Personality traits, stressful life events, and coping styles in early adolescence

Personality traits, stressful life events, and coping styles inearly adolescence

Igor Kardum*, Nada KrapicÂ

University of Rijeka, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, Trg I. KlobucÏaricÂa 1, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia

Received 2 June 1999; received in revised form 21 January 2000

Abstract

The aim of this research is to examine the relationship between personality traits, stressful life events andcoping styles in early adolescence. On a sample of 265 subjects, ranging in age from 11 to 14 years, a juniorEPQ, questionnaire of coping styles and scale of subjective stress were applied.

Using the path analysis, the direct and indirect e�ects of personality traits and perceived intensity andfrequency of stressful life events (subjective stress) on three coping styles (problem-focused coping, emo-tion-focused coping and avoidance coping) were tested. The results obtained demonstrated that extraver-sion has a direct positive e�ect on problem and emotion-focused coping style while neuroticism andpsychoticism have direct positive e�ects on avoidance coping style. The indirect e�ects of personality traitson coping styles through subjective stress are low for all three coping styles. Subjective stress has statisti-cally signi®cant positive e�ects on all three coping styles and the greatest independent e�ect is on avoid-ance coping.

In general, the results of this research demonstrate that the relationship between personality traits, sub-jective stress and coping styles in early adolescence are similar to those obtained on the samples of adultsubjects and that already in early adolescence coping can be meaningfully viewed in a larger dispositionalcontext. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In an attempt to answer the question whether the ways of coping in stressful situations areprimarily determined by personality traits, types of stressful situations or their interaction, twodominant approaches have been developed. Within the framework of a structural approach,coping is conceptualized in terms of relatively stable individual di�erences where variations in

0191-8869/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII : S0191-8869(00)00041-6

Personality and Individual Differences 30 (2001) 503±515www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +385-51-315-250; fax: +385-51-315-228.

E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Kardum).

stressful situations are of little importance. The coping process is determined, above all, by indi-vidual di�erences and intraindividual stability while the in¯uence of the nature and course of thestressful situation is unimportant. Within this approach, there are two assumptions on howindividual di�erences could in¯uence coping.Some authors (e.g. McCrae & Costa, 1986) assume that preferred coping styles can directly be

derived from personality traits such as extraversion and neuroticism. There is some empiricalevidence on the cross-situational and temporal consistency and stability of coping e�orts that isunder the in¯uence of personality traits (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; McCrae & Costa, 1986; Scheier& Carver, 1985). McCrae and Costa (1986) reported that neuroticism is related signi®cantly tothe use of hostile reaction, escapist fantasy, self-blame, sedation, withdrawal, wishful thinking,passivity, and indecision, coping styles which these authors term immature or neurotic coping.On the other hand, extraversion is signi®cantly linked to coping styles which include rationalaction, positive thinking, substitution and restraint, in other words with those coping styles whichcould be called problem-focused coping. Parkes (1986) also states that extraversion has a sig-ni®cant positive e�ect on active, problem-focused coping, while neuroticism is linked to lesse�ective coping styles. Kardum and Hudek-KnezÏ evicÂ (1996) found a signi®cant positive link ofextraversion with emotion-focused coping and neuroticism with avoidance coping while psycho-ticism is negatively linked to emotion and problem-focused coping and positively to avoidancecoping.The second assumption relating to the in¯uence of personality characteristics on coping that

exists within the structural approach is that there are stable styles, dispositions or preferences forcoping people employ when in stressful situations. The proponents of this assumption (e.g. Car-ver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989) do not deny the potential importance of personality traits tocoping, but assume that coping dispositions are not directly the function of personality traits.Stable coping preferences can be derived from personality traits, and also because of some otherreasons, e.g. during the process of socialization. Although the results of some authors (e.g. Carveret al., 1989; Hudek-KnezÏ evicÂ & Kardum, 1996) demonstrate that various coping styles are relatedin a theoretically meaningful manner to numerous personality dimensions such as optimism-pes-simism, self-esteem, internality, anxiety, the correlations obtained are considered not so sub-stantial as to permit the conclusion that coping styles are determined only by personality traits.Within the framework of a transactional approach to stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman,

