Understanding the utility of emotional approach coping: evidence from a laboratory stressor and daily life

Abstract

Background: Dispositional emotional approach coping (EAC) marks an adaptive tendency to process and express emotions. EAC's association with cognitions, affect, and intra- and interindividual characteristics that may account for its utility was examined in response to an acute stressor and in daily life. Design: This study included a laboratory stress task and ecological momentary assessment. Methods: Healthy undergraduate students (n = 124; mean age: 20; women: 56%) completed a laboratory component (baseline survey, speech stress task, pre- and posttask measures) and five subsequent days of surveys via palm pilot (six surveys/day). Results: Controlling for sex, neuroticism, and social support, greater EAC was associated with more positive cognitive appraisals, personal resources, and positive affect and less-negative affect during the lab stressor, and with more perceived control and positive affect in daily life. Significant EAC × sex interactions were found for poststressor affect: men with high EAC reported more positive affect and women with high EAC reported less negative affect. Conclusions: Findings provide support that EAC's utility may be independent of intra- and interindividual characteristics, and that men and women may benefit from EAC in different ways in regards to affect. The proclivity to use EAC may come with a resiliency that protects against stress and promotes general well-being.

Keywords:

• emotional approach coping
• laboratory stressor
• ecological momentary assessment
• affect
• cognition

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation [BCS-0720066] and University of California, Irvine Academic Senate Council on Research, Computing, and Library Resources (to the second author). The first author's time spent on the manuscript was supported by a T32 award [UL1 RR031985] from the Institute of Clinical and Translation Science at the University of California, Irvine, which was made possible through a grant [UL1 TR000153] from the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. This material is based upon work completed in part while Sally S. Dickerson was serving at the National Science Foundation. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Notes

1. Using factor scores instead of average scores yielded the same pattern of results.

Additional information

Funding

Funding: This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation [BCS-0720066] and University of California, Irvine Academic Senate Council on Research, Computing, and Library Resources (to the second author). The first author's time spent on the manuscript was supported by a T32 award [UL1 RR031985] from the Institute of Clinical and Translation Science at the University of California, Irvine, which was made possible through a grant [UL1 TR000153] from the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. This material is based upon work completed in part while Sally S. Dickerson was serving at the National Science Foundation. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.