted for 11% of the variance in predicting scores on
the Avoidance scale of the RSI-D. The final regression analysis demonstrated that a
88
Table 14. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting RSI-D Fantasizing
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales EID, THD, BXD .45 .20 .18 13.54 3, 165 .001 .29*, .29*, -.18*
RC scales RC7 .40 .16 .15 31.66 1, 167 .001 .40*
SP scales NFC, MSF, FML .54 .29 .28 22.58 3, 165 .001 .25*, .27*, .24*
PSY-5 scales NEGE, DISC, PSYC .47 .22 .20 15.23 3, 165 .001 .25*, -.27*, .29*
Mixed model NFC, MSF, FML, THD, BXD .58 .34 .32 16.66 5, 163 .001 .22*, .23*, .24*, .25*, -.19*
≤
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
Table 15. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting RSI-D Avoidance
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales THD .29 .08 .08 14.77 1, 167 .001 .29*
RC scales RC3, RC1 .36 .13 .12 12.55 2, 166 .001 .25*, .20*
SP scales AXY, FML, SAV, SUI, NFC .45 .20 .17 8.03 5, 163 .001 .26*, .21*, -.17*, -.18*, .18*
PSY-5 scales PSYC, NEGE .33 .11 .10 10.03 2, 166 .001 .20*, .19*
Mixed model RC3, AXY, SUI, FML .42 .18 .16 8.94 4, 164 .001 .18*, .26*, -.20*, .18*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
89
combination of RC and SP scales predicted the dispositional coping response of
avoidance, as RC3, AXY, SUI, and FML collectively accounted for 18% of the variance.
In exploring the dispositional coping response of passive acceptance, the results
are documented in Table 16, and they indicated that none of the H-O scales significantly
predicted scores on the RSI-D Passive Acceptance scale. Conversely, the results of the
second regression analysis demonstrated that RC3 accounted for 4% of the variance in
predicting dispositional passive acceptance. The results also showed that the NFC and
STW scales collectively accounted for 8% of the variance in predicting scores on the
RSI-D Passive Acceptance scale. The results of the fourth regression analysis illustrated
that PSYC accounted for 3% of the variance in predicting the dispositional coping
response of passive acceptance. The results of the final regression analysis indicated that
a combination of SP and RC scales, including NFC, STW, and RC3, accounted for 11%
of the variance and best predicted scores on the RSI-D Passive Acceptance scale.
Table 16. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Passive Acceptance
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales ≡RC scales RC3 .21 .04 .04 7.65 1, 167 .01 .21*
SP scales NFC, STW .28 .08 .07 6.83 2, 166 .001 .35*, -.22*
PSY-5 scales PSYC .17 .03 .02 4.83 1, 167 .03 .17*
Mixed model NFC, STW, RC3 .33 .11 .09 6.53 3, 165 .001 .30*, -.28*, .20*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates
that no variables entered into the regression equation.
90
The results for the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-D
Minimization scale demonstrated that none of the H-O, RC, SP, or PSY-5 scales
significantly predicted the dispositional coping response of minimization.
The results of the regression analyses exploring dispositional over-reaction are
present in Table 17, and they indicated that the EID H-O scale accounted for 19% of the
variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D Over-Reaction scale. The results also
indicated that the RC7 scale accounted for 16% of the variance in predicting the
dispositional coping response of over-reaction. With regard to the SP scales, STW, NFC,
and IPP collectively accounted for 24% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-D
Over-Reaction scale. The results further demonstrated that the PSY-5 scales of NEGE
and AGGR accounted for 24% of the variance in predicting dispositional over-reaction.
The final, “mixed,” regression analysis indicated that two PSY-5 scales, NEGE and
AGGR, optimally predicted scores on the Over-Reaction scale of the RSI-D, as the
results of the analysis were identical that of the fourth regression analysis.
Table 17. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Over-Reaction
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales EID .44 .19 .18 38.89 1, 167 .001 .44*
RC scales RC7 .40 .16 .16 32.29 1, 167 .001 .40*
SP scales STW, NFC, IPP .49 .24 .23 17.33 3, 165 .001 .29*, .21*, .15*
PSY-5 scales NEGE, AGGR .49 .24 .23 26.23 2, 166 .001 .46*, -.18*
Mixed model NEGE, AGGR .49 .24 .23 26.23 2, 166 .001 .46*, -.18*
≤
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
91
With regard to the RSI-D Spirituality scale, the results of the regression analyses
are conveyed in Table 18. The results conveyed that BXD accounted for 8% of the
variance in predicting the dispositional coping response of spirituality. The results also
demonstrated that RC4 accounted for 5% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-
D Spirituality scale. The SP scales of SUB, HPC, MLS, and MSF were demonstrated to
collectively account for 24% of the variance in predicting dispositional spirituality. The
results showed that a single PSY-5 scale, DISC, accounted for 10% of the variance in
predicting scores on the Spirituality scale of the RSI-D. The results of the final analysis,
examining a mixed set of independent variables, mirrored the results for the third
regression analysis, as the SUB, HPC, MLS, and MSF scales accounted for 24% of the
variance.
Table 18. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-D Spirituality
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales BXD .28 .08 .07 13.79 1, 167 .001 -.28*
RC scales RC4 .21 .05 .04 7.96 1, 167 .01 -.21*
SP scales SUB, HPC,
MLS, MSF .49 .24 .22 12.87 4, 164 .001 -.32*, .35*, -.32*, .24*
PSY-5 scales DISC .31 .10 .09 18.05 1, 167 .001 -.31*
Mixed model SUB, HPC,
MLS, MSF .49 .24 .22 12.87 4, 164 .001 -.32*, .35*, -.32*, .24*
≤
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
92
(3) Which personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF, are associated with situational coping responses assessed by
the RSI?
Zero order correlations were calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF
scales and each of the 14 coping scales on the RSI-S. Table 19 provides the Pearson
product moment correlation coefficients for the analyses. The correlations were required
to meet two criteria for interpretation. In particular, the correlation was required to be
statistically significant at p ≤ .001, as well as reach or exceed a magnitude of .3 or a
medium effect size (r = .30; Cohen, 1988) for interpretation.
Although inverse associations were hypothesized to be present between each of
the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales and the Problem Confrontation scale of the RSI-S, the
results demonstrated that none of the calculated correlations met both of the requirements
for interpretation. Providing partial support for some hypotheses, several of the
associations demonstrated were statistically significant, but the magnitude of these
associations did not reach .3. Specifically, the Problem Confrontation scale was
statistically significantly inversely associated with MMPI-2-RF scales assessing
internalizing difficulties, HLP, NFC, and MSF but the effect sizes demonstrated were
small in magnitude. Therefore, the hypothesized associations between the various MMPI-
2-RF scales and the Problem Confrontation were largely unsupported by the results of
this study.
Similarly, the results for the correlations calculated between the Problem Analysis
RSI-S scale and the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales indicated that none of the
93
Table 19. Correlations between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-S Scales
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
H-O Scales
EID -.12 .04 .08 -.20** .09 .08 -.07 .30** .29** .11 -.02 .05 .33** -.06
THD -.03 .11 .07 .02 .12 .04 .00 .35** .31** .12 .10 .06 .22** .04
BXD .08 .13 .06 .03 .13 -.09 .06 .09 .03 .05 .02 .05 0.14* -.03
RC Scales
RCd -.11 .06 .11 -.15* .12 .05 -.06 .30** .33** .12* .01 .08 .38** -.04
RC1 .03 .10 .07 .00 .15* .09 -.09 .27** .29** .06 .01 .09 .24** -.01
RC2 -.11 -.09 -.02 -.27** -.04 -.01 -.01 .15* .10 -.03 -.08 .03 .18* -.08
RC3 -.12 .05 .04 -.14* .12 -.01 -.01 .21** .19** .09 .08 -.03 .20** -.09
RC4 .03 .05 .03 -.04 .08 -.09 .04 .11 .07 .00 -.04 .03 .18* -.03
RC6 -.05 .13* .13* -.07 .12 .03 -.04 .37** .32** .11 .01 .03 .31** .03
RC7 -.07 .04 .10 -.10 .13* .11 -.09 .40** .37** .15* .02 .07 .33** -.03
RC8 .00 .11 .08 .08 .12 .02 .01 .26** .25** .10 .13* .07 .18** .06
RC9 .05 .15* .05 .06 .22** .05 -.07 .17** .19** .18** .12 .07 .23** .01
SP Scales
Somatic Scales
MLS -.05 .02 .12 -.09 .06 .05 -.08 .25** .29** .16** .02 .12 .26** -.02
GIC .07 .06 .07 -.01 .05 .02 -.03 .19** .15* .03 -.04 .09 .14* -.05
HPC .00 .17** .11 .01 .17** .11 -.07 .21** .26** .11 .08 0.08 .18** -.01
NUC .02 .03 .03 -.02 .14* .09 -.11 .21** .23** -.01 -.07 .03 .25** .06
COG -.11 .02 .05 -.04 .11 .02 .00 .26** .20** .12 .14* .13* .23** .07
Note: N = 250; * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .001; bold = medium or larger effect size; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis; SE =
Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D =
Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.
RSI-S Scales
94
Table 19 (Continued)
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
SUI -.04 .01 -.01 -.04 .02 -.01 .04 .25** .18** .07 -.04 .05 .13* -.01
HLP -.16** .03 .06 -.19** .12 .09 -.04 .25** .25** .05 -.04 -.02 .25** .02
SFD -.12* -.03 .00 -.18** .00 .02 -.05 .26** .26** .08 .00 .01 .30** -.06
NFC -.19** -.01 .04 -.07 .11 .11 -.10 .38** .30** .15* .11 .07 .30** .02
STW -.05 .10 .09 -.04 .04 .05 -.05 .32** .31** .15* .02 .06 .28** .00
AXY -.01 .09 .14* -.03 .17* .09 -.07 .34** .28** .08 .01 .05 .28** -.01
ANP .02 .11 .09 -.09 .09 .02 -.07 .27** .27** .07 -.02 .02 .27** -.03
BRF -.10 -.09 .01 -.02 .01 .05 -.09 .14* .15* .05 .04 .08 .10 .06
MSF -.16** -.03 .09 -.07 .02 .12* -.13* .16** .19** .04 .01 -.06 .04 .12
JCP .09 .11 .04 .00 .10 -.13* .08 .07 .03 .04 -.07 .01 .12 .05
SUB -.05 -.05 -.01 -.03 .01 -.05 .03 .12 .02 -.02 -.02 .05 .09 -.06
AGG .01 .04 .01 -.07 .06 -.02 -.03 .22** .20** .05 .00 -.04 .20** -.06
ACT .01 .03 -.01 .06 .17** .10 -.11 .11 .18** .11 .09 .06 .16** .01
FML -.06 .01 .01 -.12 .08 .01 -.08 .14* .15* .10 .03 -.02 .19** -.11
IPP -.10 -.08 .07 .01 -.10 .04 -.03 .14* .11 .10 .08 .13* .11 -.05
SAV -.01 .02 -.03 -.20** -.06 -.05 .10 -.05 -.07 -.08 -.14* -.05 .03 .00
SHY -.10 .00 .01 -.13* .01 .03 .05 .17** .13* .16* .07 .07 .07 -.12
DSF -.03 -.01 -.05 .02 -.12 -.16* .30** .10 .03 .00 .07 .01 .05 -.01
Note: N = 205; * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .001; bold = medium or larger effect size; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis; SE =
Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D =
Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.
RSI-S Scales
Externalizing Scales
Internalizing Scales
Interpersonal Scales
95
Table 19 (Continued)
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
PSY-5 Scales
AGGR-r .04 .06 -.05 -.04 .09 -.05 .03 -.01 .01 -.03 -.02 -.11 -.02 .10
PSYC-r -.04 .12* .10 .07 .12 .03 .04 .35** .31** .15* .17** .12 .19** .06
DISC-r .13* .14* .06 .05 .09 -.12* .08 .00 -.07 -.04 -.01 .04 .07 -.06
NEGE-r -.06 .09 .12 -.08 .14* .12* -.16* .37** .35** .15* -.02 .04 .37** -.03
INTR-R -.03 -.01 -.03 -.26** -.13* -.09 .13* -.02 -.08 -.14* -.15* -.07 .00 -.01
RSI-S Scales
Note: N = 205; * = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .001; bold = medium or larger effect size; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis; SE =
Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D =
Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.
96
hypothesized associations were fully supported. In fact, only one Somatic scale of the
MMPI-2-RF, HPC, was statistically significantly associated with the Problem Analysis
scale; however, the magnitude of the association was small. Also, the correlation
calculated was positive, but the hypothesized direction of the association was negative.
The results of the correlations calculated between the substantive MMPI-2-RF
scales and the RSI-S scale of Self-Reassurance demonstrated several hypothesized
inverse associations were partially, but not fully supported. In particular, the correlations
between the scales of EID, RC2, HLP, SFD, and INTR-r and the RSI-S Self-Reassurance
scale were statistically significant; however, the associations approached, but did not
reach, medium effect sizes. Also, a similar pattern was demonstrated between the MMPI-
2-RF SP scale of SAV and the RSI-S Self-Reassurance, as the calculated correlation was
statistically significantly as hypothesized; yet, the magnitude of the correlation fell below
.3. Finally, none of the associations hypothesized between the scales contained in the
Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchies of the MMPI-2-RF and the Self-
Reassurance scale of the RSI-S were supported by the results of the analyses.
Inverse associations were hypothesized to be present between the Seeking Advice
RSI-S scale and each of the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales; however, none of the
calculated correlations met both of the requirements for interpretation. Specifically, two
scales contained within the MMPI-2-RF Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchy,
RC9 and ACT, were statistically significantly associated with the Seeking Advice scale,
but the magnitudes of these associations did not reach .3 as initially anticipated.
Similarly, the Seeking Advice RSI-S scale was statistically significantly positively
97
associated with HPC, a Somatic MMPI-2-RF scale, but the magnitude of the correlation
was less than .3. Moreover, the results illustrated that none of the anticipated associations
between the MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing
Dysfunction hierarchy and the Seeking Advice RSI-S scale were supported by the results
of this study.
The Emotional Suppression RSI-S scale was statistically significantly associated
with the MMPI-2-RF Interpersonal Functioning SP scale of DSF, and the correlation was
r = .30. One other hypothesis was partially supported, as a statistically significant
association was present between MSF, an Internalizing MMPI-2-RF scale, and the
Emotional Suppression scale; however, the correlation did not achieve a medium effect
size as previously hypothesized. Finally, none of the other calculated correlations met
either of the requirements for interpretation; therefore, the remaining hypotheses were not
supported.
In contrast, the results for the correlations calculated between the Denial scale of
the RSI-S and all of the substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF indicated that many of the
hypotheses were supported. In particular, several of the scales contained within the
MMPI-2-RF Emotional/Internalizing hierarchy, including EID, RCd, RC7, NFC, STW,
AXY, and NEGE-r were statistically significantly associated with the Denial scale and
the magnitudes of these associations exceeded .3. Also, several unexpected associations
were present between the Denial scale and those MMPI-2-RF scales contained with the
Thought Dysfunction hierarchy, including THD, RC6, and PSYC-r, and the correlations
between these scales exceeded .3. Thus, although these associations were not initially
98
hypothesized, the correlations demonstrated met both requirements for interpretation.
Several other MMPI-2-RF emotional/internalizing scales, such as SUI, HLP, SFD, ANP,
and MSF were statistically significantly associated with the Denial scale as anticipated,
but these associations did not reach a medium effect size. Also, RC8, a scale assessing
odd perceptual experiences and thought dysfunction, was statistically significantly linked
to the Denial scale; however, the magnitude of the correlation only approached .3. The
Denial scale was also statistically significantly associated with several of the MMPI-2-RF
scales assessing Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction, such as RC9 and AGG; however,
the magnitude of the associations did not reach a medium effect size. Furthermore, all of
the MMPI-2-RF Somatic scales, including RC1, MLS, GIC, HPC, NUC, and COG were
statistically significantly correlated with the Denial scale, but the correlations were small
in magnitude. Finally, two MMPI-2-RF scales assessing interpersonal functioning, RC3
and SHY, demonstrated statistically significant associations with the Denial scale, but the
magnitude of the correlations was small. Overall, a large majority of the hypothesized
associations were either fully or at least partially supported by the results of this study.
Similar to the Denial scale, a large number of anticipated associations were
demonstrated to be present between the RSI-S Fantasizing scale and scales contained
within the Emotional/Internalizing, Behavioral/Externalizing, and Somatic MMPI-2-RF
hierarchies. Specifically, the results showed statistically significant associations were
present between the Fantasizing scale and the MMPI-2-RF scales of RCd, RC7, NFC,
AXY, and NEGE-r, and the magnitude of these associations exceeded .3. Also, several
unanticipated associations were present between MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the
99
Thought Dysfunction hierarchy, specifically THD, RC6, and PSYC-r, and the Fantasizing
scale, and these associations were of a medium effect size.
In addition, several statistically significant associations were demonstrated
between the RSI-S Denial scale and other scales assessing emotional difficulties, such as
EID, SUI, HLP, SFD, ANP, and MSF; however, the magnitude of the associations did
not reach .3. Likewise, the Fantasizing scale demonstrated another statistically significant
association with an MMPI-2-RF Thought Dysfunction scale, RC8, but the magnitude of
the correlation did not reach the level required for interpretation. Furthermore, several of
the scales contained within the MMPI-2-RF Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction
hierarchy, in particular RC9, AGG, and ACT, were statistically significantly associated
with the Denial scale, but the magnitude of the correlations was small. The MMPI-2-RF
Somatic Scales, including RC1, MLS, HPC, NUC, and COG, as well as the Interpersonal
Functioning SP scale of RC3, demonstrated statistically significant associations with the
Fantasizing scale; yet, the magnitudes of the associations fell below .3. Thus, several of
the hypotheses were fully supported by the results of this study and the results illustrated
many of the remaining hypotheses were partially supported as well.
In examining the pattern of correlations calculated between the Avoidance RSI-S
and MMPI-2-RF scales, the hypothesized associations were largely unsupported, as none
of the calculated correlations met both of the requirements for interpretation. However,
one association was demonstrated between RC9, which is an MMPI-2-RF scale of the
Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchy, and the Avoidance RSI-S scale, but the
magnitude of the association was less than .3. MLS, an MMPI-2-RF scale assessing
100
somatic problems, was also statistically significantly associated with the Avoidance RSI-
S scale; however, the correlation did not reach the magnitude required for interpretation.
No significant associations were present between the Avoidance scale and any of the
MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing hierarchy; thus, those
hypothesized associations were not supported.
The Passive Acceptance scale of the RSI-S was anticipated to be associated with
the MMPI-2-RF scales contained within the Emotional/Internalizing and
Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchies; however, none of those hypotheses
were supported by the results of this study. One unexpected statistically significant
association was present between the PSYC-r scale, which is part of the Thought
Dysfunction hierarchy, and the RSI-S Passive Acceptance scale, but the magnitude of the
association was small. Therefore, the pattern of results demonstrated between the various
MMPI-2-RF scales and the Passive Acceptance scale was weak and a majority of the
study hypotheses were not supported.
Many of the correlations calculated between the RSI-S Over-Reaction scale and
the MMPI-2-RF scales provided at least partial support for the hypotheses. Associations
that were both statistically significant and of a medium or large effect size were
demonstrated between the Over-Reaction scale and several MMPI-2-RF scales assessing
emotional/internalizing problems, including EID, RCd, RC7, SFD, NFC, and NEGE-r. In
addition, an unexpected, but significant, association was demonstrated between RC6, a
scale contained within the Thought Dysfunction hierarchy, and the Over-Reaction RSI-S
scale, and this association was of a medium effect size.