1984), coping is conceptualized in terms of the person±environment relationship and the dynamic,interactive nature of the stressful transaction is emphasized. Individual di�erences and environ-mental factors are mainly considered under the global construct of cognitive appraisal, althoughit is emphasized that personality traits such as hardiness, self-e�cacy and sense of coherencerepresent important protective factors from stressful experience (Lazarus, 1990).Thus, although there is a divergence of opinion about the role of personality traits in the

development of relatively stable coping styles, both structural and transactional approaches agreewith the fact that personality traits are important factors which are operational in the process ofstress and coping. However, the above-mentioned research was carried out on adult subjects,whereas there are few studies dealing with this problem on adolescent samples. Adolescence is atime of special stress and a number of physical, psychological and sociological in¯uences arebrought to bear on the individual at this stage of development. As a result, it is especiallyimportant to examine the determinants of coping styles in that developmental period.

504 I. Kardum, N. KrapicÂ / Personality and Individual Di�erences 30 (2001) 503±515

In some research, the self-concept of adolescents is linked to coping styles. So, for example,Sei�ge-Krenke (1990) found a link between coping styles and self-concept. The sample in herstudy was classi®ed into three categories taking into consideration the predominant coping style(active copers, internal copers and problem avoiders). Each of the coping styles was linked to adi�erent self-description; active copers had high self-esteem and reported excellent relationshipswith their parents whereas the problem avoiders gave depressed self-descriptions and lackedcon®dence in their own abilities. The reciprocity was found in the relationship, so that self-esteemdetermined the choice of coping strategies in some respects and the use of strategies in turn helpedto shape self-esteem and self-concept. It has been proposed that high self-esteem is in itself apositive coping mechanism. Similar results were obtained by Jerusalem and Schwarzer (1989) onsamples of German and Turkish adolescents. Their results show that emotion-focused coping ismainly in¯uenced by anxiety while positive self-concept turned out to be bene®cial for problem-focused coping in the German subsample. Gomez (1997) found that external locus of controlcorrelates negatively with approach coping and positively with avoidance coping on an adoles-cent sample in an age range of 14±17 years.Dimensions of temperament are also sometimes considered important determinants of coping

responses. The child's temperament may de®ne a range of responsivity to stress and in¯uence thestyle that characterizes the child's way of coping (Compas, 1987). Hauser and Bowlds (1990), forexample, point out that temperament in¯uences the available range of coping strategies an indi-vidual may call upon in stressful situations, and at the same time temperament a�ects the types ofevents that are recognized as being stressful by individual. However, until now, very little sys-tematic and comprehensive research has been carried out on how adolescent temperament islinked to their coping styles. On a high school and college student sample, Rehulkova, Blatny andOsecka (1995) found that coping strategies of expressed-emotions, wishful thinking and self-cri-ticism were markers of neuroticism. The coping strategy markers for extraversion were problem-solving, cognitive restructuring, social support and social withdrawal (contrary oriented). Theauthors concluded that neuroticism was associated with coping strategies of the disengagementtype, and extraversion with strategies of the engagement type. Assuming that neuroticism tendsto exacerbate the association between stressful life events and adjustment, while extraversiontends to ameliorate it, Ho�man, Levy-Shi� and Malinski (1996) obtained signi®cant interactionsbetween personality traits and stressful life events in the prediction of adjustment among adoles-cents (12±13 years) but not among preadolescents (10±11 years).As is well-known, stressful life events have substantial impact on the coping process along with

personality traits. On the other hand, stressful life events are themselves in¯uenced by personalitytraits. For example, research carried out on adult subjects has shown that neuroticism is relatedwith increased exposure to stressful life events (Bolger & Schilling, 1991). Also, neuroticism hasbeen linked to heightened processing and recall of negative situational elements (Larsen, 1992),while extraversion has been linked to a preference for positive situational features over negativeones (Graziano, Feldesman & Rahe, 1985).From studies such as the above, it is clear that personality dispositions and temperament are

concomitants of coping and as such need to be taken into account when considering the processof stress and coping. The greatest amount of previous research included few dispositional con-structs that appear to be potentially relevant while a very small amount attempted to place ado-lescents' coping styles in the context of general structural models of personality traits.