101
Several other associations between select MMPI-2-RF scales and the RSI-S Over-
Reaction scale were statistically significant as hypothesized, but did not reach the
magnitude required for interpretation. In particular, other scales of the
Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction MMPI-2-RF hierarchy, such as HLP, STW, AXY,
and ANP, were statistically significantly associated with the Over-Reaction scale, but the
associations only approached .3. Also, as hypothesized, statistically significant
associations were present between the Over-Reaction RSI-S scale and MMPI-2-RF scales
contained within the Behavioral/ Externalizing Dysfunction hierarchy, including RC9,
AGG, and ACT; however, the associations were of a small effect size. The results also
partially supported the hypothesized associations between the Over-Reaction scale and
two of the Interpersonal Functioning scales, RC3 and FML, as statistically significant
associations were present between these scales, but the associations did not reach the
magnitude required for interpretation. Statistically significant associations were
demonstrated between the Somatic MMPI-2-RF Scales, such as RC1, MLS, HPC, NUC,
and COG, and the Over-Reaction scale as anticipated, but the magnitude of the
associations was smaller than .3. Finally, other scales contained within the MMPI-2-RF
Thought Dysfunction hierarchy, specifically THD, RC8, and PSYC-r, demonstrated
unexpected, but statistically significant, associations with the Over-Reaction RSI-S scale;
however, these associations did not rise to the level required for interpretation.
In examining the results for the Self-Examination, Seeking Emotional Support,
Minimization, and Spirituality RSI-S scales, the results demonstrated that none of the
correlations calculated with the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales were significant. Thus,
102
none of the hypothesized associations between the various MMPI-2-RF scales and the
Self-Examination, Seeking Emotional Support, Minimization, and Spirituality scales of
the RSI-S were supported.
In conclusion, fewer statistically significant associations between the various
MMPI-2-RF and RSI-S scales were found overall, and the magnitudes of these
associations were generally smaller than the magnitude of associations between the
MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D scales. This pattern is consistent with the study hypotheses.
(4) Which combination of personality and psychopathology constructs,
assessed by MMPI-2-RF scale sets, best predict situational coping
responses on the RSI-S?
A series of linear regression analyses were conducted to examine which
personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, best
predicted the various types of situational coping responses on the RSI-S. For each RSI-S
scale, a set of five regression analyses were conducted to correspond with the hierarchical
structure of the MMPI-2-RF, and variables were entered into each of the regression
analyses using a forward step-wise procedure. In particular, the first regression analysis
included the Higher-Order (H-O) Scales, the second regression analysis examined the
Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, the Specific Problems (SP) Scales served as the
independent variables for the third analysis, and the fourth regression analysis
incorporated the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales as the independent
variables. A final (i.e., fifth) regression analysis utilized a set of mixed scales from
various levels of the MMPI-2-RF measurement hierarchy, and those scales were only
103
included in the analysis if they previously demonstrated a significant beta weight in one
of the four regression analyses. Tables 20 to 32 provide the results for the regression
analyses.
The results of the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-S Problem
Confrontation scale, located in Table 20, demonstrated that none of the H-O or RC scales
significantly contributed to the prediction. The results also indicated the SP scale of NFC
and ANP collectively accounted for approximately 6% of the variance in predicting
situational problem confrontation. The results also conveyed the DISC PSY-5 scale
accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Problem
Confrontation scale. The results for the final, “mixed,” regression analysis were identical
to the results for the SP regression model, as the NFC and ANP scales accounted for 6%
of the variance. Thus, the SP scales optimally predicted the situational coping response of
problem confrontation.
Table 20. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-S Problem Confrontation
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales ≡RC scales ≡SP scales NFC, ANP .24 .06 .05 7.59 2, 248 .001 -.28*, .17*
PSY-5 scales DISC .13 .02 .01 4.39 1, 249 .04 .13*
Mixed model NFC, ANP .24 .06 .05 7.59 2, 248 .001 -.28*, .17*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05,
≡ indicates that no variables entered into the regression equation.
104
Regarding situational problem analysis, the results are illustrated in Table 21, and
they showed that the H-O scale of BXD accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting
scores on the RSI-S Problem Analysis scale. The results of the second regression analysis
conveyed that RC9 accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting the situational coping
response of problem analysis. Results for the third analysis demonstrated the HPC and
BRF SP scales accounted for 5% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S
Problem Analysis scale. According to the results for the fourth regression analysis, the
DISC scale accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Problem
Analysis scale. The results of the final regression analysis illustrated that a combination
of SP and PSY-5 scales best predicted scores on the Problem Analysis scale of the RSI-
S, as the HPC, DISC, and BRF scales collectively accounted for 6% of the variance.
Table 21. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-S Problem Analysis
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales BXD .13 .02 .01 4.37 1, 249 .04 .13*
RC scales RC9 .15 .02 .02 5.84 1, 249 .02 .15*
SP scales HPC, BRF .22 .05 .04 6.01 2, 248 .003 .20*, -.13*
PSY-5 scales DISC .14 .02 .02 4.94 1, 249 .03 .14*
Mixed model HPC, DISC, BRF .25 .06 .05 5.39 3, 247 .001 .19*, .12*, -.13*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
Exploring the results for the RSI-S Self-Examination scale, which are displayed in
Table 22, the first and fourth regression analyses conveyed that none of the H-O or PSY-
5 scales significantly predicted situational self-examination. The second regression
analysis demonstrated that RC6 accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting scores on
105
the RSI-S Self-Examination scale. The results of the third regression analysis showed that
the AXY scale accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting situational self-
examination. The results for the final “mixed” regression analysis mirrored the results for
the SP model, as the AXY scale accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting scores on
the RSI-S Self-Examination scale.
The results for the regression analyses predicting situational self-reassurance are
illustrated in Table 23. The results for the first regression analysis predicting scores on
Table 22. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-S Self-Examination.
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales ≡RC scales RC6 .13 .02 .01 4.12 1, 249 .04 .13*
SP scales AXY .14 .02 .02 5.18 1, 249 .02 .14*
PSY-5 scales ≡Mixed model AXY .14 .02 .02 5.18 1, 249 .02 .14*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡
indicates that no variables entered into the regression equation.
Table 23. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI Self-Reassurance
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales EID .20 .04 .04 10.63 1, 249 .001 -.20*
RC scales RC2, RC1 .30 .09 .08 11.91 2, 248 .001 -.33*, .15*
SP scales SAV, HLP .25 .06 .05 7.90 2, 248 .001 -.16*, -.15*
PSY-5 scales INTR .27 .07 .07 18.75 1, 249 .001 -.27*
Mixed model RC2, RC1 .30 .09 .08 11.91 2, 248 .001 -.33*, .15*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
106
the RSI-S Self-Reassurance scale conveyed that the EID scale accounted for 4% of the
variance. The second regression analysis indicated that the RC2 and RC1 scales
collectively accounted for 9% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Self-
Reassurance scale. In examining the third regression analysis, the results showed that the
SAV and HLP scales collectively accounted for 6% of the variance in predicting
situational self-reassurance. The results of the fourth regression analysis demonstrated
that a single PSY-5 scale, namely INTR, accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting
scores on the RSI-S Self-Reassurance scale. Finally, the results of the “mixed” regression
model indicated that two RC scales optimally predicted scores on the RSI-S Self-
Reassurance scale, as RC2 and RC1 collectively accounted for 9% of the variance.
In predicting the situational coping response of seeking advice, the results of the
regression analyses are documented in Table 24. The results of the first regression
analysis indicated that the BXD H-O scale accounted for 2% of the variance, and the
results of the second analysis demonstrated that RC9 accounted for 5% of the variance in
predicting scores on the RSI-S Seeking Advice scale. The results of the third regression
analysis showed that the SP scales of ACT, AXY, DSF, and IPP accounted for a total of
9% of the variance in predicting the situational coping response of seeking advice. The
results of the fourth regression analysis showed that two PSY-5 scales, namely NEGE
and INTR, collectively accounted for 5% of the variance in predicting situational seeking
advice. The results of the “mixed” regression model demonstrated that a combination of
RC and SP scales, including RC9, DSF, and AXY, optimally predicted scores on the RSI-
S Seeking Advice scale by accounting for 9% of the variance.
107
Table 24. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-S Seeking Advice
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales BXD .13 .02 .01 3.97 1, 249 .05 .13*
RC scales RC9 .22 .05 .04 12.10 1, 249 .001 .22*
SP scales ACT, AXY,
DSF, IPP .30 .09 .07 6.03 4, 246 .001
.13*, .21*, -.16*,
-.14*
PSY-5 scales NEGE, INTR .22 .05 .04 5.98 2, 248 .003 .18*, -.16*
Mixed model RC9, DSF, AXY .30 .09 .08 7.84 3, 247 .001 .19*, -.17*, .15*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
With regard to the RSI-S Seeking Emotional Support scale, the results of the
regression analyses are conveyed in Table 25, and the results of the first two regression
analyses illustrated that none of the H-O or RC scales significantly predicted the seeking
emotional support situational coping response. Conversely, the results of the third
regression analysis demonstrated that the DSF, HLP, and JCP SP scales collectively
accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Seeking Emotional
Support scale. The results of the fourth regression analysis conveyed that the NEGE,
DISC, and INTR scales accounted for 6% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-
S Seeking Emotional Support scale. The final regression model, which examined a mixed
set of MMPI-2-RF scales, demonstrated that a combination of select SP scales, including
DSF, HLP, and JCP accounted for 7% of the variance and optimally predicted scores on
the RSI-S Seeking Emotional Support scale.
108
Table 25. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-S Seeking Emotional Support
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales ≡
RC scales ≡
SP scales DSF, HLP,
JCP .26 .07 .06 5.91 3, 247 .001 -.21*, .18*, -.12*
PSY-5 scales NEGE, DISC,
INTR .24 .06 .05 4.97 3, 247 .002 .17*, -.17*, -.16*
Mixed model DSF, HLP,
JCP .26 .07 .06 5.91 3, 247 .001 -.21*, .18*, -.12*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates
that no variables entered into the regression equation.
In predicting scores on the RSI-S Emotional Suppression scale, the results are
illustrated in Table 26, and the results of the first two regression analyses illustrated that
none of the H-O or RC scales significantly predicted the situational coping response of
emotional suppression. The results of the third regression analysis indicated that the DSF,
BRF, and FML scales accounted for a total of 13% of the variance in predicting scores on
the RSI-S Emotional Suppression scale. The fourth regression analysis demonstrated that
the NEGE, INTR, and DISC scales accounted for a total of 7% of the variance in
predicting situational emotional suppression. The results of the final regression analysis
illustrated that the a combination of SP and PSY-5 scales, DSF and NEGE, accounted for
13% of the variance and optimally predicted scores on the RSI-S Emotional Suppression
scale.
109
Table 26. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-S Emotional Suppression
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales ≡
RC scales ≡
SP scales DSF, BRF, FML .36 .13 .12 12.45 3, 247 .001 .36*, -.15*, -.15*
PSY-5 scales NEGE, INTR,
DISC .27 .07 .06 6.48 3, 247 .001 -.21*, .21*, .14*
Mixed model DSF, NEGE .36 .13 .12 18.07 2, 248 .001 .32*, -.20*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates that no
variables entered into the regression equation.
In examining the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-S Denial scale,
the results are displayed in Table 27. The results showed that the H-O scales of THD and
EID accounted for a total of 15% of the variance. The results of the second regression
analysis demonstrated that two RC scales, RC7 and RC6, accounted for 20% of the
variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Denial scale. Additionally, the results of the
third regression analysis conveyed that the NFC, AXY, and SAV scales accounted for
19% of the variance in predicting situational denial. The fourth regression analysis
illustrated that the PSY-5 scales of NEGE and PSYC accounted for a total of 18% of the
variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Denial scale. The results of the final, “mixed”
regression analysis showed that the combination of RC and SP scales, including RC7,
RC6, and SAV, optimally predicted the situational coping response of denial by
accounting for 22% of the variance.
110
Table 27. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-S Denial
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales THD, EID .39 .15 .14 21.92 2, 248 .001 .27*, .19*
RC scales RC7, RC6 .44 .20 .19 30.51 2, 248 .001 .29*, .22*
SP scales NFC, AXY, SAV .44 .19 .18 19.74 3, 247 .001 .31*, .20*, -.14*
PSY-5 scales NEGE, PSYC .42 .18 .17 26.66 2, 248 .001 .26*, .23*
Mixed model RC7, RC6, SAV .47 .22 .21 22.80 3, 247 .001 .32*, .22*, -.14*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
The results for predicting scores on the RSI-S Fantasizing scale are illustrated in Table
28. The results indicated that the THD and EID scale accounted for 13% of the variance.
The second regression analysis demonstrated that the RC7, RC6, RC1, and RC2 scales
collectively accounted for 19% of the variance in predicting the situational coping
response of fantasizing. The results of the third regression analysis conveyed that select
SP scales, including STW, MLS, SAV, and NFC, accounted for 16% of the variance in
predicting scores on the RSI-S Fantasizing scale. The fourth regression analysis indicated
that four of the five PSY-5 scales, namely NEGE, PSYC, INTR, and DISC, collectively
accounted for 20% of the variance in predicting the situational coping response of
fantasizing. The results of the “mixed” regression model illustrated that the combination
of select RC, SP, and PSY-5 scales, specifically the RC7, SAV, RC6, DISC, MLS, and
RC2 scales, optimally predicted the situational coping response of fantasizing, as the
scales collectively accounted for 24% of the variance.
With regard to the RSI-S Avoidance scale, the results are conveyed in Table 29.
The results of the first regression analysis indicated that none of the H-O scales
111
Table 28. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting RSI-S Fantasizing
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales THD, EID .36 .13 .12 18.10 2, 247 .001 .23*, .20*
RC scales RC7, RC6, RC1, RC2 .43 .19 .18 14.20 4, 245 .001 .25*, .19*, .18*, -.17*
SP scales STW, MLS, SAV, NFC .40 .16 .15 11.75 4, 245 .001 .16*, .17*, -.16*, .17*
PSY-5 scales NEGE, PSYC, INTR, DISC .45 .20 .19 15.39 4, 245 .001 .30*, .22*, -.18*, -.17*
Mixed model RC7, SAV, RC6, DISC, MLS, RC2 .49 .24 .22 12.52 6, 243 .001 .28*, -.12, .21*, -.15*, .25*, -.23*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
112
significantly predicted the coping response of situational avoidance. The second
regression analysis showed that the RC9 scale accounted for 3% of the variance in
predicting scores on the RSI-S Avoidance scale. The results of the third regression
analysis demonstrated that the SHY and SAV SP scales collectively accounted for 6% of
the variance in predicting the situational coping response of avoidance. The results of the
fourth regression analysis also showed that the PSYC and INTR scales accounted for a
total of 4% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Avoidance scale. The final
regression analysis demonstrated that a combination of RC, SP, and PSY-5 scales,
including RC9, SHY, and INTR, collectively accounted for 9% of the variance and
optimally predicted situational avoidance.
Table 29. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-S Avoidance
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales ≡
RC scales RC9 .18 .03 .03 8.26 1, 249 .004 .18*
SP scales SHY, SAV .23 .06 .05 7.19 2, 248 .001 .25*, -.19*
PSY-5 scales PSYC, INTR .21 .04 .04 5.65 2, 248 .004 .16*, -.15*
Mixed model RC9, SHY, INTR .30 .09 .08 7.99 3, 247 .001 .11, .25*, -.21*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates that
no variables entered into the regression equation.
In exploring the situational coping response of passive acceptance, the results are
shown in Table 30, and they indicated that none of the H-O scales significantly predicted
scores on the RSI-S Passive Acceptance scale. The results of the second regression
analysis demonstrated that the RC8 scale accounted for 2% of the variance in predicting
situational passive acceptance. The third regression analysis showed that the SAV, COG,
113
and JCP SP scales collectively accounted for 6% of the variance in predicting scores on
the RSI-S Passive Acceptance scale. The results of the fourth regression analysis
conveyed that the PSYC and INTR scales accounted for 6% of the variance in predicting
situational passive acceptance. The final regression analysis indicated that a combination
of PSY-5 and SP scales, including PSYC, INTR, and JCP accounted for 7% of the
variance and best predicted scores on the RSI-S Passive Acceptance scale.
Table 30. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-S Passive Acceptance
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales ≡
RC scales RC8 .13 .02 .01 4.34 1, 249 .04 .13*
SP scales SAV, COG, JCP .25 .06 .05 5.61 3, 247 .001 -.19*, .20*, -.13*
PSY-5 scales PSYC, INTR .23 .06 .05 7.19 2, 248 .001 .18*, -.16*
Mixed model PSYC, INTR, JCP .27 .07 .06 6.25 3, 247 .001 .21*, -.18*, -.13*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05; ≡ indicates that
no variables entered into the regression equation.
The results for the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-S
Minimization scale are provided in Table 31. The results demonstrated that none of the
H-O, RC, or PSY-5 scales significantly predicted situational minimization. However, the
results also demonstrated that one SP scale, IPP, accounted for 2% of the variance in
predicting scores on the RSI-S Minimization scale.
114
Table 31. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-S Minimization
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales ≡
RC scales ≡
SP scales IPP .13 .02 .01 4.56 1, 249 .03 .13*
PSY-5 scales ≡
Mixed model N/A
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p
≤ .05; ≡ indicates that no variables entered into the regression
The results of the regression analyses exploring situational over-reaction, which
are represented in Table 32, indicated that the EID H-O scale accounted for 11% of the
variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Over-Reaction scale. Additionally, the results
indicated that the RCd and RC9 scales accounted for a total of 16% of the variance in
predicting the situational coping response of over-reaction. With regard to the SP scales,
NFC and AXY collectively accounted for 11% of the variance in predicting scores on the
RSI-S Over-Reaction scale. The results further demonstrated that the NEGE PSY-5 scale
accounted for 14% of the variance in predicting situational over-reaction. The final,
“mixed,” regression analysis illustrated that a combination of RC, PSY-5, and H-O
scales, including RCd, NEGE, and EID, optimally predicted scores on the RSI-S Over-
Reaction scale, as they accounted for 18% of the variance.
115
Table 32. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales in Predicting
RSI-S Over-Reaction
R R² R² adj F df p ≤ β
HO scales EID .33 .11 .10 29.97 1, 249 .001 .33*
RC scales RCd, RC9 .40 .16 .15 23.83 2, 248 .001 .34*, .13*
SP scales NFC, AXY .34 .11 .11 15.78 2, 248 .001 .22*, .17*
PSY-5 scales NEGE .37 .14 .13 39.37 1, 249 .001 .37*
Mixed model RCd, NEGE, EID .42 .18 .17 17.69 3, 247 .001 .47*, .27*,. -.31*
Variables entered
F test
Note: * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
With regard to the RSI-S Spirituality scale, the results of the regression analyses
showed that none of the H-O, RC, SP, or PSY-5 scales significantly predicted the
situational coping response of spirituality. These results represent the weakest pattern
regarding the MMPI-2-RF scales’ relative ability to predict a given type of situational
coping.
In summary, the personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF scales, significantly predicted both dispositional and situational coping
responses, as measured by the RSI scales. However, the personality and psychopathology
constructs more strongly predicted scores on the RSI-D scales as compared to the RSI-S
scales, with two exceptions. In particular, the MMPI-2-RF scales better predicted scores
on the situational Seeking Advice and situational Minimization scales, as opposed to their
dispositional counterparts, but the difference in the amount of variance accounted for by
the situational versus dispositional coping responses was relatively small (i.e., about 2%).
Overall, these findings parallel the results of the correlational analyses, which indicated
116
stronger associations were present between the MMPI-2-RF and RSI-D scales, as
compared to the RSI-S scales.
(5) Which combination of situational variables, rated by participants and
judges, and personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF scales, best predict situational coping on the RSI-S?
Analyses were also conducted to examine whether particular situational
characteristics, namely the confrontability, duration, and timing of the stressor, as well as
the type or category of the stressful situation, significantly contributed to the prediction of
situational coping responses on the RSI-S. Each of the situational characteristics were
rated by the participants themselves, as well as by trained judges. Therefore, two sets of
analyses were conducted, with the first set of analyses including the participant ratings
and the second set incorporated the ratings made by judges. With regard to the judges’
ratings, agreement between two of the three judges on the rating of the situational
characteristic was required in order for a specific situational characteristic to be included
in the analyses.
The first regression analysis explored whether the situational characteristics added
incrementally to personality and psychopathology constructs in predicting situational
coping. In particular, those MMPI-2-RF scales that previously demonstrated a significant
beta weight in earlier analyses were entered into the first block and the second block
included the situational variables. A second regression analysis was conducted to
determine which situational characteristics best predicted the various types of situational
coping responses and whether personality and psychopathology constructs added
117
incrementally to the prediction. In particular, situational characteristics served as the
independent variables in the first block of the second regression analysis and those
MMPI-2-RF scales that previously demonstrated a significant beta weight were included
in the second block. Thus, the independent variables were essentially entered in reverse
order, as compared to the first regression analysis. Tables 33 to 45 provide the results for
the post hoc regression analyses.
The results of the regression analyses examining whether situational
characteristics, as rated by participants, added incrementally to the prediction of scores on
the RSI-S Problem Confrontation scale are displayed in Table 33. The results
demonstrated that the participants’ ratings of the timing of the situation significantly
improved the prediction. In particular, the NFC and ANP scales accounted for 6% of the
variance and the situational characteristic of timing, as rated by participants,
incrementally contributed 3% of the variance to the prediction of the situational coping
strategy of problem confrontation. In sum, the NFC and ANP scales and timing, as rated
by participants, accounted for 9% of the variance. The results of the regression analyses
incorporating participant ratings of situational characteristics in the first block and select
RF scales in the second block conveyed that the situational characteristic of timing
accounted for 4% of the variance and the NFC scale accounted for another 3% of unique
variance, for a total of 7%, in predicting scores on the RSI-S Problem Confrontation
scale.
118
Table 33. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Problem
Confrontation Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1 MMPI-2-RF scales NFC, ANP .24 .06 .05 7.76 2, 246 .001 -.29*, .17*
2 Situational
Variables (P) timing (P) .29 .09 .08 .03 7.71 3, 245 .001 7.21 .01 -.26*, .14*, .17*
1 Situational
Variables (P) timing (P) .20 .04 .03 9.84 1, 248 .002 .20*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales NFC .27 .07 .07 .03 9.56 2, 246 .001 8.97 .003 .18*, -.18*
1 MMPI-2-RF scales; NFC, ANP .24 .06 .05 7.59 2, 248 .001 -.28*, .17*
2 Situational
Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 Situational
Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 MMPI-2-RF scales NFC, ANP .24 .06 .05 7.59 2, 248 .001 -.28*, .17*
F chg Analysis
Variables entered
F test
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics
were rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
119
In examining the regression analyses including select MMPI-2-RF scales and
ratings of the situational characteristics made by judges, the results indicated the SP
scales of NFC and ANP accounted for approximately 6% of the variance; however, the
judges’ ratings of situational characteristics did not incrementally improve the prediction
of scores on the RSI-S Problem Confrontation scale. Similarly, when the situational
characteristics, as rated by judges, were entered into the first block and the select RF
scales in the second block, the same pattern of results emerged. Thus, the situational
characteristics rated by judges do not significantly predict or add incrementally to the
prediction of situational problem confrontation.
In examining situational problem analysis, the results, which are illustrated in
Table 34, demonstrated that the participant-rated situational characteristic of
confrontability incrementally contributed to the prediction of scores on the RSI-S
Problem Analysis scale, above and beyond the variance already accounted for by select
MMPI-2-RF scales. Specifically, the HPC and BRF scales collectively accounted for 5%
of the variance and confrontability, as rated by participants, accounted for an additional
2% of the variance, for a total of 7% of the variance. Conversely, when entered into the
first block of the regression analyses, two participant-rated situational characteristics,
confrontability and duration, significantly predicted the situational coping response of
problem analysis by collectively accounting for 7% of the variance. The HPC and DISC
scales also added incrementally to the prediction by accounting for an additional 2% of
the variance. Thus, confrontability and duration, as rated by participants, and the HPC
120
Table 34. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S
Problem Analysis Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1 MMPI-2-RF scales HPC, BRF .22 .05 .04 6.05 2, 246 .003 .20*, -.14*
2 Situational
Variables (P) confrontability (P) .26 .07 .06 .02 6.10 3, 245 .001 5.95 .02 .20*, -.13*, .15*
1 Situational
Variables (P)
confrontability (P),
duration (P) .21 .04 .04 5.70 2, 246 .004 .16*, .15*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales HPC, DISC .29 .09 .07 .02 5.73 4, 244 .001 4.77 .03
.16*, .14*, .15*,
.14*
1 MMPI-2-RF scales; HPC, DISC, BRF .25 .06 .05 5.39 3, 247 .001 .19*, .12*, -.13*
2 Situational
Variables (J)
problems of others
(J), intrapersonal
problems (J) .34 .11 .10 .02 6.28 5, 245 .001 5.02 .03
.21*, .12*, -.12*,
-.19*, -.14*
1 Situational
Variables (J)
problems of others (J)
.18 .03 .03 8.46 1, 249 .004 -.18*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales HPC, DISC .29 .08 .07 .02 7.28 3, 247 .001 4.60 .03 -.19*, .17*, .13*
F chg Analysis
Variables entered
F test
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics
were rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
121
and DISC scales collectively accounted for 9% of the variance in predicting scores on the
RSI-S Problem Analysis scale in the second analysis.
The results of the regression analyses incorporating the situational characteristics
rated by judges demonstrated that the HPC, DISC, and BRF scales collectively accounted
for 6% of the variance and problems of others and intrapersonal problems, as rated by
judges, accounted for an additional 5% of unique variance, for a total of 11%, in
predicting situational problem analysis. When the order of entry is reversed, the stressful
situation of problems of others emerged as the only significant situational characteristic,
as it accounted for 3% of the variance. The results also demonstrated that the HPC and
DISC scales incrementally contributed to the prediction by accounting for an additional
5% of the variance, for a total of 8%, in predicting scores on the Problem Analysis scale
of the RSI-S.
The results for the regression analyses for the RSI-S Self-Examination scale are
shown in Table 35, and they indicated that none of the participant-rated situational
characteristics significantly predicted or incrementally contributed to the prediction of the
situational coping response of self-examination, whether entered into the first or second
block of the analysis. The results demonstrated that the AXY SP scale accounted for 2%
of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Self-Examination scale.
In contrast, the results of the regression analysis examining the judges’ ratings of
situational characteristics showed that the AXY scale accounted for 2% of the variance,
and that timing, problems of others, and money problems incrementally contributed to the
prediction of scores on the Self-Examination RSI-S scale by accounting for an additional
122
Table 35. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting
RSI-S Self-Examination Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1 MMPI-2-RF scales AXY .14 .02 .02 5.11 1, 247 .03 .14*
2 Situational
Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 Situational
Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 MMPI-2-RF scales AXY .14 .02 .02 5.11 1, 247 .03 .14*
1 MMPI-2-RF scales AXY .14 .02 .02 5.18 1, 249 .02 .14*
2Situational
Variables (J)
timing (J), problems of
others (J), money
problems (J) .42 .17 .16 .02 12.97 4, 246 .001 5.21 .02
.12*, .27*, -.26*,
-.13*
1 Situational
Variables (J)
timing (J), problems of
others (J), money
problems (J),
interpersonal problems .42 .17 .16 12.89 4, 246 .001
.25*, -.24*, -.13*,
.12*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales AXY .43 .19 .17 .01 11.27 5, 245 .001 4.12 .04
.24*, -.24*, -.13*,
.12*, .12*
F chg Analysis
Variables entered
F test
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics were
rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
123
15% of the variance, for a total of 17%. A similar pattern of results was demonstrated
when the order of entry was reversed. In particular, the situational characteristics of
timing, problems with others, money problems, and interpersonal problems, as rated by
judges, collectively accounted for 17% of the variance and the AXY scale accounted for
2% of unique variance, for a total of 19%, in predicting the situational coping response of
self-examination.
The results for the regression analyses examining the results for the RSI-S Self-
Reassurance scale are displayed in Table 36. The results indicated that participant-rated
situational characteristics did not add incrementally to the prediction of scores on the
RSI-S Self-Reassurance scale and were also not independently significant. The results
further conveyed that the RC2 and RC1 scales collectively accounted for 9% of the
variance in predicting self-reassurance on the RSI-S.
Incorporating the situational characteristics, rated by judges, into the regression
analyses indicated that the RC2 and RC1 scales accounted for 9% of the variance;
however, none of the situational characteristics added incrementally to the prediction of
the situational coping response of self-reassurance. The pattern of results remained the
same when the situational characteristics were entered into the first block of the
regression analyses. Thus, the judges’ ratings of the situational characteristics did not
significantly predict or incrementally improve the prediction of scores on the RSI-S Self-
Reassurance scale.
In predicting the situational coping response of seeking advice, the regression
analyses demonstrated that the situational characteristics of duration and confrontability,
124
Table 36. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S
Self-Reassurance Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1 MMPI-2-RF scales RC2, RC1 .30 .09 .09 12.52 2, 246 .001 -.34*, .15*
2 Situational
Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 Situational
Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC2, RC1 .30 .09 .09 12.52 2, 246 .001 -.34*, .15*
1 MMPI-2-RF scales; RC2, RC1 .30 .09 .08 11.91 2, 248 .001 -.33*, .15*
2 Situational
Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 Situational
Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC2, RC1 .30 .09 .08 11.91 2, 248 .001 -.33*, .15*
F chg Analysis
Variables entered
F test
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics
were rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
125
as rated by participants, added incrementally above and beyond the variance already
accounted for by select MMPI-2-RF scales, and the results are illustrated in Table 37. In
particular, the RC9, DSF, and AXY scales collectively accounted for 9% of the variance,
and duration and confrontability accounted for 5% of unique variance, for a total of 14%,
in predicting situational seeking advice. A nearly identical pattern emerged when the
participant-rated situational characteristics were entered into the first block of the
regression analysis and the MMPI-2-RF into the second. Duration and confrontability
accounted for 5% of the variance and the RC9, DSF, and AXY scales accounted for 9%
of variance, above and beyond duration and confrontability, in predicting scores on the
RSI-S Seeking Advice scale. Thus, duration, confrontability, RC9, DSF, and AXY
collectively accounted for 14% of the variance.
The results of the regression analyses including the judge-rated situational
characteristics showed that the RC9, DSF, and AXY scales accounted for 9% of the
variance and that the situational characteristics of interpersonal problems, duration, and
breaking laws/rules accounted for an additional 5% of unique variance, for a total of for
14%, in predicting scores on the RSI-S Seeking Advice scale. However, with reversed
entry of the blocks of variables, the results illustrated that the stressful situation of
interpersonal problems accounted for 3% of the variance, and the MMPI-2-RF scales of
RC9, DSF, and AXY added incrementally to the prediction of the situational coping
response of seeking advice by accounting for an additional 8% of the variance. In sum,
interpersonal problems, as rated by judges, and the RC9, DSF, and AXY scales
collectively accounted for 11% of the variance.
126
Table 37. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S
Seeking Advice Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, DSF, AXY .30 .09 .08 7.84 3, 245 .001 .19*, -.17*, .15*
2 Situational
Variables (P)
duration (P),
confrontability (P) .38 .14 .12 .02 8.02 5, 243 .001 6.30 .01
.19*, -.18*, .17*,
.19*, .15*
1 Situational
Variables (P)
duration (P),
confrontability (P) .22 .05 .04 6.33 2, 246 .002 .18*, .14*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, DSF, AXY .38 .14 .12 .03 8.02 5, 243 .001 7.42 .01
.19*, .15*, .19*, -
.18*, .17*
1 MMPI-2-RF scales; RC9, DSF, AXY .30 .09 .08 7.84 3, 247 .001 .19*, -.17*, .15*
2 Situational
Variables (J)
interpersonal problems
(J), duration (J),
breaking rules/laws (J) .37 .14 .12 .02 6.49 6, 244 .001 4.43 .04
.20*, -.16*, .16*,
.16*, -.14*, .13*
1 Situational
Variables (J)
interpersonal problems
(J) .17 .03 .02 7.11 1, 249 .01 .17*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, DSF, AXY .33 .11 .09 .02 7.31 4, 246 .001 5.12 .02
.14*, .19*, -.15*,
.15*
F chg Analysis
Variables entered
F test
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics were
rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
127
With regard to the RSI-S Seeking Emotional Support scale, the results are
conveyed in Table 38. The results indicated that the DSF and HLP scales accounted for
6% of the variance and the participant-rated situational characteristic of duration
accounted for 3% of unique variance in predicting the seeking emotional support
situational coping response. The DSF and HLP scales, as well as duration collectively
accounted for 9% of the variance. Similarly, when entered into the first block of the
analyses, participant-rated duration accounted for 4% of the variance and the DSF and
HLP scales added incrementally to the prediction of scores on the RSI-S Seeking
Emotional Support scale by accounting for 5% of unique variance. Thus, duration, DSF,
and HLP accounted for a total of 9% of the variance.
On the other hand, the results of the regression analyses incorporating the
situational characteristics rated by judges conveyed that the DSF, HLP, and JCP scales
accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting the situational coping response of seeking
emotional support. The results also conveyed that the judges’ rating of the stressful
situation of interpersonal problems incrementally contributed an additional 3% of the
variance in the prediction. Therefore, the DSF, HLP, and JCP SP scales, as well as
interpersonal problems, accounted for a total of 10% of the variance. When entered into
the first block of the regression analyses, interpersonal problems and other problems, as
rated by judges, collectively accounted for 6% of the variance in predicting scores on the
128
Table 38. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Seeking
Emotional Support Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1 MMPI-2-RF scales DSF, HLP .24 .06 .05 7.22 2, 246 .001 -.23*, .18*
2 Situational
Variables (P) duration (P) .30 .09 .08 .04 8.18 3, 245 .001 9.60 .002 -.22*, .16*, .19*
1 Situational
Variables (P) duration (P) .20 .04 .04 10.66 1, 247 .001 .20*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales DSF, HLP .30 .09 .08 .02 8.18 3, 245 .001 5.94 .02 .19*, -.22*, .16*
1 MMPI-2-RF scales; DSF, HLP, JCP .26 .07 .06 5.91 3, 247 .001 -.21*, .18*, -.12*
2 Situational
Variables (J)
interpersonal
problems (J) .32 .10 .09 .03 6.86 4, 246 .001 9.13 .003
-.19*, .16*, -.12*,
.18*
1 Situational
Variables (J)
interpersonal
problems (J), other
problems (J) .24 .06 .05 7.79 2, 248 .001 .19*, -.13*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales DSF, HLP .31 .10 .08 .02 6.52 4, 246 .001 5.30 .02 .17*, -.10, -.18*, .15*
F chg Analysis
Variables entered
F test
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics were
rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
129
RSI-S Seeking Emotional Support scale. The results also showed that the DSF and HLP
MMPI-2-RF scales also added incrementally to the prediction by accounting for another
4% of the variance, above and beyond that already accounted for by the two types of
stressful situations. In sum, the combination of interpersonal and “other” problems, as
well as the DSF and HLP scales, accounted for a total of 10% of the variance in
predicting the situational coping response of seeking emotional support.
The results of the regression analyses predicting scores on the RSI-S Emotional
Suppression scale are illustrated in Table 39. The results of the regression analyses
illustrated that the DSF and NEGE scales collectively accounted for 13% of the variance
and the participant-rated situational characteristic of duration accounted for an additional
2% of the variance, above and beyond that already accounted for by DSF and NEGE. In
sum, DSF, NEGE, and duration, as rated by participants, accounted for a total of 15% of
the variance in predicting the situational coping response of emotional suppression. When
entered into the first block, participant-rated duration accounted for 2% of the variance,
and the DSF and NEGE scales accounted for 13% of unique variance, for a total of 15%,
in predicting scores on the RSI-S Emotional Suppression scale. Therefore, the pattern of
results is nearly identical, whether the situational characteristics, as rated by participants,
are entered into the first or second block of the analyses.
The results of the regression analyses examining the situational characteristics
rated by judges showed that the DSF and NEGE scales accounted for 13% of the variance
and the stressful situation of interpersonal problems accounted for another 5% of unique
variance, above and beyond the DSF and NEGE scales, in predicting scores on the RSI-S
130
Table 39. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S
Emotional Suppression Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1
MMPI-2-RF
scales
DSF, NEGE
.37 .13 .13 18.95 2, 246 .001 .32*, -.21*
2 Situational
Variables (P)
duration (P)
.38 .15 .14 .01 14.16 3, 245 .001 4.10 .04 .32*, -.20*, -.12*
1 Situational
Variables (P)
duration (P)
.14 .02 .01 4.55 1, 247 .03 -.14*
2
MMPI-2-RF
scales
DSF, NEGE
.38 .15 .14 .04 14.16 3, 245 .001 11.70 .001 -.12*, .32*, -.20*
1
MMPI-2-RF
scales;
DSF, NEGE
.36 .13 .12 18.07 2, 248 .001 .32*, -.20*
2 Situational
Variables (J)
interpersonal problems (J)
.42 .18 .17 .05 17.55 3, 247 .001 14.55 .001 .30*, -.20*, -.22*
1 Situational
Variables (J)
interpersonal problems (J)
.25 .06 .06 16.32 1, 249 .001 -.25*
2
MMPI-2-RF
scales
DSF, NEGE
.42 .18 .17 .04 17.55 3, 247 .001 11.40 .001 -.22*, .30*, -.20*
F chg Analysis
Variables entered
F test
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics were
rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
131
Emotional Suppression scale. The combination of the DSF and NEGE scales and
interpersonal problems collectively accounted for 18% of the variance. When the order of
entry of the independent variables was reversed, a very similar pattern of results was
demonstrated. In particular, the results illustrated that interpersonal problems, as rated by
judges, accounted for 6% of the variance, and the DSF and NEGE scales incrementally
contributed to the prediction of the situational coping response of emotional suppression
by accounting for an additional 12% of the variance, for a total of 18% of the variance.
In examining the regression analyses for the RSI-S Denial scale, the results are
displayed in Table 40, and they indicated that the participant-rated situational
characteristics did not significantly predict the situational coping response of denial,
whether entered into the first or second block of the regression analyses. However, the
RC7, RC6, and SAV scales collectively accounted for 22% of the variance in predicting
scores on the RSI-S Denial scale.
The results of the regression analyses incorporating the situational characteristics
rated by judges conveyed that the RC7, RC6, and SAV scales accounted for 22% of the
variance and the stressful situation of health concerns, as well as timing, incrementally
contributed 4% of the variance, for a total of 26% of the variance, in predicting
situational denial. Similarly, when entered into the first block of the regression analyses,
the results demonstrated that the situational characteristic of timing and health concerns,
as rated by judges, accounted for 4% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S
Denial scale. The results also indicated that the MMPI-2-RF scales of RC7, RC6, and
SAV incrementally contributed to the prediction by accounting for an additional 22% of
132
Table 40. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S
Denial Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1 MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, RC6, SAV .46 .22 .21 22.36 3, 245 .001 .31*, .22*, -.15*
2 Situational
Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 Situational
Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, RC6, SAV .46 .22 .21 22.36 3, 245 .001 .31*, .22*, -.15*
1
MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, RC6, SAV .47 .22 .21 22.80 3, 47 .001 .32*, .22*, -.14*
2 Situational
Variables (J) health concerns (J), timing (J) .50 .26 .24 .01 16.73 5, 245 .001 4.24 .04
.33*, .21*, -.14*,
.17*, .12*
1 Situational
Variables (J) timing (J), health concerns (J) .20 .04 .03 5.29 2, 248 .01 .16*, .14*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, RC6, SAV .50 .26 .24 .02 16.73 5, 245 .001 6.22 .01
.12*, .17*, .33*,
.21*, -.14*
F chg Analysis
Variables entered
F test
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by
judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
133
the variance. Thus, the combination of timing and health concerns, as rated by judges,
and the RC7, RC6, and SAV scales accounted for a total of 26% of the variance in
predicting the situational coping response of denial.
The results for predicting scores on the RSI-S Fantasizing scale are shown in
Table 41. The results indicated that RC7, SAV, RC6, DISC, MLS, and RC2 collectively
accounted for 24% of the variance; however, none of the situational characteristics, as
rated by participants, added incrementally to the variance already accounted for by select
MMPI-2-RF scales. Similarly, when entered into the first block of the regression
analyses, the participant-rated situational characteristics do not significantly predict the
situational coping response of fantasizing, and the pattern of results with regard to the
MMPI-2-RF scales remained unchanged.