I. Kardum, N. KrapicÂ / Personality and Individual Di�erences 30 (2001) 503±515 505

The aim of this research is to examine the relationship between personality traits, perceivedintensity and frequency of stressful life events and coping styles in early adolescence. The rela-tions between the variables were tested by the model assuming direct and indirect e�ects of per-sonality traits on coping styles, controlling for perceived stress. Since personality is observed as ageneral frame which is connected with the individual's coping repertoire, Eysenck's trait taxo-nomic scheme, which provides sampling of a wide range of characteristics that are potentiallyrelevant in the process of coping with stress, has been used in this research.On the basis of the above-mentioned research, it can be assumed that, already in early adoles-

cence, extraversion acts as a protective factor in the stress and coping process, i.e. there is a low ornegative link to perceived stressful life events and to less e�ective coping styles, e.g. avoidancecoping, and a positive link with problem and emotion-focused coping. On the other hand, we canexpect that neuroticism and psychoticism are linked to increased perception of stressful life eventsand to higher scores on avoidance coping.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

Research was carried out on 265 subjects (120 female and 145 male) from four primary schools.The subjects' age ranged from 11 to 14 years (M � 12:56; SD=1.12).

2.2. Measures

The Croatian version of the junior EPQ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1994) comprising four scales wasused: extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and the lie-scale (L-scale). Internal consistencycoe�cients (Cronbach-alpha) obtained on this sample were 0.63 for extraversion, 0.79 for neu-roticism, 0.64 for psychoticism and 0.82 for the L-scale.On the sample of this study a signi®cant link between neuroticism and psychoticism was

obtained (0.24; p < 0:001) and all personality traits are also signi®cantly related to the L-scale;extraversion (ÿ0.18; p < 0:01), neuroticism (ÿ0.28; p < 0:001) and psychoticism (-0.41;p<0.001). Gender di�erences were obtained only on psychoticism (t � 4:53; p < 0:001) whereboys achieve signi®cantly higher scores (M � 4:89) than girls (M � 3:45). The subjects' age issigni®cantly linked only with the L-scale (ÿ0.42; p < 0:001).The questionnaire for measuring adolescents' coping styles (KrapicÂ , 1999) was constructed by

compiling items from the following questionnaires: coping scale for children and youth (Brod-zinsky et al., 1992), Kidcope (Spirito, Stark & Williams, 1988), adolescence coping scale (Fry-denberg & Lewis, 1990) and coping orientation to problems experienced (Carver, Scheier &Weintraub, 1989). The basic approach in constructing this questionnaire was to encompass, in aswide a range as possible, thoughts and behaviour present in adolescents when faced with stressfulsituations.The ®nal form of the questionnaire for measuring adolescents' coping styles consists of 55

items. This questionnaire can be used in a dispositional and situational form and its dispositionalform was used for the requirements of this study. A 5-point Likert type scale was used, with


answers ranging from 0 Ð ``I usually don't do that at all'' to 4 Ð ``I nearly always do that''.Previous research (KrapicÂ , 1999) demonstrates three factors underlying this questionnaire, whichare named problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping and avoidance coping.The ®rst factor consists of 31 items related to denial, mental and behavioural disengagement

and, therefore, this factor is named avoidance coping (the ®ve highest loading items are: I try notto think about the problem and put it out of my mind; I behave as if nothing has happened; I giveup trying to solve the problem; I daydream about other things; I accept that it has happened andcould not be changed). The second factor consists of 13 items relating to reduction of emotionaldistress through venting of emotions and seeking social support for emotional and instrumentalreasons, and is named emotion-focused coping (the ®ve highest loading items are: I talk to othersabout my feelings; I ask somebody for advice about what to do; I am upset and openly expressmy feelings; I seek advice from a family member; I feel bad and openly express it). The thirdfactor consists of 11 items which describe the thoughts and behaviour focused on resolving theproblem, and this factor is named problem-focused coping (the ®ve highest loading items are: Ithink about the problem and try to see what can be done; I try hard to do something about theproblem; I make a plan for solving the problem and follow it; I try to concentrate to a bene®t thatcould be drawn from that situation; I gradually do what I think should be done to solve theproblem). Three conceptually similar factors underlie the great number of questionnaires formeasuring coping styles on children and adults (see Cox & Ferguson, 1991; Hudek-KnezÏ evicÂ ,Kardum & VukmirovicÂ , 1999; Phelps & Jarvis, 1994).A principal factor analysis con®rms the three above-mentioned factors on this sample (the ®rst