Regarding the analyses including the situational characteristics rated by judges,
the RC7, SAV, RC6, DISC, MLS, and RC2 scales accounted for 24% of the variance and
confrontability accounted for 2% of variance incrementally, for a total of 26%, in
predicting scores on the RSI-S Fantasizing scale. A somewhat different pattern of results
was present when the order of entry of the independent variables was reversed. In
particular, the results demonstrated that the judges’ situational ratings of confrontability,
important decisions, and job stress accounted for 8% of the variance when entered into
the first block of the regression analyses. The results also showed that the MMPI-2-RF
scales of RC7, RC6, MLS, RC2, and DISC incrementally contributed 20% of the
variance, for a total of 28% of the variance, in predicting the situational coping response
of fantasizing.
134
Table 41. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S
Fantasizing Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1
MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, SAV, RC6,
DISC, MLS, RC2 .49 .24 .22 12.87 6, 241 .001
.28*, -.11, .22*, -.15*,
.25*, -.22*
2
situational
characteristics (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1
situational
characteristics (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2
MMPI-2-RF scales RC7, SAV, RC6,
DISC, MLS, RC2 .49 .24 .22 12.87 6, 241 .001
.28*, -.11, .22*, -.15*,
.25*, -.22*
1
MMPI-2-RF scales; RC7, SAV, RC6,
DISC, MLS, RC2 .49 .24 .22 12.52 6, 243 .001
.28*, -.12, .21*, -.15*,
.25*, -.23*
2
situational
characteristics (J) confrontability (J) .51 .26 .24 .03 12.32 7, 242 .001 8.73 .003
.28*, -.12, .20*, -.16*,
.24*, -.20*, .17*
1
situational
characteristics (J)
confrontability (J),
important decisions
(J), job stress (J) .28 .08 .07 6.75 3, 246 .001 .15*, -.17*, -.13*
2
MMPI-2-RF scales
RC7, RC6, MLS,
RC2, DISC .53 .28 .26 .02 11.76 8, 241 .001 6.14 .01
.14*, -.12*, -.13*, .26*,
.19*, .25*, -.25*, -.14*
Variables entered
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics were
rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
135
With regard to the RSI-S Avoidance scale, the results are conveyed in Table 42.
The results illustrated that the RC9, SHY, and INTR scales collectively accounted for 6%
of the variance and duration, as rated by participants, accounted for an additional 5% of
unique variance in predicting the coping response of situational avoidance. The
combination of RC9, SHY, INTR, and participant-rated duration accounted for a total of
11% of the variance. A similar pattern of results was demonstrated when the participant-
rated situational characteristics were entered into the first block of the regression
analyses. Specifically, duration accounted for 3% of the variance and the RC9, SHY, and
INTR scales added incrementally to the prediction of scores on the RSI-S Avoidance
scale by accounting for another 8% of the variance, for a total of 11%.
The results of the regression analyses also illustrated that the RC9, SHY and
INTR scales accounted for 9% of the variance and the situational characteristics, as rated
by judges, did not incrementally contribute to the prediction of scores on the RSI-S
Avoidance scale. When the blocks of independent variables were reversed, the results of
the regression analyses were identical, as they demonstrated that the RC9, SHY, and
INTR MMPI-2-RF scales accounted for 9% of the variance in predicting scores on the
RSI-S Avoidance scale.
136
Table 42. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S
Avoidance Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, SHY, INTR .30 .09 .08 8.04 3, 245 .001 .10, .25*, -.23*
2 Situational
Variables (P) duration (P) .33 .11 .09 .02 7.36 4, 244 .001 4.95 .03 .11, .23*, -.21*, .14*
1 Situational
Variables (P) duration (P) .16 .03 .02 6.61 1, 247 .01 .16*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, SHY, INTR .33 .11 .09 .03 7.36 4, 244 .001 8.15 .01 .14*, .11, .23*, -.21*
1 MMPI-2-RF scales; RC9, SHY, INTR .30 .09 .08 7.99 3, 247 .001 .11, .25*, -.21*
2 Situational
Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 Situational
Variables (J) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 MMPI-2-RF scales RC9, SHY, INTR .30 .09 .08 7.99 3, 247 .001 .11, .25*, -.21*
Variables entered
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics were
rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
137
The regression analyses exploring the situational coping response of passive
acceptance are displayed in Table 43. The results indicated that the INTR, PSYC, and
JCP scales collectively accounted for 7% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-
S Passive Acceptance scale. However, the results also demonstrated that none of the
participant-rated situational characteristics added incrementally to the prediction, beyond
the select MMPI-2-RF scales. The same pattern of results was demonstrated when the
situational characteristics, as rated by participants, were entered into the first block of the
regression analyses. Thus, the situational characteristics did not significantly predict or
add incrementally to the prediction of situational passive acceptance.
In examining the situational characteristics, as rated by judges, the results
conveyed that the MMPI-2-RF scales of PSYC, INTR, and JCP accounted for 7% of the
variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Passive Acceptance scale and the stressful
situations of “other” problems and job stress added incrementally to the prediction by
accounting for 4% of the variance. The combination of PSYC, INTR, JCP, “other”
problems and job stress, collectively accounted for 11% of the variance. Furthermore,
when entered into the first block, the stressful situations of “other” problems and job
stress, as rated by judges, accounted for 4% of the variance, and select MMPI-2-RF
scales, including INTR, PSYC, and JCP, accounted for an additional 7% of the
variance above and beyond that accounted for by the types of stressful situations, for a
total of 11%, in predicting the situational coping response of passive acceptance.
138
Table 43. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S Passive
Acceptance Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1 MMPI-2-RF scales INTR, PSYC, JCP .27 .07 .06 6.57 3, 245 .001 -.19*, .20*, -.14*
2 Situational
Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 Situational
Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 MMPI-2-RF scales INTR, PSYC, JCP .27 .07 .06 6.57 3, 245 .001 -.19*, .20*, -.14*
1 MMPI-2-RF scales; PSYC, INTR, JCP .27 .07 .06 6.25 3, 247 .001 .21*, -.18*, -.13*
2 Situational
Variables (J)
other problems (J),
job stress (J) .33 .11 .09 .02 5.89 5, 245 .001 4.94 .03
.20*, -.19*, -.13*,
.15*, .14*
1 Situational
Variables (J)
other problems (J),
job stress (J) .19 .04 .03 4.49 2, 248 .01 .14*, .14*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales INTR, PSYC, JCP .33 .11 .09 .02 5.89 5, 245 .001 4.59 .03
.15*, .14*, -.19*,
.20*, -.13*
F chg Analysis
Variables entered
F test
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics were
rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
139
In examining scores on the RSI-S Minimization scale, the results, which are
shown in Table 44, demonstrated that a single MMPI-2-RF scale, namely IPP, accounted
for 2% of the variance. However, the participant-rated situational characteristics did not
add incrementally to the prediction the situational coping response of minimization.
When entered into the first block of the regression analyses, the same pattern emerges,
which indicated that the situational characteristics, as rated by participants, do not add
incrementally to or significantly predict scores on the RSI-S Minimization scale.
The results of the regression analyses incorporating the situational characteristics,
as rated by judges, showed that the IPP scale accounted for 2% of the variance and the
stressful situation of job stress accounted for 2% of unique variance, for a total of 4%, in
predicting scores on the RSI-S Minimization scale. The results further indicated that the
stressful situation of job stress accounted for 2% of the variance, when entered into the
first block of the regression analyses, and the IPP scale accounted for 2% of the variance,
above and beyond that accounted for by job stress. In sum, the stressful situation of job
stress and the IPP scale collectively accounted for 4% of the variance in predicting the
situational coping response of minimization, regardless of the order the variables were
entered into the regression analyses.
140
Table 44. Results of Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting RSI-S
Minimization Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1 MMPI-2-RF scales IPP .13 .02 .01 4.22 1, 247 .04 .13*
2 Situational
Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 Situational
Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 MMPI-2-RF scales IPP .13 .02 .01 4.22 1, 247 .04 .13*
1 MMPI-2-RF scales; IPP .13 .02 .01 4.56 1, 249 .03 .13*
2 Situational
Variables (J) job stress (J) .20 .04 .03 .02 5.12 2, 248 .01 5.60 .02 .13*, .15*
1 Situational
Variables (J) job stress (J) .16 .02 .02 6.17 1, 249 .01 .16*
2 MMPI-2-RF scales IPP .20 .04 .03 .02 5.12 2, 248 .01 3.99 .05 .15*, .13*
F chg Analysis
Variables entered
F test
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics
were rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
141
The results of the regression analyses exploring situational over-reaction are
illustrated in Table 45. The results indicated that the RCd, NEGE, and EID scales
collectively accounted for 18% of the variance and the participant-rated duration
accounted for 1% of unique variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S Over-Reaction
scale. In sum, the RCd, NEGE, and EID scales, as well as duration, collectively
accounted for 19% of the variance. Additionally, the results indicated that the participant-
rated situational characteristics did not significantly predict scores on the RSI-S Over-
Reaction scale when entered into the first block of the regression analyses. Furthermore,
the same pattern of results emerged with regard to the MMPI-2-RF scales, as the RCd,
NEGE, and EID scales accounted for 18% of the variance.
The results further illustrated that the scales of RCd, NEGE, and EID accounted
for 18% of the variance in predicting the situational coping response of over-reaction, and
confrontability and the stressful situations of money and sex-related problems, as rated by
judges, added incrementally to the prediction by accounting for 4% of unique variance,
for a total of 22% of the variance. However, a different pattern of results emerged when
the order of entry of the independent variables was reversed. In particular, the results
showed that the stressful situations of significant life changes and interpersonal problems,
as rated by judges, significantly predicted scores on the RSI-S Over-Reaction scale by
accounting for 5% of the variance. The RCd, NEGE, and EID scales also accounted for
15% of the variance, above and beyond that accounted for by the two types of stressful
situations, for a total of 20%, in predicting the situational coping response of over-
reaction.
142
Table 45. Results of Linear Regression Analyses for MMPI-2-RF Scales and Situational Characteristics in Predicting
RSI-S Over-Reaction Scores
Block R R² R² adj R² chg F df p< F chg p< β
1 MMPI-2-RF scales RCd, NEGE, EID .42 .18 .17 17.55 3, 245 .001 .46*, .28*, -.31*
2 Situational
Variables (P) duration (P) .44 .19 .18 .02 14.50 4, 244 .001 4.59 .03
.46*, .28*, -.30*,
-.12*
1 Situational
Variables (P) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 MMPI-2-RF scales RCd, NEGE, EID .42 .18 .17 17.55 3, 245 .001 .46*, .28*, -.31*
1
MMPI-2-RF scales; RCd, NEGE, EID .42 .18 .17 17.69 3, 247 .001 .47*, .27*, -.31*
2 Situational
Variables (J)
confrontability (J),
money problems (J),
sex-related issues (J) .47 .22 .21 .02 11.75 6, 244 .001 4.85 .03
.47*, .29*, -.35*,
-.14*, -.13*, -.13*
1 Situational
Variables (J)
significant life changes
(J), interpersonal
problems (J) .21 .05 .04 5.78 2, 248 .004 .21*, .16*
2
MMPI-2-RF scales RCd, NEGE, EID .45 .20 .19 .01 12.57 5, 245 .001 4.26 .04
.17*, .12, .47*,
.26*, -.32*
F chg Analysis
Variables entered
F test
Note: (P) indicates the situational characteristics were rated by participants; (J) indicates the situational characteristics were
rated by judges; * indicates the beta weight was statistically significant at p ≤ .05.
143
Although none of the H-O, RC, SP, or PSY-5 scales were previously
demonstrated to significantly predict scores on the RSI-S Spirituality scale, regression
analyses were conducted to explore whether the situational characteristics, as rated by
participants and judges, were significantly associated with the situational coping response
of spirituality. The results of the analyses indicated that the situational characteristics,
whether rated by participants or judges, did not significantly predict or incrementally
improve the prediction of scores on the RSI-S Spirituality scale.
In conclusion, incorporating the situational variables into the regression analyses
significantly improved the prediction of situational coping responses. In particular,
adding the situational variables to the analyses accounted for additional variance and
improved the prediction of scores on all of the RSI-S scales, beyond the variance
accounted for by the personality and psychopathology constructs. However, the
situational Self-Reassurance and Spirituality scales were the exceptions to the general
pattern, as none of the situational variables improved the prediction of scores on these
scales. It should be noted that none of the MMPI-2-RF scales significantly predicted
situational spirituality, as demonstrated by the initial set of regression analyses conducted
to address research question # 4. Furthermore, situational variables rated by both
participants and judges improved the prediction of five of the RSI-S scales, including
Problem Analysis, Seeking Advice, Seeking Emotional Support, Emotional Suppression,
and Over-Reaction. Participant ratings of the stressful situation improved the prediction
of scores on the Problem Confrontation and Avoidance RSI-S scales, but incorporating
the judges’ ratings of the situational variables did not add significantly to the prediction
144
of scores. Also, the judges’ ratings of the situational variables added significantly in
predicting scores on the Self-Examination, Denial, Fantasizing, Passive Acceptance, and
Minimization RSI-S scales; while, the participant ratings did not significantly improve
the prediction. The pattern of results also indicated that judges’ classifications of the
types of stressful situations were the most salient situational variables, as compared to the
confrontability, timing, or duration of the situation, with regard to improving the
prediction of situational coping responses.
(6) Are personality and psychopathology constructs, as assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF, differentially associated with the dispositional coping
assessed by the RSI-D versus the situational coping assessed the RSI-S?
A Fisher’s r-to-z transformation was applied to each of the statistically significant
correlations that were previously calculated to address the first and third research
questions. Then, the Fisher z statistics for dispositional coping and the Fisher z statistics
for situational coping were compared using a z-test (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2008). Table
46 provides the results of the z-tests. Due to the large number of tests conducted, a
Bonferroni correction was applied, and the level of statistical significance required for
interpretation was set at .001 (i.e., .05/42).
The results of many of the z-tests were statistically significant, but only two z
statistics reached the more stringent statistical significance level required for
interpretation. Specifically, the results demonstrated that dispositional Problem
Confrontation scale was preferentially associated with the MMPI-2-RF AXY scale, as
compared to the situational Problem Confrontation scale. In addition, the results showed
145
Table 46. Results of Z-Tests comparing RSI-D and RSI-S Z-Scores by MMPI-2-RF Scale
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
H-O Scales
EID -1.88* -- 2.29** -1.74* -- -- -- -.22 .90 1.13 -- -- 1.17 --
THD -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.11 -.11 1.77* -- -- -.72 --
BXD -- -- -- -- -- -1.02 -- -- -- -- -2.57**
RC Scales
RCd -1.98* -- 1.23 -2.14* -- -- -- -.33 .11 1.13 -- -- -.12 --
RC1 -2.42** -- 1.95* -- -- -- -- -.11 -.11 2.16** -- -- -.32 --
RC2 -- -- 2.96** -.55 -- -- -- -- 1.23 -- -- -- 1.38 --
RC3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.40 .95 230** 1.33 -- .53 --
RC4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.12* -- -- -- -1.83*
RC6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.57 -.22 .64 -- -- -1.59 --
RC7 -1.95* -- 1.12 -1.33 -- -- -- -.12 .35 1.58 -- -- .81 --
RC8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .65 .21 1.98* -- -- .10 --
RC9 -- -- -- -- -1.93* -- -- .31 -1.02 -.31 -- -- -1.74* --
SP Scales
Somatic Scales
MLS -2.26** -- -- -1.86* -- -- -- .11 -.22 .83 -- -- -.21 --
GIC -2.82** -- -- -- -- -- -- .63 1.91* 2.35** -- -- .62 --
HPC -- -1.71* -- -- -1.91 -- -- -.92 -.63 -- -- -- .10 --
NUC -2.12* -- 1.72* -- -- -- -- .42 -.11 2.33* -- -- -1.04 --
COG -1.66* -- -- -- -- -- -- .88 1.17 1.24 -- -- .21 --
Z Statistics
* = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .1; *** = p ≤ .001; Bold = preferential association with RSI-D
147
146
Table 46. (Continued)
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
SUI -- -- -- -2.25** -- -- -- -2.25** .10 -- -- -- .72 --
HLP .10 -- -- .00 -- -- -- -.21 -.21 -- -- -- .32 --
SFD -1.88* -1.62* 2.12** -1.49 -- -- -- -.63 .65 -- -- -- .56 --
NFC -1.17 -- 1.94* -1.74* -- -- -- .48 1.38 1.58 1.02 -- 1.26 --
STW -1.52 -- 1.12 -1.83* -- -- -- -1.18 -.44 .62 -- -- 1.72* --
AXY -3.09*** -- 1.25 -2.03* -- -- -- -.22 1.00 2.29** -- -- .44 --
ANP -2.64** -3.22*** -- -1.02 -- -- -- .33 -.43 1.74* -- -- .11 --
BRF -- -- 1.92* -- -- -- -- 1.14 1.91* -- -- -- -- --
MSF .10 -- -- -- -- -- -- .94 1.84* -- -- -- -- .72
JCP -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
SUB -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -2.71**
AGG -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.31 -.41 -- -- -- -.72 --
ACT -- -- -- -- .21 -- -.82 1.66* -.21 -- -- -- -.10 --
FML -2.49** -- -- -.82 -- -- -- .93 2.36** 1.87* -- -- 1.28 --
IPP -1.02 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.02 --
SAV -- 2.56** 3.06** 1.22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
SHY -- -- -- -1.56 -- -- -- .62 1.56 -- -- -- 2.72** --
DSF -- -- -- -- -.92 -1.70* -1.02 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PSY-5 Scales
AGGR-r -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PSYC-r -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.23 .00 1.36 .00 -- -.21 --
DISC-r -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -2.60**
NEGE-r -1.63* -- 1.13 -1.43 -- -- -- -.12 .11 1.36 -- -- 1.09 --
INTR-R -- -- 3.06** .21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
* = p ≤ .05; ** = p ≤ .1; *** = p ≤ .001; Bold = preferential association with RSI-D
Externalizing Scales
Interpersonal Scales
Internalizing Scales
147
a statistically significant z statistic when the dispositional and situational Problem
Analysis scales and their respective associations with the MMPI-2-RF ANP scale were
compared. Specifically, the results illustrated that the Problem Analysis RSI-D scale was
preferentially associated with the ANP scale of the MMPI-2-RF. The results also
indicated that the situational RSI scales were not preferentially associated with any of the
MMPI-2-RF scales at the statistical significance level required for interpretation.
As a supplemental analysis, those z statistics that were statistically significant at p
≤ .05 were also examined and the results demonstrated that 56 z statistics were
statistically significant. The results also showed that 53 of the z-tests indicated that select
MMPI-2-RF scales were preferentially associated with dispositional coping scales of the
RSI-D; while, only three of the z-tests demonstrated preferential associations between
select MMPI-2-RF scales and situational coping, as assessed by the RSI-S. Therefore, the
overall pattern of results suggests that dispositional coping is preferentially associated
with the personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales,
as compared to situational coping.
148
DISCUSSION
The overall purpose of this study was to explore univariate and multivariate
associations between personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF scales, and dispositional and situational coping, measured by the RSI-D and
RSI-S scales. Coping research to date has largely focused the Five Factor Model (FFM)
for conceptualizing and measuring personality constructs. The coping literature has
examined only a limited group of psychopathology constructs (e.g., distress) or particular
psychological disorders (e.g., PTSD). The MMPI-2-RF was used in this study because it
assesses a broad range of personality and psychopathology constructs. Furthermore,
psychometric limitations have been identified with several of the instruments most
commonly used in coping research (e.g., the COPE). To address these limitations, the
RSI-D and RSI-S scales were incorporated in this study, as these instruments include
validity scales to address the test taker’s approach to completing the instrument and the
coping scales have also demonstrated adequate reliability. Thus, the study aimed to
further investigate personality and psychopathology constructs and situational and
dispositional coping, while also utilizing broader and more psychometrically sound
instruments.
149
Research Questions and Findings
(1) Which personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF, are associated with the dispositional coping styles assessed
by the RSI?
Five research questions were generated and examined to explore the associations
between personality and psychopathology constructs and dispositional and situational
coping. The first research question aimed to determine which personality and
psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF, were associated with the
dispositional coping styles assessed by the RIS-D. Correlational analyses were conducted
to address this research question. Table 47 summarizes the hypotheses that were
supported by the results of this study. Overall, the results are consistent with previous
research, which indicated that dispositional coping responses are strongly associated with
personality traits, such as those contained within the FFM and the PSY-5 model of
personality (McWilliams, Cox, & Enns, 2003; Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-Leger,
2004; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Windover, 2001). In this study, dispositional
coping responses were also significantly associated with various symptoms of
psychopathology, which also parallels previous research (Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski,
1996; Vollrath, Alanes, & Torgersen, 1996; Punamaki, et. al, 2008; Haisch & Meyers,
2004; Segal, et. al, 2001).
In particular, three of types of dispositional coping, denial, fantasizing, and over-
reaction were significantly associated with a large number of constructs assessed by
several sets of MMPI-2-RF scales, including the EID, THD, and BXD scale hierarchies,
150
Table 47. Supported Hypotheses about Associations Between the MMPI-2-RF Scales
and Dispositional Coping.
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
H-O Scales
EID * * * − * − *
THD * * −
BXD −
RC Scales
RCd * − * − * − *
RC1 − − − − − −
RC2 − − * − *
RC3 − * − * − −
RC4 − −
RC6 * * −
RC7 − − − * * * *
RC8 * − −
RC9 −
SP Scales
Somatic Scales
MLS − − − − − −
GIC − − * − −
HPC −
NUC − − − −
COG − * * − −
Internalizing
Scales
SUI − −
HLP − − −
SFD * − * − * *
NFC * − − * * * − *
STW − − − − − − *
AXY * − − * * * *
ANP − − * − − −
BRF − − *
MSF − *
Note: * = hypothesis that was supported; − = partially supported hypothesis (ES ≥ .2); PC =
Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-
Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional
Suppression; D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance;
MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.
RSI-D Scales
151
Table 47 (Continued)
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
Externalizing
Scales
JCP
SUB *
AGG
ACT −
Interpersonal
Scales
FML * − − * − *
IPP − −
SAV − −
SHY − − − *
DSF − * *
PSY-5 Scales
AGGR-r
PSYC-r * * −
DISC-r *
NEGE-r − − − * * − *
INTR-R − −
Note: * = hypothesis that was supported; − = partially supported hypothesis (ES ≥ .2); PC =
Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-
Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES = Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional
Suppression; D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV = Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance;
MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR = Spirituality.
RSI-D Scales
152
as well as somatic and interpersonal scales. These findings provide support for a large
number of the proposed hypotheses and represent the strongest pattern of correlational
results in this investigation. Although a few of the hypotheses were not fully supported,
many of the remaining correlations approached a medium effect size. Interpretation of the
results suggested that emotional/internalizing difficulties and problems with disordered
thinking were more strongly linked to coping with stress across situations by denying the
existence of the stressor, pretending the stressor will simply disappear, and becoming
overly distressed. Somatic and interpersonal problems, as well as behavioral/
externalizing difficulties, were also significantly associated with dispositional denial,
fantasizing, and over-reaction, but to a lesser degree than emotional/internalizing and
thought dysfunction problems.
These results parallel prior research, as dispositional coping responses aimed at
distracting oneself from the stressors or denying the existence of the stressors were also
associated with select personality traits, such as FFM Neuroticism, as well as PSY-5
Psychoticism and Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart,
2007; Windover, 2001). These findings are also consistent with previous research that
demonstrated significant associations between dispositional behavioral and mental
disengagement, denial, and distraction and symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) and depression, which were assessed by the emotional/internalizing MMPI-2-RF
scales in this study (Haisch & Meyers, 2004; Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996;
Vollrath, Anales, & Torgersen, 1996). Previous research also illustrated associations
between dispositional distraction and disengagement and thought and delusional
153
disorders, as well as Cluster A and B Personality Disorder symptoms (Vollrath, Anales,
& Torgersen, 1996; Segal et. al, 2001). Thus, the finding that emotional/internalizing,
thought dysfunction, and behavioral/externalizing difficulties are associated with
dispositional denial and disengagement are consistent with prior research. However, this
study also found that somatic complaints are associated with dispositional denial and
disengagement, which suggests that somatoform psychopathology may also be related
with dispositional coping responses.
Significant associations were also present between two types of dispositional
coping, problem confrontation and avoidance, and constructs measured by the several
scales from the EID hierarchy, as well as the interpersonal scales, and these findings were
also consistent with the proposed hypotheses. It should be noted that emotional/
internalizing difficulties and interpersonal problems were inversely associated with
dispositional problem confrontation and positively associated with dispositional
avoidance. Although several of the hypotheses were not fully supported because several
associations did not reach a medium effect size, the overall pattern of findings was
consistent with the results just described. It should also be noted that two small
magnitude correlations were found between constructs assessed by the THD scale set and
dispositional avoidance; however, the hypotheses regarding associations between the
constructs assessed by the BXD and THD scale sets and dispositional problem
confrontation were not supported. Thus, emotional/internalizing difficulties, but not
behavioral/externalizing and thought dysfunction difficulties and somatic complaints,
were strongly linked to dispositional problem confrontation and avoidance.
154
The findings in this study are congruent with previous research, as the personality
traits of FFM Neuroticism and PSY-5 Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism were
negatively associated with dispositional coping focused on problem solving and
positively associated with dispositional avoidance (Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-
Leger, 2004; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Windover, 2001). These results are also
consistent with previous research that found that dispositional coping focused on problem
solving or taking direct action to address the stressor was associated with overall lower
levels of psychopathology and fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety (McWilliams,
Cox, & Enns, 2003; Vollrath, Alanes, & Torgersen, 1996; Flett, Blankstein, &
Obertynski, 1996). Similarly, dispositional avoidance was previously demonstrated to be
associated with symptoms of PTSD, depression, and Cluster A and B Personality
Disorders, and that research parallels the results of this study (Haisch & Meyers, 2004;
Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996; Segal, Hook, & Coolidge, 2001). Therefore, the
patterns of emotional/internalizing difficulties being negatively associated with
dispositional coping focused on addressing the stressor or problem-solving, as well as
emotional/internalizing and behavioral/externalizing problems being positively associated
with dispositional avoidance, are consistent across studies. However, it should also be
noted that the results of this study expand previous research, as constructs linked to
interpersonal functioning were also found to significantly predict dispositional problem
confrontation and avoidance, and such associations have not yet been demonstrated in the
existing coping literature.
155
Although the hypotheses for the RSI-D Problem Analysis scale were not fully
supported in this study, the overall pattern of results was consistent with that of the
problem confrontation scale just discussed. In particular, several significant inverse
associations were found with personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the
EID hierarchy of scales, as well as interpersonal scales, but these associations were small
in magnitude. The findings may suggest that emotional/internalizing difficulties are
associated with a decreased likelihood of coping by employing solution-focused
strategies, such as generating potential options for responding to the stressor, and this
general notion is consistent with previous research.
Similarly, the hypothesized associations between dispositional passive acceptance
and constructs measured by the EID and interpersonal scales were not fully supported.
However, dispositional passive acceptance was linked to personality and
psychopathology constructs contained within the EID and interpersonal scale sets, similar
to the results for dispositional problem confrontation, avoidance, and problem analysis.
Specifically, two noteworthy associations were present between such constructs and
dispositional passive acceptance, but they were small in magnitude. Personality and
psychopathology constructs measured by one EID scale, NFC, and one interpersonal
scale, RC3, were associated with the dispositional coping response of passive acceptance.
The findings may indicate that beliefs about being indecisive and distrusting others, as
well as having a generally low opinion of them, is linked to coping with stressful
situations by accepting the stressors without attempting to resolve them.
156
Only one study to date examined associations between dispositional passive
acceptance and personality constructs. The results of Windover’s (2001) research found
that passive acceptance was not associated with any of the PSY-5 personality constructs,
but was rather inversely associated with a broad disposition to experience positive
emotions. Therefore, the findings from this study are consistent with Windover’s (2001)
investigation. This suggests that, across situations, individuals who experience
emotional/internalizing difficulties, such as anxiety, fear, and anhedonia, may be less
likely to accept stressors without making any effort to address the stressors.
Several other types of dispositional coping, namely self-examination and self-
reassurance, demonstrated significant associations with constructs assessed by the EID
hierarchy of scales, as anticipated. More specifically, positive associations were found
between personality and psychopathology constructs and dispositional self-examination;
however, inverse associations were identified between these constructs and dispositional
self-reassurance. Several of the remaining hypotheses were not fully supported, as the
correlations did not reach a medium effect size. Regardless, the overall pattern of results
indicated that associations were strongest between many of the constructs assessed by the
EID scale set and the dispositional coping responses of self-examination and self-
reassurance. Indeed, significant associations were not present between the dispositional
coping responses and personality and psychopathology constructs contained within the
THD and BXD scale hierarchies, contrary to the proposed hypotheses. These findings
suggest that the presence of emotional/internalizing problems means individuals may be
more inclined to cope with stressful situations by exploring their role in the creation of
157
the stressor and be less inclined to reassure themselves about their ability to cope with
stress.
The findings in this study are congruent with previous research, which illustrated
that the personality trait of Extraversion was positively associated with dispositional
coping focused on cognitive restructuring (e.g., dispositional self-reassurance), but
Neuroticism was negatively associated with dispositional cognitive restructuring
(Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). Windover’s (2001) study also demonstrated that
PSY-5 Introversion and Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism were negatively associated
with dispositional self-reassurance, and Introversion was also positively associated with
dispositional self-examination. Similar associations were found here, with the addition of
a positive association between Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism and dispositional self-
examination. However, regarding psychopathology, previous research has not
specifically explored the relation between psychopathology constructs and dispositional
coping focused on exploring one’s own role in the creation of the stressor or by
reassuring oneself about their ability to handle the stressor. The results of this study
indicate that coping by examining one’s role in the creation of the stressor across stressful
situations may be linked to experiencing emotional/internalizing problems, such as
anxiety and depression; while, reassuring oneself about their ability to handle stressors is
inversely associated with emotional/internalizing problems.
Only one type of dispositional coping, spirituality, was significantly predicted by
personality and psychopathology constructs contained within the BXD hierarchy. In
particular, inverse associations were found between constructs assessed by several of the
158
BXD scales and the dispositional coping response of spirituality. Several other significant
associations were found between constructs contained within the BXD MMPI-2-RF
scales and dispositional spirituality, but they were of a small effect size. None of the
proposed hypotheses predicting significant associations between personality and
psychopathology constructs, assessed by the EID and THD scale hierarchies, and
dispositional spirituality were supported. The findings indicate there is likely a stronger
inverse link between externalizing and behavioral difficulties and coping with stress by
relying on spiritual beliefs compared to internalizing/emotional difficulties and problems
with thought dysfunction.
Fewer studies have examined dispositional coping responses focused on using
religion to deal with stressful situations and personality and psychopathology constructs.
A study by Windover (2001) demonstrated that dispositional religious-based coping was
associated inversely with PSY-5 Disconstraint, and that finding was replicated with the
revised PSY-5 DISC-r scale in this study. This suggests that exhibiting problematic
behavior may decrease the likelihood that an individual will turn to spiritually-based
resources to cope with stress across stressful situations. Thus, the results of this study are
important, as they explored a coping response (i.e., spirituality) that has been largely
under researched by the existing coping studies.
The dispositional coping responses of seeking emotional support and emotional
suppression were significantly predicted by personality and psychopathology constructs
assessed by the interpersonal scales, which are linked to emotional/internalizing
difficulties. In particular, a single interpersonal scale, DSF, was inversely associated with
159
dispositional seeking emotional support and positively associated with dispositional
emotional suppression. Although this particular finding was consistent with the proposed
hypotheses, several of the other hypotheses were not supported. For example, inverse
associations were anticipated between personality and psychopathology constructs,
assessed by the BXD scale hierarchy, as well as THD and other EID scales, and
dispositional seeking emotional support. Similarly, positive associations were also
anticipated between constructs, assessed by the BXD and THD scale hierarchies, as well
as other EID scales, and the dispositional coping strategy of emotional suppression.
Therefore, the findings suggest that coping with stress across situations by seeking
comfort from others and suppressing one’s emotional reactions to stressors may be more
strongly linked to interpersonal factors, such as an individual’s view of others, as
opposed to symptoms of psychopathology.
The results of this study demonstrated fewer associations with dispositional
coping responses focused on addressing negative emotions, compared to the findings of
previous research. In particular, previous research demonstrated significant associations
between dispositional coping aimed at reducing or addressing negative emotions and
personality constructs, such as FFM Neuroticism and Extraversion (Connor-Smith and
Flachsbart, 2007; Jang et. al, 2007). Previous research also demonstrated associations to
be present between dispositional emotion-focused coping and increased levels of
psychopathology (McWilliams, Cox, & Enns, 2003; Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski,
1996), as well as increased symptoms of PTSD (Haisch & Meyers, 2004), depression
(Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996), anxiety, somatoform, and thought disorders
160
(Vollrath, Anales, & Torgersen, 1996). However, the findings in this study suggest
dispositional emotion-focused coping responses are more strongly linked to interpersonal
relationships, particularly disliking others. Therefore, these findings expand upon
previous research, as interpersonal factors and their impact on coping responses has been
largely ignored in the existing literature. One explanation for these findings is that
interpersonal factors may mediate the links between personality and psychopathology and
dispositional seeking emotional support and emotional suppression.
The dispositional coping response of seeking advice had few significant
associations with personality and psychopathology constructs. Although many of the
hypotheses generated for dispositional seeking advice were not fully supported, at least
one of the associations was conceptually similar to the associations present for
dispositional seeking emotional support and dispositional emotional suppression. In
particular, two noteworthy correlations were present, one with a behavioral/externalizing
dysfunction construct, assessed by the ACT scale, and another with interpersonal
constructs, measured by the DSF scale. These findings indicated that dispositional coping
by seeking input from others regarding how to respond to stressors may be positively
associated with heightened excitation and energy and negatively associated with disliking
people and being around them. Thus, having increased energy may motivate an
individual to seek input from others about how to address stressors. The association
between dispositional seeking advice and disliking others is consistent with the
dispositional seeking emotional support and emotional suppression scales just discussed,
as people who dislike others are not likely to seek their input from others when faced
161
with a stressful situation. Therefore, although not linked to previous research, these
findings are consistent with other associations with dispositional coping from this study
and they likely expand upon the existing coping literature, as interpersonal difficulties
have been largely ignored in coping research to date.
Finally, the dispositional coping response of minimization did not demonstrate
any significant associations with personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by
the MMPI-2-RF scales. Therefore, the hypothesized associations were largely
unsupported for dispositional minimization. This result is consistent with one study that
also demonstrated dispositional minimization was not significantly associated with
personality constructs (Windover, 2001). Therefore, the findings suggest personality and
psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, may not be strongly
linked to coping with stress across situations by attempting to minimize the significance
of stressors.
Summary. In conclusion, several types of dispositional coping responses
measured by the RSI-D scales were significantly predicted by constructs assessed by the
EID, THD, BXD, somatic, and interpersonal scale sets. The remaining types of
dispositional coping were associated were with fewer sets of constructs, typically two. In
particular, dispositional coping responses were most often associated with constructs
assessed by the EID scale hierarchy. Similarly, personality and psychopathology
constructs contained within the interpersonal scales were also frequently associated with
many of the dispositional coping responses. Thus, the overall pattern of findings indicates
emotional/internalizing and interpersonal difficulties were frequently linked to emotion-
162
focused and avoidance dispositional coping responses. Some significant (inverse)
associations were also present between problem-focused types of dispositional coping
responses, but to a lesser degree than the other types of responses just described.
(2) Which combination of personality and psychopathology constructs,
assessed by MMPI-2-RF scale sets, best predict dispositional coping
responses on the RSI-D?
The second objective of the study was to investigate multivariate associations
between personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scale
sets, and dispositional coping responses of the RSI-D. These analyses also determined
which combination of personality and psychopathology constructs optimally predicted
each of the various dispositional coping responses. Because these analyses were
exploratory in nature, no specific hypotheses were offered; however, the results provided
meaningful information about the types of constructs that best predict the dispositional
coping strategies of the RSI-D. In particular, nearly all of the various types of
dispositional coping responses were significantly predicted by some combination of
constructs from across the EID, BXD, and THD, as well as Somatic, MMPI-2-RF scale
hierarchies. There was one exception to this general pattern, as the dispositional coping
response of problem analysis was optimally predicted by constructs assessed by a single
MMPI-2-RF scale set.
Exploration of the results conveyed that two types of dispositional coping, namely
fantasizing and denial, were significantly predicted by four different sets of constructs,
including those contained within the EID, THD, and BXD hierarchies, as well as the
163
interpersonal scales. Specifically, constructs assessed by the scales of EID, THD, BXD,
RC7, NFC, MSF, FML, NEGE, DISC, and PSYC significantly predicted dispositional
fantasizing. The results also showed that the combination of constructs contained within
the THD, BXD, NFC, MSF, and FML scales optimally predicted the dispositional coping
response of fantasizing by accounting for 34% of the variance in the prediction. It should
be noted that this is the strongest pattern of results demonstrated with regard to the ability
of personality and psychopathology constructs to predict dispositional coping responses.
Further exploration of the results indicated that both lower- and higher-level constructs
optimally predicted dispositional fantasizing. The results demonstrated that individuals
having problems with disordered thinking, believing they are indecisive and
inefficacious, having specific fears, and having family problems are more inclined to
cope with stressful situations by imagining the stressor will disappear. In contrast,
individuals experiencing problems associated with under-controlled behavior, such as
that associated with impulsivity or aggression for example, are less inclined to cope with
stressful situations by pretending that a stressor will simply disappear. These findings are
largely consistent with the univariate analyses for dispositional fantasizing, with the
exception that somatic problems were also linked to dispositional fantasizing at the
univariate level. Therefore, it appears somatic problems do not significantly predict
dispositional fantasizing, beyond the EID, BXD, THD, and interpersonal constructs when
combinations of the constructs are examined.
The dispositional coping response of denial was also predicted by personality and
psychopathology constructs from across four groups of MMPI-2-RF scales, particularly
164
those assessed by the EID, THD RC3, RC7, NFC, ACT, NEGE, PSYC, DISC, and INTR
scales significantly predicted the dispositional coping response of denial. The results also
indicated the combination of constructs from the THD, RC3, NFC, DISC, and INTR
scales optimally predicted dispositional denial and accounted for 29% of the variance in
the prediction. It was determined that the dispositional coping response of denial was
optimally predicted by a combination of both higher- and lower-level constructs,
particularly those contained within the H-O, RC, SP, and PSY-5 scales. It should be
noted that this was the second strongest pattern of results that emerged, following that of
dispositional fantasizing just described. Overall, the results indicated that individuals
experiencing difficulties with disordered thinking, distrusting others, and believing they
are indecisive and inefficacious may be more inclined to cope by repeatedly denying that
a stressor exists across multiple stressful situations. On the contrary, individuals who
endorse particular internalizing and externalizing difficulties, including exhibiting under-
controlled behavior and being socially disengaged and lacking positive experiences, may
be less inclined to cope by denying that a stressor exists. These findings are quite similar
to the results illustrated in the univariate analyses for dispositional fantasizing, with the
exception that somatic problems were also linked to dispositional denial at the univariate
level. Therefore, it appears somatic problems do not significantly predict dispositional
denial, beyond the EID, BXD, THD, and interpersonal constructs when combinations of
the constructs are examined.