six eigen values are: 9.41, 6.09, 3.31, 2.11, 1.93, 1.62). The ®rst factor, avoidance coping, explains15.9% of the common variance, and its reliability of internal consistency (Cronbach-alpha) is0.89. The second factor, emotion-focused coping, explains 9.9% of the common variance and itsreliability (Cronbach-alpha) is 0.88. Problem-focused coping explains 4.9% of the common var-iance and its reliability of internal consistency (Cronbach-alpha) is 0.85.Correlations between these three coping styles are 0.23 (p < 0:001) between problem-focused

coping and avoidance, 0.23 (p < 0:001) between emotion-focused coping and avoidance and 0.41(p < 0:001) between problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping.Gender di�erences were obtained only on emotion-focused coping (t � 2:56; p < 0:05) where

girls achieve signi®cantly higher scores (M � 23:74) than boys (M � 20:63). The three copingstyles are not signi®cantly linked to the subjects' age.The scale of subjective stress (KrapicÂ , 1999) was constructed on the basis of the most frequently

mentioned stressors for school children (Hendren, 1990; Sears & Milburn, 1990). This scale con-sists of 50 items which describe negative stressful life events experienced most frequently by ado-lescents. They are related to stressful events linked to family relationships (e.g. quarrel withparents), relationships with peers (e.g. ®ghts and arguments with class-mates) and problemsconnected with school (e.g. did badly on a test). For each negative stressful life event the subjectsestimated its frequency as well as the intensity. Participants responded to each item using a 5-point Likert-type rating scale (0 Ð not at all, 4 Ð very frequently/very stressful). Sum scores werecomputed by adding multiplied frequency and intensity estimates. It should be noted that thisscale measures the subject's perceived level of stress, which should be di�erentiated from stressassessed by a checklist of objective life events (e.g. Holmes & Rahe, 1967), and that personality ismore likely to play a role in subjective stress than in objective stress. The results of the previous


study (KrapicÂ , 1999) indicate that this scale has sound psychometric properties. The correlationbetween subjective stress and subject's age obtained on this sample is not signi®cant (ÿ0.01;p > 0:05). When gender di�erences are taken into account the results indicate that boys achievesigni®cantly higher scores (M � 100:71) than girls (M � 85:13) (t � 2:18; p < 0:05).

2.3. Procedure

Questionnaire of coping with stress, scale of subjective stress and junior EPQ were applied tosmaller groups of subjects using standard directions. The procedure was carried out in two parts.In the ®rst part, the questionnaire of coping with stress and junior EPQ were applied while thescale of subjective stress was applied 2 weeks later. When applying this scale, subjects wererequired to estimate the frequency and intensity of stressful life events within the previous year.

3. Results

Initially, the correlation coe�cients between Eysenck's personality traits, subjective stress andcoping styles were computed. These correlations are shown in Table 1.From the correlations obtained, it can be seen that extraversion and neuroticism are sig-

ni®cantly positively linked both with problem and emotion-focused coping. Neuroticism andpsychoticism are signi®cantly positively linked to avoidance coping, while the L-scale is not sig-ni®cantly related to coping styles. Neuroticism and psychoticism are signi®cantly positively linkedwith subjective stress, as well as all three coping styles.To test the relationship between three groups of variables, the direct and indirect e�ects of

Eysenck's personality traits and subjective stress on coping styles, three path analyses wereundertaken. In each analysis, ®ve variables were included and their theoretical relationship ®xedidentically for all three models. The ®rst three variables are Eysenck's personality traits, extra-version, neuroticism and psychoticism. The next variable is subjective stress while the ®fth vari-able is one of the three coping styles, problem-focused, emotion-focused and avoidance copingstyle.