Further exploration of the results demonstrated that one type of dispositional
coping, spirituality, was significantly predicted by constructs from across three MMPI-2-
165
RF scale sets, including the EID, BXD, and Somatic scale sets. The results indicated that
constructs assessed by the BXD, RC4, SUB HPC, MLS, MSF, and DISC scales
significantly predicted the dispositional coping response of spirituality. It was also
determined that a combination of constructs, including those measured by the SUB, HPC,
MSF, and MLS scales, optimally predicted dispositional spirituality and accounted for
24% of the variance in the prediction. However, it should be noted that the constructs
associated with the MSF scale functioned as a suppressor variable. The results also
illustrated that lower-level constructs optimally predicted the dispositional coping
response of spirituality. Furthermore, individuals with particular somatic and
internalizing problems, particularly having head and neck pain and specific fears, are
more likely to cope with stress by relying on spiritual beliefs. On the other hand,
individuals with externalizing difficulties, particularly those who misuse alcohol and/or
illicit drugs, are less inclined to rely on their spiritual beliefs as a way to cope with
various stressful situations. The finding that dispositional spirituality was significantly
predicted by various behavioral/externalizing constructs is consistent with the univariate
analyses. The multivariate analyses also expand upon the univariate analyses for
dispositional spirituality, as emotional/internalizing and somatic constructs were also
significant predictors. This indicates that individuals having specific fears and physical
pain may also rely on spirituality as a way to cope when faced with stressful situations.
Nine different dispositional coping responses were optimally predicted by
constructs from two MMPI-2-RF scale sets. For example, constructs contained with the
EID and BXD scale hierarchies best predicted the dispositional coping responses of over-
166
reaction and self-reassurance. In particular, dispositional over-reaction was predicted by
constructs contained with the EID and BXD MMPI-2-RF scale hierarchies. The results
conveyed that the constructs assessed by the EID, RC7, STW, NFC, IPP, NEGE, and
AGGR scales significantly predicted dispositional over-reaction. It was also determined
that the combination of constructs measured by the NEGE and AGGR scales optimally
predicted the dispositional coping response of over-reaction by accounting for 24% of the
variance in the prediction. Furthermore, dispositional over-reaction was optimally
predicted by higher-level constructs. The results demonstrated that individuals
experiencing significant negative emotions, such as anxiety, insecurity, worry, and fear,
were more inclined to engage in coping characterized by being overly distressed across
situations. However, it was also determined that individuals exhibiting instrumental,
goal-directed aggression were less inclined to cope with stressful situations by being
overly distressed by stressful situations. These findings are consistent with the univariate
analyses, which indicated dispositional over-reaction was significantly associated with
emotional/internalizing difficulties. However, the multivariate analyses revealed that a
particular behavioral/externalizing construct, Aggressiveness, also significantly predicted
dispositional over-reaction. Thus, the multivariate analyses provided additional
information regarding the prediction of dispositional over-reaction and they indicate
behavioral/externalizing constructs are also important predictors of dispositional over-
reaction.
Another type of dispositional coping, self-reassurance, was predicted by
constructs assessed by constructs from the EID, BXD, and interpersonal scales, including
167
by the EID, RCd, RC8, SFD, ACT, SHY, INTR, and NEGE scales. The results
determined the combination of constructs assessed by the RCd and ACT scales optimally
predicted dispositional self-reassurance, as they accounted for 17% of the variance. The
results also indicated that both lower- and higher-level constructs optimally predicted the
dispositional coping response of self-reassurance. Further examination of the results
illustrated individuals endorsing general unhappiness and dissatisfaction were less likely
to utilize a coping response involving reassuring themselves about their ability to deal
with stressful situations. This finding was generally consistent with the univariate
analyses in this study, as emotional/internalizing constructs were associated with
dispositional self-reassurance. However, the results of the multivariate analyses also
demonstrated individuals with heightened excitation and energy were more inclined to
cope with stressful situations by reassuring themselves about their ability to handle a
stressful situation. This finding expands the univariate analyses and may indicate that
having heightened energy and excitation may promote the confidence and/or provide
motivation for an individual to cope by reassuring themselves about their ability to
handle stressors.
Several other types of dispositional coping responses, including problem
confrontation, avoidance, self-examination, and passive acceptance, were predicted by
constructs from the EID scale hierarchy and the interpersonal scales. Dispositional
problem confrontation was significantly predicted by constructs contained within the
EID, RCd, AXY, FML, SAV, IPP, and NEGE scales. The results illustrated that a
combination of constructs assessed by the AXY, FML, SAV, and IPP scales optimally
168
predicted the dispositional coping response of problem confrontation by accounting for
21% of the variance. It should be noted that the constructs measured by the SAV scale
functioned as a suppressor. In this case, lower-level constructs optimally predicted
dispositional problem confrontation. Further interpretation of the results indicated that
individuals experiencing pervasive anxiety and frights, conflictual family relationships,
and who are unassertive and submissive are less inclined to cope with stressful situations
by taking actions to directly confront a stressor. These findings are congruent with the
univariate analyses, which demonstrated significant associations to be present between
emotional/internalizing constructs and dispositional problem confrontation. However,
these results provide more specific information about the emotional/internalizing and
interpersonal difficulties, which are less likely to promote coping with stressful situations
by taking direct action to address stressors. Indeed, when combinations of constructs are
considered, interpersonal difficulties become more salient than other
emotional/internalizing difficulties in predicting dispositional problem confrontation.
Avoidance is another type of dispositional coping strategy that was predicted by
constructs assessed by the EID and the interpersonal MMPI-2-RF scale sets. The results
indicated that dispositional avoidance was significantly predicted by constructs contained
within the THD, RC1, RC3, AXY, FML, SAV, SUI, NFC, PSYC, and NEGE scales. It
was determined that a combination of constructs from the AXY, FML, SAV, SUI, and
NFC scales optimally predicted the dispositional coping response of avoidance by
accounting for 20% of the variance in the prediction. However, it should be noted that the
constructs associated with the SAV and SUI scales functioned as suppressors in the
169
prediction of dispositional avoidance. The overall pattern of results was similar to that of
dispositional problem confrontation, as dispositional avoidance was also optimally
predicted by lower-level constructs and the pattern of constructs was similar as well. The
results identified individuals experiencing pervasive anxiety, conflictual family
relationships, and believes they are indecisive and inefficacious are more likely to
employ a coping strategy that involves circumventing the stressor across multiple
stressful situations. The multivariate analyses were consistent with the univariate
analyses that demonstrated that emotional/internalizing and interpersonal constructs were
significantly associated with dispositional avoidance. Also, in the univariate analyses,
several correlations were present between thought dysfunction and somatic problems, but
they were small in magnitude. Those constructs also significantly predicted dispositional
avoidance at the multivariate level, but they were not optimal predictors of dispositional
avoidance.
Another dispositional coping strategy, namely self-examination, was also
predicted by constructs contained within the EID and interpersonal MMPI-2-RF scale
sets, including the EID, RC2, SAV, AXY, DSF, INTR, and NEGE scales. The results
illustrated that a combination of constructs from across the SAV, DSF, and INTR scales
optimally predicted the dispositional coping response of self-examination by accounting
for 14% of the variance. It should be noted that the constructs assessed by the DSF scale
functioned as a suppressor in the prediction of dispositional self-examination. Thus, both
lower- and higher-level constructs optimally predicted dispositional self-examination.
Further exploration of the results indicated that individuals who are socially disengaged,
170
do not enjoy social events, and who lack positive emotional experiences are more
inclined to cope with stressful situations by exploring his/her own role in the creation of
the stressor. These results are similar to the univariate analyses, which demonstrated that
dispositional self-examination was associated with emotional/internalizing difficulties.
Similarly, both the univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated (small) associations
between interpersonal constructs and the dispositional coping response of self-
examination; however, when all of the constructs are considered together,
emotional/internalizing difficulties emerge as the most significant predictors.
Passive acceptance is the final type of dispositional coping predicted by
constructs affiliated with the EID and interpersonal MMPI-2-RF scale sets, including
RC3, NFC, STW, and PSYC scales. The results showed that a combination of constructs
assessed by the RC3, NFC, and STW scales optimally predicted dispositional passive
acceptance by accounting for 11% of the variance in the prediction. It was also
determined that a combination of lower- and higher-level constructs optimally predicted
the dispositional coping response of passive acceptance. Furthermore, individuals who
believe they are indecisive and inefficacious and who are also cynical and distrustful of
others are more likely to cope with stressful situations by accepting the stressor without
attempting to resolve it. The results also indicated that individuals who are preoccupied
with disappointments and difficulties with time pressure are not likely to simply accept
their stressors. These findings are nearly identical to the univariate analyses for
dispositional passive acceptance. In particular, significant correlations were demonstrated
between constructs assessed by the RC3 and NFC scales and dispositional passive
171
acceptance, but the associations were small in magnitude. The multivariate analyses
expand upon those associations by demonstrating that preoccupation with
disappointments and difficulties with time pressure also significantly predict a lack of
engagement in dispositional passive acceptance. Therefore, the multivariate analyses
provide additional information about the prediction of dispositional passive acceptance,
beyond that provided by the univariate analyses.
Further exploration of the results determined that two types of dispositional
coping strategies, including seeking advice and emotional suppression, were predicted by
a combination of constructs from the BXD and interpersonal MMPI-2-RF scale sets,
including DSF, ACT, and INTR. More specifically, the constructs assessed by the DSF
and ACT scales optimally predicted dispositional emotional suppression and accounted
for 18% of the variance in the prediction. The results also illustrated that lower-level
constructs, such as those contained within the SP scales, optimally predicted the
dispositional coping response of emotional suppression. Interpretation of the results
indicated that individuals who dislike people and being around them are more inclined to
cope with stressful situations by suppressing or hiding their emotions. On the contrary,
individuals having heightened excitation and energy are less inclined to employ coping
strategies focused on suppressing their emotions. The multivariate analyses are identical
to the univariate analyses, which showed the constructs measured by DSF and ACT were
significantly associated with the dispositional coping response of emotional suppression.
This information is particularly useful because the specific coping response of
dispositional emotional suppression has not been explored in the coping literature to date.
172
Similar to emotional suppression, the dispositional coping response of seeking
advice was significantly and optimally predicted by constructs assessed by the BXD and
interpersonal MMPI-2-RF scale sets, namely DSF and ACT. The constructs contained
within the DSF and ACT scales accounted for 7% of the variance in the prediction. It was
also determined that dispositional seeking advice was optimally predicted by lower-level
constructs, such as those contained within the SP scales. Further exploration of the results
indicated that individuals who dislike others and being around people are less inclined to
cope with stressful situations by seeking input from others about how to respond to a
stressor. On the other hand, individuals with heightened excitation and energy levels are
more likely to seek input from others regarding how to respond to stressful situations.
These multivariate analyses are identical to the univariate analyses, which showed the
constructs measured by DSF and ACT were significantly associated with the
dispositional coping response of passive acceptance. Therefore, these findings provide
new information about the types of personality and psychopathology that are linked to
dispositional emotional suppression because this particular coping response has not been
explored in prior coping research.
Another type of dispositional coping that was significantly predicted by constructs
assessed by two MMPI-2-RF scale sets, particularly somatic and interpersonal scales,
was seeking emotional support. Constructs contained within the BXD, RC8, DSF, SHY,
MLS, INTR, and DISC scales significantly predicted dispositional seeking emotional
support. It was also determined that a combination of constructs from the DSF, SHY, and
MLS scales optimally predicted the dispositional coping response of seeking emotional
173
support by accounting for 16% of the variance. It should be noted that the constructs
assessed by the SHY and MLS scales functioned as suppressors. It was also determined
that lower-level constructs, such as those contained within the SP scales, optimally
predicted dispositional seeking emotional support. Interpretation of the results indicated
that individuals who dislike people and being around them were not inclined to seek
comfort from other people as a method to cope with stressful situations. This finding is
identical the correlational analyses for dispositional seeking emotional support, and this
suggests there is a significant interpersonal difficulty, namely disliking others, that
strongly discourages coping by seeking support from others when faced with stressful
situations.
A single type of dispositional coping, problem analysis, was predicted by
constructs contained within a single set of MMPI-2-RF scales, specifically the EID scale
hierarchy. It was determined that constructs assessed by the SAV, SFD, ANP, and INTR
scales significantly predicted dispositional problem analysis. The results also indicated a
combination of constructs from across the SFD and ANP scales optimally predicted the
dispositional coping response of problem analysis by accounting for 12% of the variance
in the prediction. It was also determined that lower-level constructs, particularly those
contained within the SP scales, optimally predicted dispositional problem analysis.
Therefore, individuals lacking in self-confidence, experiencing feelings of uselessness,
and who are impatient or easily angered are not likely to cope with stressful situations by
generating options that could be used to respond to the stressor. Consistent with
multivariate analyses, the correlations indicated that small associations were present
174
between dispositional problem analysis and constructs assessed by the EID hierarchy of
scales, as well as one interpersonal scale. Therefore, these findings indicate that when the
constructs are considered in the context of one another, the emotional/internalizing
constructs emerge as the significant predictors of dispositional problem analysis.
Finally, it was determined that personality and psychopathology constructs did
not significantly predict dispositional minimization. This result is consistent with the
univariate analyses for dispositional minimization. As previously noted, dispositional
minimization has not been explored in the existing coping literature. Therefore, two
potential explanations for the lack of findings emerge. First, it is possible that the
personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales are
simply not associated to coping with stress by minimizing the significance of the stressor.
Another potential explanation is that individuals may not typically employ this particular
coping response across stressful situations, as use of this coping mechanism may be
largely dependent on specific characteristics of a stressful situation.
Summary. In summary, a majority of the various types of dispositional coping,
assessed by the RSI-D scales, were significantly predicted by combinations of personality
and psychopathology constructs from multiple domains. Similar to the univariate
analyses, dispositional coping responses were most often predicted by constructs linked
to emotional/internalizing difficulties. Indeed, nine of the fourteen types of dispositional
coping strategies were optimally predicted by some combination of personality and
psychopathology constructs that included emotional/internalizing difficulties.
Furthermore, dispositional coping responses were most often optimally predicted by
175
lower-level personality and psychopathology constructs, such as those contained within
the Specific Problems Scales. This finding indicates the dispositional coping responses of
the RSI-D are not optimally predicted by broad, over-arching constructs, but rather by
more narrow ones. Therefore, more narrowly focused emotional/internalizing constructs
are the most salient predictors of dispositional coping responses in this study.
(3) Which personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF, are associated with situational coping responses assessed by
the RSI?
The third research question examined associations between personality and
psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, and situational coping
strategies, which were measured by the RSI-S scales. It should be noted that the overall
pattern of correlational results for situational coping was generally similar to that of
dispositional coping. However, the pattern illustrated for dispositional coping was
generally stronger, and this is consistent with previous research (c.f. Connor-Smith &
Flachsbart, 2007). Table 48 provides a summary of the hypotheses that were supported
by the findings in this study. Specifically, the results from this study are consistent with
prior findings indicating that situational coping responses are associated with personality
traits, such as those contained within the FFM and the PSY-5 model of personality
(Bouchard, Guillemette, & Landry-Leger, 2004; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007;
Windover, 2001). Situational coping responses in this study were also associated with
various symptoms of psychopathology, which parallels previous research (Catanzaro,
176
Table 48. Supported Hypotheses About Associations between the MMPI-2-RF Scales and
Situational Coping
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
H-O Scales
EID − * − *
THD ≈ ≈ −
BXD
RC Scales
RCd * * *
RC1 − − −
RC2 −
RC3 − −
RC4
RC6 ≈ ≈ ≈
RC7 * * *
RC8 − −
RC9 − −
SP Scales
Somatic Scales
MLS − − −
GIC
HPC − −
NUC − − −
COG − − −
Internalizing
Scales
SUI −
HLP − − −
SFD − − *
NFC * * *
STW * * −
AXY * * −
ANP − − −
BRF
MSF
Note: * = hypothesis that was supported; − = partially supported hypothesis (ES ≥ .2); ≈ =
unanticipated but significant association; PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem
Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES =
Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV =
Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR =
Spirituality.
RSI-S Scales
177
Table 48 (Continued)
MMPI-2-RF
ScalesPC PA SE SR SA SES ES D F AV PASA MINI OR SPIR
Externalizing
Scales
JCP
SUB
AGG − − −
ACT
Interpersonal
Scales
FML
IPP
SAV −
SHY
DSF *
PSY-5 Scales
AGGR-r
PSYC-r ≈ ≈
DISC-r
NEGE-r * * *
INTR-R −
Note: * = hypothesis that was supported; − = partially supported hypothesis (ES ≥ .2); ≈ =
unanticipated but significant association;PC = Problem Confrontation; PA = Problem
Analysis; SE = Self-Examination; SR = Self-Reassurance; SA = Seeking Advice; SES =
Seeking Emotional Support; ES = Emotional Suppression; D = Denial; F = Fantasizing; AV =
Avoidance; PASA = Passive Acceptance; MINI = Minimization; OR = Over-Reaction; SPIR =
Spirituality.
RSI-S Scales
178
Horaney, & Creasy, 1995; Flett, Blankstein, & Obertynski, 1996; Punamaki, et. al, 2008).
The correlational analyses demonstrated that three types of situational coping,
including denial, fantasizing, and over-reaction, were associated with a number of
personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the EID and THD MMPI-2-RF
scale sets. These were the three strongest patterns of correlational results for situational
coping. The results supported several of the proposed hypotheses; however, there were
also a large number of correlations that did not achieve a medium effect size. Indeed,
nearly all of the constructs assessed by the somatic scales, as well as a few
behavioral/externalizing constructs, were associated with situational denial, fantasizing,
and over-reaction, but they were small in magnitude. Therefore, the overall pattern of the
correlations was consistent with the anticipated findings, but there were fewer
associations than anticipated with constructs from the BXD scale hierarchy, as well as the
interpersonal scales. These findings indicate that emotional/internalizing difficulties and
problems with disordered thinking may be linked to coping with stress by denying the
existence of the stressor, pretending a stressor will simply disappear, and becoming
overly distressed.
These findings are consistent with the results for dispositional coping in this study
and are also congruent with prior research. In particular, situational coping responses
aimed at distracting oneself from the stressors or denying the existence of the stressors
was also associated with select personality traits, such as FFM Neuroticism (Bouchard,
Guillemette, & Landry-Leger, 2004; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007) and Extraversion
(Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007) , as well as PSY-5 Psychoticism and Negative
179
Emotionality/Neuroticism (Windover, 2001). Furthermore, these findings are also
consistent with previous research that demonstrated significant associations between
situational denial and general psychological distress (Punamaki, et. al, 2008) and between
situational distancing and symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Fairbank,
Hansen, & Fitterling, 1991). Thus, the pattern of emotional/internalizing difficulties
being associated with situational denial and disengagement tended to be consistent across
studies.
Also, there were several unanticipated findings of associations between constructs
assessed by the THD hierarchy and dispositional denial, fantasizing, and over-reaction.
Although previous research had not demonstrated associations between constructs
measuring problems with thought dysfunction and other psychotic-like symptomatology
and situational coping, these results are consistent with the correlational findings for
dispositional denial and fantasizing in this study, as well as previous research. For
example, prior research found associations between dispositional distraction and
disengagement and thought and delusional disorders (Vollrath, Anales, & Torgersen,
1996). Therefore, the associations demonstrated for dispositional coping extend to
situational denial, fantasizing, and over-reaction in this case. Thus, these findings
collectively indicate emotional/internalizing and problems with unusual thinking are
linked to coping by denying a stressor exists, pretending that a stressor will disappear, or
by becoming overly distressed in specific situations.
One type of situational coping, namely emotional suppression, was significantly
associated with a personality and psychopathology construct assessed by the DSF
180
interpersonal scale. This finding provided support for a single hypothesis; however, the
remaining hypotheses were largely unsupported, as situational emotional suppression was
not linked to specific emotional/internalizing, thought, behavioral, or somatic difficulties.
The finding also suggests that disliking other people is linked to coping with stressful
situations by suppressing emotional reactions to the stressor in particular stressful
situations. Despite the fact that previous coping research has not routinely explored
emotional suppression as a coping response, the findings from this study are consistent
across both dispositional and situational coping. More specifically, this finding is
consistent with the correlational analyses conducted to address the first research question,
as constructs contained within the DSF scale were positively associated with
dispositional emotional suppression. Thus, this indicates that individuals who dislike
others and being around them may be likely to address stressful situations by quashing
one’s emotional reaction.
There were also a number of situational coping findings that did not fully support
the hypotheses, but demonstrated clear patterns consistent with the hypotheses. For
example, dispositional self-reassurance demonstrated a number of associations with
personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the EID hierarchy of scales, as
well as interpersonal scales; however, the correlations only approached a medium effect
size. Thus, emotional/internalizing constructs may be associated with dispositional self-
reassurance. These findings are congruent with results demonstrated for dispositional
self-reassurance in this study. In addition, the results of this study are supported by
previous research, which illustrated that the personality traits of Extraversion was
181
positively associated with situational coping focused on cognitive restructuring (e.g.,
situational self-reassurance), but Neuroticism was negatively associated with situational
cognitive restructuring (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). Similar findings were present
with the PSY-5 model and situational self-reassurance, as Windover (2001) demonstrated
Introversion was negatively associated with situational self-reassurance. With regard to
psychopathology, previous research has not specifically explored the relations between
psychopathology constructs and situational coping focused on reassuring oneself about
one’s ability to handle the stressor. Collectively, the results of this study and previous
research may indicate that reassuring oneself about their ability to handle a particular
stressor is less likely to be associated with emotional/internalizing problems.
Associations were also found between a number of constructs from the BXD
hierarchy of scales, as well as somatic scales, and the situational coping strategies of
seeking advice and avoidance, but the associations were of a small effect size. In
particular, having heightened activation and energy, as well as physical pain in the head
and neck, may be positively associated with situational seeking advice. These results are
incongruent with previous research by Windover (2001), which identified that situational
seeking advice was associated with emotional/internalizing difficulties, such as PSY-5
Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism and Psychoticism.
Personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by three of the interpersonal
scales may be inversely associated with the dispositional coping response of problem
confrontation. The associations did not reach a medium effect size, as initially
anticipated, but these results are consistent with the anticipated findings. Similarly,
182
situational problem analysis may be meaningfully associated with personality and
psychopathology constructs measured by the HPC scale; however, the correlation was
small in magnitude. Previous research, such as that conducted by Connor-Smith and
Flachsbart (2007) determined that coping focused on problem solving, such as generating
options that could potentially be used to address the stressor, were negatively associated
with FFM Neuroticism and positively associated with FFM Extraversion. However, the
results of Windover’s (2001) study demonstrated more mixed results, as no associations
were present between situational problem analysis and PSY-5 personality constructs, but
situational problem confrontation was negatively associated with PSY-5 Introversion. In
addition, Windover’s (2001) study demonstrated that situational characteristics, such as
confrontability, timing, and duration, were better predictors of problem-focused than
emotion-focused coping. Therefore, these findings indicate that situational problem-
focused coping may be associated to a smaller degree with personality constructs, as
compared to coping aimed at addressing the negative emotions associations with the
stressor.
There was one unanticipated finding of associations between personality and
psychopathology constructs from the THD hierarchy of scales, particularly the PSYC
scale, and situational passive acceptance, but the correlation was of a small effect size.
The finding suggests that individuals experiencing a disconnection from reality may tend
to cope by accepting a stressor without attempting to resolve it in certain situations.
Regarding previous research, Windover (2001) found that situational passive
acceptance was not significantly linked to any of the PSY-5 personality constructs.
183
Similarly, in this study, the pattern of results for dispositional passive acceptance was
generally weak as well, as only two small associations were present with personality and
psychopathology constructs. Thus, the findings collectively indicate that situational
passive acceptance is not likely to be linked to the personality and psychopathology
constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales.
Finally, select situational coping responses did not demonstrate significant
associations with personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the EID, THD,
BXD, or somatic MMPI-2-RF scale sets. The correlations calculated between the various
personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, and
situational coping responses of seeking emotional support, minimization, self-
examination, and spirituality were not statistically significant. However, it should be
noted that dispositional seeking emotional support and minimization also demonstrated
few to no associations with personality and psychopathology constructs in this study.
Some of these findings are congruent with research conducted by Windover
(2001), which illustrated situational minimization and self-examination were not
significantly associated with personality constructs. Furthermore, the post hoc
multivariate analyses provide some additional information about these findings, as the
prediction of these types of situational coping responses, with the exception of
spirituality, were significantly influenced by specific characteristics of the situation. This
suggests the characteristics of a given situation influence whether situational seeking
emotional support, minimization, and self-examination are used to cope with stress.
Regarding spirituality, the findings indicate the coping response of spirituality may be
184
more likely to be a dispositional-type coping response, which is consistent with the
findings from the first research question. This indicates individuals may be inclined to
turn to religion to cope with stress across different situations, rather than suddenly turning
to religion as a way to cope.
Summary. In conclusion, the overall patterns of correlations between personality
and psychopathology constructs and dispositional and situational coping were quite
similar. In general, a wide array of constructs assessing emotional/internalizing and
interpersonal problems appear to be linked to a majority of the various types of
dispositional and situational coping strategies. As expected and previously noted, these
constructs tended to be more strongly associated with dispositional, rather than
situational, coping.
(4) Which combination of personality and psychopathology constructs,
assessed by MMPI-2-RF scale sets, best predict situational coping
responses on the RSI-S?
The fourth objective of the study was to explore the extent to which personality
and psychopathology constructs predicted various types of situational coping strategies.
The results also determined which combination of personality and psychopathology
constructs, assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scale sets, optimally predicted each of the
situational coping responses of the RSI-S. Since these analyses were exploratory in
nature, no specific hypotheses were offered. However, the results provide meaningful
information about the types of constructs that best predict situational coping responses as
measured by the RSI-S.
185
Nearly all of the various types of situational coping responses were significantly
predicted by some combination of constructs from across the EID, BXD, and THD scale
hierarchies, as well as somatic scales. Only one type of situational coping, fantasizing,
was best predicted by constructs assessed by all four of the MMPI-2-RF scale sets,
including EID, THD, RC1, RC2, RC6, RC7, STW, MLS, SAV, NFC, NEGE, PSYC,
INTR, and DISC. The constructs that optimally predicted situational fantasizing included
those assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales of RC2, RC6, RC7, MLS, SAV, and DISC, and
that combination of constructs accounted for 24% of the variance in the prediction. The
results also demonstrated that the situational coping response of fantasizing was
optimally predicted by a combination of both higher- and lower-level constructs. It
should be noted that this was the strongest pattern of results that emerged with regard to
the ability of personality and psychopathology constructs to predict situational coping
responses. Overall, the results indicated that individuals who experience significant
negative emotions, such as anxiety, anger, irritability, a poor overall sense of physical
health, and believe that others may pose a personal threat to them are likely to utilize
fantasizing as a method to cope with a particular stressful situation. Also, individuals who
experience few positive emotions are not likely to engage in situational fantasizing.
These findings are consistent with the correlational analyses for situational fantasizing.
However, they also provide meaningful information about which constructs optimally
predict fantasizing, as they examine multiple constructs simultaneously to determine
those that optimally predict situational fantasizing.
186
Six types of situational coping responses were best predicted by constructs
assessed by three of the four MMPI-2-RF scale sets. Consistent with the univariate
analyses, the situational coping response of denial was predicted by a combination of
constructs assessed by scales from the EID and THD hierarchies, as well as the
interpersonal SP scales, namely the THD, RC6, RC7, NFC, AXY, SAV, NEGE, and
PSYC scales. It was also determined that the combination of constructs measured by the
RC6, RC7, and SAV scales optimally predicted situational denial, as these constructs
accounted for 22% of the variance. However, the SAV scale functioned as a suppressor
variable. The results also indicated that a combination of higher-level MMPI-2-RF
constructs optimally predicted the situational coping response of denial. Further
interpretation of the results indicated that individuals experiencing negative emotions,
such as anger, irritation, and anxiety, and possessing self-referential beliefs that other
people pose threats to their safety are likely to engage in situational denial.
A combination of constructs assessed by the EID, BXD, and interpersonal SP
scales best predicted the situational coping responses of seeking advice, avoidance, and
seeking emotional support. Situational seeking advice was best predicted by the
constructs assessed by the BXD, RC9, ACT, AXY, DSF, IPP, NEGE, and INTR scales.
The combination of constructs that optimally predicted the situational coping response of
seeking advice included those assessed by the RC9, AXY, and DSF scales, and those
constructs accounted for 9% of the variance in the prediction. Thus, both higher- and
lower-level constructs optimally predicted the situational coping response of seeking
advice. Generally consistent with the univariate analyses, the results indicated that
187
individuals experiencing behavioral and emotional difficulties, such as being over-
activated, aggressive, impulsive, as well as pervasive anxiety, were likely to solicit input
from other people regarding how to cope with a given stressful situation. On the other
hand, individuals who generally dislike others and being around other people are not
likely to seek input from others regarding how to respond to a particular stressful
situational.
Another combination of constructs incorporated in the EID, BXD, and
interpersonal scale sets, including RC9, SHY, SAV, PSYC, and INTR, significantly
predicted the situational coping response of avoidance, which was similar to the
associations demonstrated by the univariate analyses. In particular, situational avoidance
was optimally predicted by the constructs contained within the RC9, SHY, and INTR
scales and accounted for 9% of the variance in the prediction. However, it should be
noted that the beta weight for the RC9 scale was not statistically significant and the
construct of Introversion functioned as a suppressor. Further exploration of the results
conveyed that the situational coping response of avoidance was optimally predicted by
lower-level constructs, including those contained within the SP scale set. The results also
indicated that individuals experiencing interpersonal problems associated with
internalizing, particularly not enjoying and/or avoidance social events, were more likely
to engage in a situational coping response that involves circumventing the particular
stressor.
The situational coping response of seeking emotional support was significantly
predicted by a variety of constructs contained within the EID, BXD, and interpersonal SP
188
scale sets. It was determined that situational seeking emotional support was significantly
predicted by constructs contained within the DSF, HLP, JCP, NEGE, DISC, and INTR
scales. More specifically, the constructs measured by the DSF, HLP, and JCP scales
optimally predicted situational seeking emotional support by accounting for 7% of the
variance in the prediction. Further examination of the results demonstrated that lower-
level constructs optimally predicted the use of situational seeking emotional support. The
results also indicated that individuals with interpersonal and behavioral problems, such as
disliking people and being around others and a history of problems at home and school,
are less likely to utilize seeking emotional support in a given stressful situation. On the
contrary, individuals with emotional difficulties, such as believing that goals cannot be
reached and problems cannot be solved, are more likely to seek the comfort of others in a
given stressful situation. These findings are significant, as they significantly expand upon
the univariate analyses, which demonstrated no associations were present between
personality and psychopathology constructs and situational seeking emotional support.
Thus, interpersonal and intrapersonal factors impact the use seeking comfort from others
in particular stressful situations.
Additionally, constructs assessed by the EID, BXD, and THD scale hierarchies,
including RC8, COG, JCP, SAV, PSYC, and INTR, significantly predicted the situational
coping response of passive acceptance. The results also indicated that a combination of
constructs contained within the JCP, PSYC, and INTR scales optimally predicted
situational passive acceptance by accounting for 7% of the variance in the prediction.
However, it should be noted that the construct of Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality
189
acted as a suppressor in this analysis. As evidenced by the results, a combination of
lower- and higher-level constructs optimally predicted the situational coping response of
passive acceptance. The results also indicated that individuals experiencing problems
with disordered thinking and a disconnection from reality are more inclined to accept a
particular stressor without attempting to resolve it, which parallels the univariate
findings. However, these results also expand upon the univariate analyses by illustrating
that individuals with externalizing proclivities, such as history of experiencing difficulties
at home and/or school, are less likely to cope with particular stressful situations by
accepting the stressor rather than attempting to directly the stressor itself.
Another situational coping response that was significantly predicted by a
combination of constructs from across three scale sets, including the EID, BXD, and
Somatic MMPI-2-RF scale sets, was the situational coping response of problem analysis.
The results demonstrated that constructs measured by the BXD, RC9, HPC, BRF, and
DISC scales significantly predicted situational problem analysis. The results also
conveyed that a combination of constructs, particularly those contained within the HPC,
BRF, and DISC scales, optimally predicted the situational coping response of problem
analysis by accounting for 6% of the variance in the prediction. However, it should be
noted that the DISC scale functioned as a suppressor in the prediction of situational
problem analysis. It was also determined that a combination of both lower- and higher-
level constructs optimally predicted situational problem analysis. Further exploration of
the results indicated that individuals experiencing physical health problems, particularly
head and neck pain, were more likely to employ a situational coping response
190
characterized by generating options that could potentially be used to respond to the
stressor, and this finding mirrored the results of the correlational analyses. However, the
univariate findings were expanded upon, as individuals experiencing internalizing
difficulties, such as having fears that significantly restrict their normal activities, were
also demonstrated to be less likely to generate ideas about how to address a stressor in a
given stressful situation in these analyses.
The results also indicated that two types of situational coping were best predicted
by a combination of constructs assessed by only two sets of MMPI-2-RF scales.
Specifically, constructs assessed by a combination of EID and Somatic scales, including
EID, RC1, RC2, SAV, HLP, and INTR, significantly predicted the situational coping
response of self-reassurance. The results also showed that the combination of constructs
contained within the RC1 and RC2 scales optimally predicted situational self-reassurance
by accounting for 9% of the variance. It was also demonstrated that higher-levels of
constructs optimally predicted the situational coping response of self-reassurance. Similar
to the univariate analyses, the findings indicated individuals experiencing internalizing
emotional difficulties, particularly lacking positive emotional experiences, are not
inclined to cope with a particular stressful situation by reassuring themselves about their
ability to cope with the stressful situation. On the other hand, the results of the
correlational analyses were expanded upon, as the multivariate analyses also indicated
that individuals who experience a wide range of physical health complaints do not cope
by being confident in their ability to address a stressful situation.
191
The situational coping response of emotional suppression was also significantly
predicted by constructs assessed by the EID and interpersonal SP scale sets. In particular,
constructs measured by the MMPI-2-RF scales of BRF, FML, DSF, NEGE, INTR, and
DISC predicted situational emotional suppression. The results further illustrated that
constructs contained within the DSF and NEGE scales optimally predicted the situational
coping response of emotional suppression by accounting for 13% of the variance. It was
also determined that a combination of both lower- and higher-level constructs optimally
predicted situational emotional suppression. The results indicated that, similar to the
univariate analyses, individuals who dislike people and being around others are more
inclined to utilize a situational coping response focused on suppressing one’s emotional
reactions to a given stressor. Further expanding upon the univariate analyses, it was also
demonstrated that individuals who exhibit higher levels of neuroticism and experience
significant anxiety, insecurity, worry, and fear are less likely to attempt to repress their
own emotional reactions to a particular stressor.
Finally, there were four types of situational coping that were optimally predicted
by constructs measured by a single MMPI-2-RF scale set. Similar to univariate analyses,
constructs from both the EID and BXD scale hierarchies, including EID, RCd, RC9,
NFC, AXY, and NEGE significantly predicted situational over-action. However, some
specificity was provided by the multivariate analyses, as it was determined that a
combination of constructs assessed by scales contained within the EID scale hierarchy
optimally predicted the situational coping response of over-reaction. Specifically,
constructs contained within the EID, RCd, and NEGE scales optimally predicted
192
situational over-reaction by accounting for 18% of the variance. However, it should be
noted that constructs measured by the EID scale functioned as a suppressor in this case.
Furthermore, the results indicated that a combination of higher-level constructs optimally
predicted the situational coping response of over-reaction. The results also illustrated that
individuals experiencing higher levels of negative emotionality, such as anxiety, worry,
and fear, as well as emotional/internalizing difficulties, such as feeling significant anxiety
and a sense of general unhappiness and dissatisfaction with their current situation, are
inclined to be overly distressed by a given stressful situation. These findings also suggest
that emotional/internalizing difficulties are more strongly linked to situational over-
reaction, as compared to behavioral/externalizing difficulties.
Situational problem confrontation was significantly predicted by constructs
assessed by the EID and BXD scale sets, including the NFC, ANP, and DISC scales.
However, only scales contained with the EID hierarchy, particularly the NFC and ANP
scales, optimally predicted the situational coping response of problem confrontation by
accounting for 6% of the variance. The results also indicated that lower-level constructs
optimally predicted situational problem confrontation. Thus, consistent with the
univariate analyses, individuals experiencing internalizing types of difficulties,
particularly believing they are indecisive and inefficacious, are not likely to utilize a
situational coping response focused on taken action to directly confront a given stressor.
On the other hand, individuals who become easily angered and are impatient with others
are more inclined to directly confront a given stressor as a means to cope with a specific
stressful situation. The latter finding expands upon the correlational analyses and
193
indicates behavioral/externalizing difficulties, in addition to emotional/internalizing
problems, are linked to situational problem confrontation.
Another type of situational coping that was significantly predicted by a construct
contained within the EID scale set, namely the AXY scale, was self-examination.
Although none of the correlational analyses for self-examination were significant, the
results for these analyses indicated that the constructs assessed by the RC6 and AXY
scales were significant predictors. However, when considered in combination, constructs
linked to the AXY scale were demonstrated to optimally predict the situational coping
response of self-examination by accounting for 2% of the variance. Therefore, lower-
level constructs optimally predicted situational self-examination. Further interpretation of
the results conveyed that individuals reporting problems with pervasive anxiety, fears,
and frequent nightmares were likely to explore their own role in the creation of the
stressor as a means to cope with a particular situation.
Similarly, the situational coping response of minimization was also optimally
predicted by a construct measured by a single MMPI-2-RF scale, namely the
interpersonal IPP scale, which accounted for 2% of the variance in the prediction. Thus,
lower-level constructs optimally predicted the situational coping response of
minimization. The results expanded the univariate analyses, which indicated none of the
associations between situational minimization and personality and psychopathology
constructs were significant. Therefore, it was also determined that individuals who are
unassertive and submissive are likely to employ a situational coping response focused on
reducing the significance of the stressor.
194
Finally, the situational coping response of spirituality was not significantly
predicted by personality and psychopathology constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF
scales, and this finding parallels the univariate analyses previously discussed. This
suggests that spirituality, as a coping response, is more likely to be dispositional in
nature, as opposed to being utilized in specific stressful situations. As such, individuals
are likely to turn to religion to cope with stress across different situations, rather than
suddenly turning to religion as a way to cope.
Summary. In conclusion, a majority of the various types of situational coping
strategies, assessed by the RSI-S scales, were significantly predicted by combinations of
personality and psychopathology constructs from multiple domains. Similar to the
univariate analyses, situational coping responses were most often predicted by constructs
linked to emotional/internalizing difficulties. Indeed, twelve of the fourteen types of
situational coping strategies were optimally predicted by some combination of
personality and psychopathology constructs that included emotional/internalizing
difficulties. Furthermore, situational coping responses were most often optimally
predicted by lower-level personality and psychopathology constructs, such as those
contained within the Specific Problems Scales, or combinations of constructs that
included the SP scales. This finding indicates the situational coping responses are not
optimally predicted by broad, over-arching constructs, but rather by more narrow ones.
Therefore, more narrowly focused emotional/internalizing constructs are the most salient
predictors of situational coping responses in this study.
195
(5) Which combination of situational variables, rated by participants and
judges, and personality and psychopathology constructs, assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF scales, best predict situational coping on the RSI-S?
Expanding upon the results of the fourth research question, this study also
determined whether situational variables, including the confrontability, timing, duration,
and type or category of the stressful situation, significantly predicted or added
incrementally to the prediction of the situational coping responses of the RSI-S. Although
these analyses were exploratory, it was generally hypothesized that including the
situational variables into the analyses would improve the prediction of various types of
situational coping responses, and the overall pattern of results supported this hypothesis.
There were two exceptions to this general pattern, as the situational variables did not
significantly predict or add incrementally to the prediction of the of the Self-Reassurance
and Spirituality RSI-S scales. The results also indicated that the situational variables
accounted for an additional 1% to 15% of the variance in predicting scores on the RSI-S
scales, beyond the variance accounted for by the personality and psychopathology
constructs. Similarly, the situational variables also significantly predicted situational
coping strategies by accounting for a range of 2% to 17% of the variance, and the
personality and psychopathology constructs added incrementally to the prediction of
situational coping responses on the RSI-S. Thus, the situational variables accounted for
comparable amounts of variance whether they were entered into the first or second block
of the analyses.