Table 1Correlations between Eysenck's personality traits, stressful life events and coping stylesa

Neuroticism Psychoticism L-Scale Subjective

stress

Problem

focusedcoping

Emotion

focusedcoping

Avoidance

coping

Extraversion ÿ0.01 0.03 ÿ0.18�� ÿ0.03 0.26�� 0.22�� 0.04

Neuroticism 0.24�� ÿ0.28�� 0.40�� 0.18�� 0.16�� 0.34��

Psychoticism ÿ0.41�� 0.22�� 0.01 ÿ0.01 0.24��

L-scale ÿ0.10 ÿ0.05 0.08 ÿ0.09Subjective stress 0.21�� 0.18�� 0.36��

Problem-focused coping 0.41�� 0.23��

Emotion-focused coping 0.23��

a Note: �p<0.05; ��p<0.01; ��p<0.001.


In all three models, it was hypothesized that Eysenck's personality traits could predict copingstyles directly and through subjective stress. Subjective stress was considered in these models asmediator between personality traits and coping styles, and their direct e�ects on coping styles arealso hypothesized. Fig. 1 shows the e�ects of Eysenck's personality traits and subjective stress onproblem-focused coping style.As can be seen from the path coe�cients, out of personality traits analyzed only extraversion

has a signi®cant direct positive e�ect on problem-focused coping (0.27). Neuroticism and psy-choticism have signi®cant positive e�ects on subjective stress, while subjective stress also has asigni®cant positive e�ect on problem-focused coping (0.19). However, it should be pointed outthat subjective stress partially mediates the e�ects of neuroticism and psychoticism on problem-focused coping. The total e�ect of neuroticism on problem-focused coping is 0.19, and along witha direct e�ect (0.12) of this personality trait, an indirect e�ect on problem-focused coping (0.07) isobtained through subjective stress. When the indirect e�ects of personality traits, especially neu-roticism, are extracted from the total e�ect of subjective stress on problem-focused coping, thenthe e�ect of subjective stress on problem-focused coping is no more statistically signi®cant (0.10).Fig. 2 shows the e�ects of Eysenck's personality traits and subjective stress on emotion-focused

coping style.In this case also, only extraversion from personality traits has a statistically signi®cant positive

e�ect on emotion-focused coping (0.22). As with problem-focused coping, the e�ect of subjectivestress is statistically signi®cant. However, it mediates the indirect e�ects of neuroticism (0.06) andpsychoticism (0.02) on emotion-focused coping. When these indirect e�ects are separated, it canbe seen that the e�ect of subjective stress on emotion-focused coping is relatively low and non-signi®cant (0.085). Fig. 3 shows the e�ects of Eysenck's personality traits and subjective stress onavoidance coping style.Neuroticism (0.20) and psychoticism (0.14) have statistically signi®cant positive e�ects on

avoidance coping style. Neuroticism also has an indirect e�ect on avoidance coping (0.09), so thatthe total e�ect of this personality trait on avoidance coping is 0.29. Psychoticism also has a low

Fig. 1. The e�ects of Eysenck's personality traits and subjective stress on problem-focused coping style.


indirect e�ect on avoidance coping (0.03). Subjective stress has a statistically signi®cant positivee�ect on avoidance coping (0.25) even when indirect e�ects of personality traits are excluded(0.13).

4. Discussion

The results obtained mainly con®rm the hypothesis and, basically, they are very similar to theresults obtained on samples of adult subjects.From all three models, it can be concluded that Eysenck's personality traits are linked to cop-

ing styles in various ways. Extraversion has direct positive e�ects on problem and emotion-

Fig. 3. The e�ects of Eysenck's personality traits and subjective stress on avoidance coping style.

Fig. 2. The e�ects of Eysenck's personality traits and subjective stress on emotion-focused coping style.


focused coping (see Figs. 1 and 2), while neuroticism and psychoticism have direct positive e�ectson avoidance coping (see Fig. 3). Indirect e�ects of personality traits on coping styles throughsubjective stress are relatively low for all three coping styles, and they are slightly higher forneuroticism and the lowest for extraversion. The e�ects of subjective stress are statistically sig-ni®cant on all three coping styles, where half of the total e�ects of this variable on coping stylesare direct e�ects and half indirect e�ects of personality traits. The direct e�ect of subjective stressis the highest on avoidance coping style.Thus, as with the majority of research carried out on samples of adult subjects (Hooker, Fra-

zier & Monahan, 1994; Kardum & Hudek-KnezÏ evicÂ , 1996; McCrae & Costa, 1986; Parkes, 1986;Watson & Hubbard, 1996), this research demonstrates that, already in early adolescence, extra-version is positively linked to more active and e�ective coping styles, i.e. problem and emotion-focused coping styles. Since extraversion is substantially related to individual di�erences in posi-tive a�ect, i.e. extraverts report substantially higher levels of joy, energy, interest and enthusiasm,Watson and Hubbard (1996) emphasize that in the face of such euthymia one would predict thatextraverts should employ more active and e�ective coping mechanisms such as problem-focusedcoping. Also, research has demonstrated that extraverts are highly motivated to interact withothers and actually spend more time socializing than do introverts (Watson & Clark, 1992). Theresults of this research which relates to direct positive e�ects of extraversion on emotion-focusedcoping (see Fig. 2) are in accord with those reported by Watson and Clark (1992). Namely, thecontent of the emotion-focused coping scale relates mainly to seeking social support, either foremotional or instrumental reasons. Since people begin feeling better when they direct themselvesto the problem which is the source of stress and because a planned and active solution to theproblem, when e�ective, can improve the relationship of the individual with the environment,such coping styles lead to a positive cognitive appraisal and in turn to a positive emotionalresponse.Neuroticism has a signi®cant direct e�ect only on avoidance coping (see Fig. 3). Linking neu-

roticism with passive and ine�ective forms of coping has, several times, been replicated on sam-ples of adult subjects (Carver et al., 1989; Endler & Parker, 1990; Kardum & Hudek-KnezÏ evicÂ ,1996; McCrae & Costa, 1986; Parkes, 1986; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). Bolger and Schilling(1991) found that neuroticism led to greater exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. However,neuroticism is also a disposition for experiencing distress even in the absence of environmentalstressors. Ormel and Wohlfarth (1991) carried out longitudinal research on adult subjects andfound that neuroticism directly in¯uences psychological distress and frequency of stressful lifeevents 6 or 7 years later. Prospective studies have shown that neuroticism predicts the subsequentoccurrence of stressful life events, even when these events are objectively de®ned (Breslau, Davis& Andreski, 1995).Why do participants high in neuroticism experience more stressful life events? Magnus, Diener,

Fujita and Pavot (1993) suggest two mechanisms explaining a relationship between neuroticismand stressful life events. First, neurotics react to a wider variety of events in a negative way.Second, their di�culties in social interaction may actually initiate negative events, which is con-sistent with the association between neuroticism and greater exposure to negative life events(Bolger & Schilling, 1991). Bolger and Zuckerman (1995) noted that their high levels of dailynegative a�ect, particularly anger and depression, lead to interpersonal problems. It could also bethat their strategies of coping with con¯icts cause these con¯icts to continue (see also O'Brien &


DeLongis, 1996). This possibility seems plausible given that high neuroticism participants weremore likely to use confrontive coping strategies in response to con¯icts. Finally, it could be thatthey engage in less anticipatory and preventive coping than other people, which results in greaterexposure to stressors. Results obtained in this research also demonstrate that neuroticism ispositively linked to subjective stress and that subjective stress partially mediates the e�ects ofneuroticism, especially on avoidance coping (see Fig. 3). Apart from that, neuroticism is moder-ately positively correlated with avoidance coping. Although employing avoidance to ¯ee thedemands of the situation may allow those higher on neuroticism to bring their aversive emotionsunder control, an overreliance upon escape-avoidance and a lack of planful problem-solvinge�orts may impede the resolution of problems (Suls & Fletcher, 1985).In comparison to extraversion and neuroticism, the role of psychoticism in the process of

coping with stress is considerably less examined. A high result on this scale is generally attributedto impulsive persons, inclined to seek stimulating situations (Claridge, 1985). Eysenck andEysenck (1994) described persons with high scores on this scale as aggressive and hostile. Zuck-erman (1989) states that the dimension of psychoticism is a supertrait which contains closely-linked traits such as impulsivity, sensation seeking, lack of socialization and responsibility,autonomy and aggression. The results of previous research on adult subjects, which show thatpsychoticism is negatively linked to problem and emotion-focused coping and positively toavoidance (Kardum & Hudek-KnezÏ evicÂ , 1996) are compatible with such characteristics of psy-choticism.In this research psychoticism has statistically signi®cant positive e�ects on subjective stress and