196
The situational variables rated by participants and judges significantly predicted,
as well as added incrementally to the prediction of, the situational coping scales of
Problem Analysis, Seeking Advice, Seeking Emotional Support, Emotional Suppression,
and Over-Reaction. The participant-rated situational variables also significantly predicted
and added incrementally to the prediction of RSI-S Problem Confrontation and
Avoidance; however, incorporating the judges’ ratings of the situational variables did not
improve the prediction of those particular coping responses. The judges’ ratings of the
situational variables significantly predicted and added incrementally to the prediction of
scores on the RSI-S scales of Self-Examination, Denial, Fantasizing, Passive Acceptance,
and Minimization, but the participant ratings did not. Additionally, the amounts of
variance accounted for by the participant-rated versus judge-rated situational variables is
nearly equitable, but with one exception. The judges’ ratings of the situational variables
accounted for a significantly larger amount of variance, 17% and 15% respectively, in
predicting and adding incrementally to the prediction of the situational coping response
of Self-Examination, as compared to the participant ratings.
The most salient participant rating that significantly predicted or added
incrementally to the prediction of situational coping responses was duration. Specifically,
participant-rated duration was a significant predictor for six different types of situational
coping responses, including problem analysis, seeking advice, seeking emotional support,
emotional suppression, avoidance, and over-reaction. In contrast, the most salient rating
made by the judges was the classification of the type of stressful situation the individual
was coping with, as that variable was a significant predictor for ten of the fourteen
197
different situational coping responses. In particular, interpersonal problems was the most
significant type or category of the stressful situation because it significantly predicted
and/or added incrementally to the prediction of the five situational coping responses of
problem analysis, self-examination, seeking advice, seeking emotional support, and
emotional suppression.
Summary. In sum, the combination of personality and psychopathology
constructs and situational variables, rated by participants and judges, better predicted the
various situational coping responses compared to examining only personality and
psychopathology constructs. Overall, the ratings provided by participants and judges
were similar in their ability to significantly predict and/or add incrementally to the
prediction of situational coping responses. The participant ratings of the duration of the
stressor and the judges’ ratings of the type or category of the stressful situation,
particularly interpersonal problems, were the most salient variables in predicting
situational coping strategies. Furthermore, the results of this study provide meaningful
information about the specific characteristics of the stressful situation that optimally
predict situational coping and significantly expand the existing coping research. In
particular, the findings suggest that more problem-focused types of situational coping
responses, such as problem confrontation and problem analysis, are significantly
impacted by characteristics of the specific situation. The findings from this study also
indicate that more emotionally focused types of coping responses, such as emotional
suppression and seeking emotional support, are significantly impacted by the
characteristics of the particular stressful situation. Thus, this study expands the findings
198
of previous research by demonstrating that the utilization of almost every type of
situational coping response is influenced by specific situational variables.
(6) Are personality and psychopathology constructs, as assessed by the
MMPI-2-RF, differentially associated with the dispositional coping
assessed by the RSI-D versus the situational coping assessed the RSI-S?
The sixth research question examined whether personality and psychopathology
constructs are differentially associated with dispositional coping, assessed by the RSI-D
scales, versus situational coping assessed by the RSI-S scales. Because the existing
coping literature has yet to examine differential associations between dispositional and
situational coping, no specific hypotheses were offered and the analyses were exploratory
in nature. The results indicated that a single personality and psychopathology construct,
assessed by the AXY scale, was preferentially associated with the dispositional coping
strategy of problem confrontation. The ANP scale was also preferentially associated with
dispositional problem analysis. It was also determined that none of the personality and
psychopathology constructs, assessed by MMPI-2-RF scales, were preferentially
associated with any of the various types of situational coping. Furthermore, although the
remaining results did not meet the requirements for interpretation, a noteworthy pattern
was present. In particular, 53 of the remaining constructs were likely preferentially
associated with dispositional coping; whereas, only three types of situational coping may
be preferentially associated with personality and psychopathology constructs.
199
General Summary and Implications
The overall pattern of results indicated that emotional/internalizing types of
constructs, such as experiencing dysfunctional negative emotions like anxiety and beliefs
of being indecisive and inefficacious, were most frequently associated with both
dispositional and situational coping strategies across all sets of analyses. Similarly,
interpersonal constructs, such as disliking people and being around them, were also often
significantly associated with coping, whether dispositional or situational. On the other
hand, thought dysfunction, behavioral/externalizing dysfunction, and somatic constructs
were associated with dispositional and situational coping less often. Furthermore, the
findings of this study illustrated the importance of exploring associations beyond the
univariate level. Specifically, this study demonstrated that examining combinations of
personality and psychopathology constructs provided more meaningful information
regarding the prediction of both dispositional and situational coping responses. The
findings of this study indicate particular characteristics of the situation, including the
confrontability, timing, and duration, should also be considered when examining
situational coping responses. Indeed, this study determined that use of the majority of
situational coping responses were associated with situational variables, particularly the
duration and type or category of the stressor. Finally, at the broadest level, the findings in
this study support two of the theories of coping, as different patterns of results emerged
for dispositional versus situational coping strategies. Therefore, the results of this study
determined coping behavior can influenced by the unique conditions within a particular
situation (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), which results in the utilization of situational coping
200
responses. The findings of this study also indicate that individuals are inclined to employ
specific coping styles when faced with a stressful situation, regardless of the situational
characteristics present (Parker & Endler, 1992).
Regarding implications, the findings from this study provide useful information
for clinicians or other mental health treatment providers. Adaptive coping and healthy
coping skills are often a focal point of individual and group therapies. As such, having
information about the links between personality and psychopathology constructs and
particular coping responses will inform clinicians about whether their client or patient
likely employs adaptive or maladaptive coping responses in stressful situations. For
example, knowing that emotional/internalizing and interpersonal problems are linked to
the coping response of emotional suppression can be helpful for treatment planning. This
information allows the clinician to facilitate the development of healthier coping
mechanisms, such as problem confrontation for example, which has been shown to be
inversely associated with mental health problems and positively linked to adaptive
functioning (Vollrath, Anales, & Torgersen, 1996). Furthermore, the MMPI-2-RF is used
widely in clinical settings, thus, clinicians can obtain useful information about coping
styles and responses from an instrument they already frequently administer to their
clients. That is not to suggest that a clinician can simply administer the MMPI-2-RF and
have all the information they need to know about how their client copes with stress.
Rather, the results from the MMPI-2-RF, such as elevations on scales assessing
emotional/internalizing problems can provide the clinician with hypotheses about coping
201
responses, which they can then use to gather additional information about and explore
further during treatment.
Limitations and Future Directions
A potential limitation of this study relates to the sample and generalizability of
findings. Although previous coping research has often utilized a college sample to
explore dispositional and situational coping responses (cf. Folkman & Lazarus 1985;
Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989), the types of stressors traditionally experienced by
college students may not be representative of the types of stressful experiences
encountered in other populations. For example, a sample collected from a hospital
setting, where individuals are experiencing serious medical conditions, may be more
likely to experience stressors related to their health, support systems, or finances, as
compared to a college student population. Thus, it would likely be accurate to say that the
two populations are faced with different stressful situations, and they may or may not
employ similar types of coping in response. Similarly, individuals in inpatient psychiatric
facilities may also experience very different stressors, such as having auditory
hallucinations or severe paranoia or loss of liberties, in comparison to college students
taking midterm examinations. Therefore, the generalizability of the results of this study
types may be influenced by the types of stressful situations generally experienced within
a given population.
Another potential limitation of this study was the use of only a single measure of
personality and psychopathology, the MMPI-2-RF, and a single instrument to assess
dispositional and situational coping, the RSI scales. Although these instruments assess a
202
variety of personality and psychopathology constructs, there are alternate personality and
psychopathology constructs and dispositional and situational coping strategies that are
not assessed by these instruments. For example, several personality constructs of the
FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1985), such as Openness and Conscientiousness, were not
directly assessed by the MMPI-2-RF scales, and coping responses, including resignation,
cognitive restructuring, distraction, and using alcohol and/or drugs, were not assessed by
the RSI scales. Therefore, the personality and psychopathology constructs and coping
responses examined in this study are not all inclusive or exhaustive. As such, it is
possible that important associations between alternate constructs and coping responses
may not have been explored. In other words, the findings from this study are somewhat
limited to the constructs assessed by the MMPI-2-RF and RSI scales.
One final potential limitation of this study is that the hypotheses were somewhat
broad. In particular, it was hypothesized that dispositional and situational coping
strategies would be associated with personality and psychopathology constructs, which
were categorized into one of three broad domains: emotional/internalizing,
behavioral/externalizing, and thought dysfunction. Previous research has not explored
more narrowly focused personality and psychopathology constructs, such as those
measured by the MMPI-2-RF in this study; therefore, more specific hypotheses could not
be generated. However, one goal of this study was to explore more specific associations
between personality and psychopathology constructs and dispositional and situational
coping responses. In doing so, this study provided data to support associations between
both higher- and lower-level personality and psychopathology constructs and
203
dispositional and situational coping, which will allow for more narrowly focused
hypotheses to be examined in future research.
Future research should explore additional characteristics or facets of stressful
situations and their links to situational coping. For example, having information about
other details of the stressful situation, such as a subjective rating of the level of distress
experienced by the individual, whether this was the first time they encountered a given
stressor, or whether the particular stressful situation precluded the individual from having
access to certain types of coping responses, may help to clarify associations between the
stressful situation and the type of coping response utilized by the individual. Such
information would also expand the results of previous research as well as the current
study, as it would provide greater clarity regarding the associations between personality
and psychopathology and the characteristics of the stressful situation and likely increase
their ability to predict the various types of situational coping responses.
Another area for future research involves examining associations between
personality and psychopathology constructs and dispositional and situational coping
responses using samples from alternate settings, such as medical hospitals, inpatient
psychiatric hospitals, and community-based samples. Thus, it would be important to
replicate the findings of this study using samples exposed to diverse sets of stressful
situations. In addition, it is unclear whether the results of this study would generalize to
other college student samples that may contain more diverse demographic, ethnic, or
cultural factors; therefore, future research should also examine the associations between
204
dispositional and situational coping in ethnically, culturally, or demographically diverse
college student samples.
Finally, future research should also examine the use of other criterion measures to
assess dispositional and situational coping responses. The criterion measures utilized in
this study are not the only self-report measures of dispositional and situational coping
responses, and previous research has utilized a variety of coping assessment instruments.
Thus, research in this area could be strengthened by implementing alternate criterion
measures to examine the links between personality and psychopathology constructs and
alternate types of dispositional and situational coping responses, such as distancing or
cognitive restricting for example. Instruments such as the Ways of Coping Questionnaire
(WCQ; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988), the COPE (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) and
the Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI; Amirkhan, 1990) are examples self-report measures
that may be particularly useful in assessing various dispositional and situational coping
responses. Incorporating additional coping instruments in future research will help to
replicate the current findings and capture a wider range of coping strategies and provide
richer information about their associations with personality and psychopathology
constructs.
205
REFERENCES
Ager, A. & Maclachlan, M. (1998). The psychometric properties of the Coping Strategy
Indicator (CSI) in a study of coping behavior amongst Malawian students.
Psychology and Health, 13(3), 399-409.
Aldwin, C. M., & 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.
Altrocchi, J., Parsons, O. A., & Dickoff, H. (1960). Changes in self-ideal discrepancy in
repressors and sensitizers. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 67-72.
Amirkhan, J. H. (1990). A factor analytically derived measure of coping: The Coping
Strategy Indicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1066- 1074.
Amirkhan, J. H. (1994). Criterion validity of a coping measure. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 62(2), 242-261.
Atkinson, M., & Violato, C. (1993). A factor analysis of the Ways of Coping
Questionnaire based on data from saddening experiences. Psychological Reports,
72, 1159-1164.
Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2001). [The development and standardization of the Reactions to
Stress Inventory-Dispositional]. Unpublished raw data.
Ben-Porath, Y. S. & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2-Restructured Form: Technical Manual. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Bond, M. P., & Vaillant, J. S. (1986). An empirical study of the relationship between
diagnosis and defense style. Archives of General Psychiatry, 43, 285-288.
Bouchard, G., Guillemette, A., & Landry-Leger, N. (2004). Situational and dispositional
coping: an examination of their relation to personality, cognitive appraisals, and
psychological distress. European Journal of Personality, 18, 221-238.
Byrne, D. (1961). The Repression-Sensitization Scale: Rationale, reliability, and validity.
Journal of Personality, 29, 334-349.
206
Catanzaro, S. J., Horaney, F., & Creasy, G. (1995). Hassles, coping, and depressive
symptoms in an elderly community sample: the role of mood regulation
expectancies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 423, 259-265.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
56(2), 267-283.
Cohan, S. L., Jang, K. J., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of a short
form of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 62(3), 273-283.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coolidge, F. L. (1993). The Coolidge Axis II Inventory, Manual. Clermont, FL:
Synergistic Office Solutions.
Connor-Smith, J. K. & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping:
a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1080-1107.
Costa, J., & Gouveia, J. P. (2008). Psychometric qualities of a stress life events related
measure: Preliminary adaptation of COPE to Portuguese population.
Psychologica, 48, 125-157.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Personality stability and its implications for
clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Review, 6, 407-423.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice:
The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13.
Desmond, D. M., Shevlin, M., & MacLachlan, M. (2006). Dimensional analysis of the
coping strategy indicator in a sample of elderly veterans with acquired limb
amputations. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 249-259.
Endler, N. S. (1983). Interactionism: A personality model, but not yet a theory. Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 155-200.
Endler, N. S. (1988). Hassles, health, and happiness. In M. P. Janisse (Ed.), Individual
differences, stress, and health psychology (pp. 24-56). New York: Springer.
207
Endler, N. S., Kantor, L., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). State-trait coping, state-trait anxiety
and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(5), 663-
670.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990a). Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations
(CISS): Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990b). The multidimensional assessment of coping: A
critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1993). The multidimensional assessment of coping:
concepts, issues and measurement. In G. L. VanHeck, P. Bonaiuto, I. Deary, &
W. Nowack (Eds), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 4). Tilburg,
Netherlands: Tilburg University.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: Task,
emotion, and avoidance strategies. Psychological Assessment, 6(1), 50-60.
Eysenck, M. W., & Eysenck, H. J. (1980). Mischel and the concept of personality. British
Journal of Psychology, 71, 191-204.
Fairbank, J. A., Hansen, D. J., & Fitterling, J. M. (1991). Patterns of appraisal and coping
across different stressor conditions among former prisoners of war with and
without Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 59(2), 274-281.
Feifel, H. & Strack, S. (1989). Coping with conflict situations: Middle-aged and elderly
men. Psychology and Aging, 4, 26-33.
Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Obertynski, M. (1996). Affect intensity, coping styles,
mood dysregulation expectancies, and depressive symptoms. Personality and
Individual Differences, 20(2), 221-228.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community
sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion
and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48(1), 150-170.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1986). Stress processes and depressive symptomatology.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 107-113
208
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Manual for the Ways of Coping Questionnaire.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Freud, S. (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. New York: Norton.
Funder, D. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations,
and behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 21-34.
Garvin, B. J., & Kim, C. J. (2000). Measurement of preference for information in U.S.
and Korean cardiac catheterization patients. Research in Nursing & Health, 23,
310-318.
Gordon, J. R. (1959). The stability of the assumed similarity response set in repressors
and sensitizers. Journal of Personality, 27, 362-373.
Graham, J. R. (2006). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Haisch, D. C., & Meyers, L. S. (2004). MMPI-2 assessed post-traumatic stress disorder
related to job stress, coping, and personality in police agencies. Stress and Health,
20, 223-229.
Handel, R. W., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (March 1998). Relations between dispositional
coping styles and personality: Findings with the reactions to stress inventory.
Paper presented at the 33rd
Annual Symposium and Recent Developments in the
Use of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. Clearwater Beach, FL.
Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (1994), The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-
5): Issues from the pages of a diagnostic manual instead of a dictionary. In S.
Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating Normal and Abnormal Personality (pp.
291-315). New York: Springer.
Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (2007, August). Restructured versions of the MMPI-2
personality psychopathology five (PSY-5) scales. Paper presented at the 115th
annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco,
CA.
Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The Personality
Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI-2 scales. Psychological
Assessment, 7, 104-114.
Hatfield, J. (1958). A study of self-concept configurations in relation to forms of ego
functioning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California.
209
Jang, K. L., Thordarson, D. S., Stein, M. B., Cohan, S. L., & Taylor, S. (2007). Coping
styles and personality: A biometric analysis. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20(1),
17-24.
Kallasmaa, T., & Pulver, A. (2000). The structure and properties of the Estonian COPE
inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 881-894.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the
person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34.
Kleijn, W. M., VanHeck, G. L., & VanWaning, A. (2000). Experiences with a Dutch
adaptation of the COPE coping questionnaire. Gedrag & Gezondheid: Tijdschrift
voor Psychologie en Gezondheid, 28(4), 213-226.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.
McWilliams, L. A., Cox, B. J., & Enns, M. W. (2003). Use of the coping inventory for
stressful situations in a clinically depressed sample: factor structure, personality
correlates, and prediction of stress. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(4), 423-
437.
Miller, S. M. (1980). When is a little information a dangerous thing? Coping with
stressful life-events by monitoring vs. blunting. In S. Levine and H. Ursin (Eds.),
Coping and Health. New York: Plenum Press.
Miller, S. M. (1987). Monitoring and blunting: Validation of a questionnaire to assess
styles of information seeking under threat. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(2), 345-353.
Miller S. M., & Mangan, C. E. (1983). Interacting effects of information and coping
styles in adapting to gynecologic stress: Should the doctor tell all? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 223-236.
Miller, S. M., & Mischel, W. (1986). A cognitive social learning approach to
information-seeking styles under threat. Unpublished manuscript, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA.
Mischel, W. (1984). Convergences and challenges in the search for consistency.
American Psychologist, 39, 351-364.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in
personality structure. Psychological review, 102, 246-268.
210
Mishel, M. H. & Sorenson, D. S. (1993). Revision of the Ways of Coping Checklist for a
clinical population. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15(1), 59-74.
Muris, P., & Schouten, E. (1994). Monitoring and blunting: A factor analysis of the
Miller Behavioral Style Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 17(2), 285-
287.
Nowack, K. M. (1989). Coping style, cognitive hardiness, and health status. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 12, 145-158.
Parker, J. D. A., & Endler, N. S. (1992). Coping with coping assessment: a critical
review. European Journal of Personality, 6, 321-344.
Punamaki, R., Salo, J., Komproe, I., Qouta, S., El-Masri, M., & DeJong, J. T. (2008).
Dispositional and situational coping and mental health among Palestinian political
ex-prisoners. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 21(4), 337-358.
Rafnsson, F. D., Smari, J., Windle, M., Mears, S. A., Endler, N. S. (2006). Factor
structure and psychometric characteristics of the Icelandic version of the Coping
Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS). Personality and Individual Differences,
40, 1247-1258.
Rosenthal R., & Rosnow, R. (2008). Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data
analysis (3rd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Segal, D. L., Hook, J. N., & Coolidge, F. L. (2001). Personality dysfunction, coping
styles, and clinical symptoms in younger and older adults. Journal of Clinical
Geropsychology, 7(3), 201-212.
Sica, C., Novara, C., Dorz, S., & Sanavio, E. (1997). Coping strategies: Evidence for
cross-cultural differences? A preliminary study with the Italian version of Coping
Orientations to Problems Experienced (COPE). Personality and Individual
Differences, 23(6), 1025-1029.
Smyth, K. A., & Williams, P. D. (1991). Patterns of coping in Black working women.
Behavioral Medicine, 17, 40-46.
Tellegen, A. & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008/2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2-Restructured Form: Manual for Administration and Scoring (Revised
Edition). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
211
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., & Graham, J. R., &
Kaemmer, B. (2003). MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Development,
validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Vollrath, M., Alnaes, R., & Torgersen, S. (1996). Differential effects of coping in mental
disorders: a prospective study in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 52(2), 125-135.
Windover, A. K. (2001). The roles of dispositional coping, personality, and situational
characteristics in situational coping behavior. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(1-B), 555.
Worchel, P. (1957). Adaptability screening of flying personnel. Development of a self-
concept inventory for predicting maladjustment. SAM USAF Randolph AFB,
Texas, No. 56-62.
Zhang, W., Huang, W., & Ye, B. (1998). The identifying analysis of the
multidimensional assessment of coping. Psychological Science (China), 21(1),
29-33.
Recommended