avoidance coping. Such e�ects of psychoticism are similar to the e�ects of neuroticism. This canpartially be the result of a positive link between these two personality traits in this sample.The results which relate to subjective stress demonstrate that this variable is signi®cantly posi-

tively linked to all coping styles (see Table 1). However, although the total e�ects of subjectivestress are statistically signi®cant on all three coping styles, their independent e�ect is signi®cantonly on avoidance coping. In other words, on a sample of early adolescents, the perceived inten-sity and frequency of stressful life events directly contributes only to the use of avoidance coping.Previous research (Larson & Lampman-Petraitis, 1989; Petersen & Hamburg, 1986) demonstratethat adolescence is associated with more frequent negative a�ect and increased rates of behavioraland psychological problems, caused, above all, by their stressful transactions with the environ-ment. Larson and Ham (1993) thus found that adolescents encountered more negative eventsthan younger subjects, including more peer, school and family events, and that experience ofmultiple negative events had a stronger association with daily negative a�ect among the adoles-cents. As a result, adolescence can be observed as a critical phase in the development ofcoping skills. The results obtained in this research show that all three coping styles, especiallyavoidance coping, can be viewed as individual e�orts to minimize distress. Research carried outon adult subjects (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988, 1990) also suggest that avoidance has a relativelyshort-term adaptive impact, while this style very often does not have satisfactory long-term out-comes.Generally, the results obtained show that coping styles are moderately linked to general per-

sonality traits, so that, already in early adolescence, coping can be meaningfully viewed in a largerdispositional context. This research also indicates that relationships between personality traits,subjective stress and coping styles which are typical for adult samples can, to a great extent, be


generalized on early adolescence. However, it should be emphasized that the correlations of per-sonality traits with coping styles are not so high to permit conclusion that coping styles aredetermined only by personality traits. The results obtained in this research speak more in favourof the hypothesis that coping styles are only partially determined by personality traits. In spite ofthat, we can conclude that the results of this research represent further validation of the role ofpersonality traits in the process of coping with stress as well as validation of the concept of copingstyle in early adolescence.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Research Support Scheme of the OSI/HESP, grant No.: 251/1997, awarded to Igor Kardum.

References

Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposureand reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59, 355±386.

Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 69, 890±902.

Breslau, N., Davis, G. C., & Andreski, P. (1995). Risk factor for PTSD-related traumatic events: A prospective ana-

lysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 529±535.Brodzinsky, D. M., Elias, M. J., Steiger, C., Simon, J., Gill, M., & Hitt, J. C. (1992). Coping scale for children andyouth: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 195±214.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267±283.

Claridge, G. (1985). Origins of mental illness. Oxford: Blackwell.Compas, B. E. (1987). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 393±403.

Cox, T., & Ferguson, E. (1991). Individual di�erences, stress and coping. In C. L. Cooper, & R. Payne, Personality andstress: Individual di�erences in the stress process (pp. 7±30). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

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

Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844±854.Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1994). PrirucÂnik za Eysenckov upitnik licÏnosti (EPQ Ð djeca i odrasli. Jas-trebarsko: Naklada Slap [Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Junior and Adult)]..

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54, 466±475.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Coping and emotion. In N. L. Stein, B. Leventhal, & T. Trabasso, Psychologicaland biological approaches to emotion (pp. 313±332). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1990). How adolescents cope with di�erent concerns: The development of the adolescentcoping checklist (ACC). Psychological Test Bulletin, 3, 63±73.

Gomez, R. (1997). Locus of control and Type A behavior pattern as predictors of coping styles among adolescents.

Personality and Individual Di�erences, 23, 391±398.Graziano, W. G., Feldesman, A. B., & Rahe, D. F. (1985). Extraversion, social cognition, and the salience of aver-siveness in social encounters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 971±980.

Hauser, S. T., & Bowlds, M. K. (1990). Stress, coping and adaptation. In S. S. Feldman, & G. R. Elliot, At thethreshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 388±413). London: Harvard University Press.

Hendren, R. L. (1990). Stress in adolescence. In L. E. Arnold, Childhood stress (pp. 247±264). New York: John Wiley &

Sons.


Ho�man, M. A., Levy-Shi�, R., & Malinski, D. (1996). Stress and adjustment in the transition to adolescence: Mod-

erating e�ects of neuroticism and extroversion. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 161±175.Holmes, T. M., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11,213±218.

Hooker, K., Frazier, L. D., & Monahan, D. J. (1994). Personality and coping among caregivers of spouses withdementia. The Gerontologist, 34, 386±392.

Hudek-KnezÏ evicÂ , J., & Kardum, I. (1996). A model of coping with con¯icts between occupational and family roles:

Structural analysis. Personality and Individual Di�erences, 21, 355±372.Hudek-KnezÏ evicÂ , J., Kardum, I., & VukmirovicÂ , ZÏ (1999). The structure of coping styles: A comparative study ofCroatian sample. European Journal of Personality, 13, 149±161.

Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1989). Anxiety and self-concept as antecedents of stress and coping: A longitudinal

study with German and Turkish adolescents. Personality and Individual Di�erences, 10, 785±792.Kardum, I., & Hudek-KnezÏ evicÂ , J. (1996). The relationship between Eysenck's personality traits, coping styles andmoods. Personality and Individual Di�erences, 20, 341±350.

KrapicÂ , N. (1999). SuocÏavanje sa stresom kod djece. [Children's coping with stress]. Unpublished master thesis, Uni-versity of Ljubljana, Ljubljana

Larsen, R. L. (1992). Neuroticism and selective encoding and recall of symptoms: Evidence from combined concurrent-

retrospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 480±488.Larson, R., & Ham, M. (1993). Stress and ``storm and stress'' in early adolescence: The relationship of negative eventswith dysphoric a�ect. Developmental Psychology, 29, 130±140.

Larson, R., & Lampman-Petraitis, C. (1989). Daily emotional stress as reported by children and adolescents. ChildDevelopment, 60, 1250±1260.

Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Stress, coping, and illness. In H. S. Friedman, Personality and disease (pp. 97±120). New York:Wiley.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective lifeevents: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1046±1053.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping e�ectiveness in an adult sample. Journal ofPersonality, 54, 385±405.

O'Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problem-, emotion-, and relationship-focused

coping. The role of the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Personality, 64, 775±813.Ormel, J., & Wohlfarth, T. (1991). How neuroticism, long-term di�culties, and life situation change in¯uence psy-chological distress: A longitudinal model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 744±755.

Parkes, K. P. (1986). Coping with stressful episodes: The role of individual di�erences, environmental factors, andsituational characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1277±1292.

Petersen, A. C., & Hamburg, B. (1986). Adolescence: A developmental approach to problems and psychopathology.Behavior Therapy, 13, 480±499.

Phelps, S. B., & Jarvis, P. A. (1994). Coping in adolescence: empirical evidence for a theoretically based approach toassessing coping. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 359±371.

Rehulkova, O., Blatny, M., & Osecka, L. (1995). Adolescent's coping styles: A relation to the temperament. Studia

Psychologica, 37, 159±161.Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalizedoutcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219±247.

Sears, S. J., & Milburn, J. (1990). School-age stress. In L. E. Arnold, Childhood stress (pp. 223±246). New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Sei�ge-Krenke, I. (1990). Developmental processes in self-concept and coping behaviour. In H. Bosma, & S. Jackson,Coping and self-concept in adolescence (pp. 50±68). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Spirito, A., Stark, L. J., & Williams, C. (1988). Development of a brief coping checklist for use with pediatric popula-tions. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 13, 555±574.

Suls, J., & Fletcher, B. (1985). The relative e�cacy of avoidant and nonavoidant coping strategies: A meta-analysis.

Health Psychology, 4, 249±288.


Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament: General and speci®c factors of emotional experience

and their relation to the ®ve-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 441±476.Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the ®ve-factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 737±774.

Zuckerman, M. (1989). Personality in the third dimension: A psychobiological approach. Personality and IndividualDi�erences, 10, 391±418.


Documents

Personality traits, stressful life events, and coping styles in early adolescence