The limits of ‘adaptive’ coping: Well-being and mood reactions to stressors among women in abusive dating relationships

Figures & data

Table I.  Inter-item reliabilities (Cronbach's αs) for coping responses in relation to stressors in general vs. specific to a recent relationship conflict.

Coping subscales	Example items	n of items	General	Specific
Problem-solving	Made plans to overcome your problems	4	0.72	0.69
Cognitive restructuring	Looked for how you can learn something out of your bad situation	4	0.77	0.79
Social support seeking	Asked others for help	4	0.83	0.89
Active distraction	Tried to do things which you typically enjoy	5	0.63	0.53
Humor	Told jokes about your situation	3	0.82	0.83
Rumination	Thought about your problems a lot	3	0.90	0.87
Emotional expression	Been very emotional in how you react, even to little things	4	0.80	0.77
Other-blame	Blamed others for creating your problems or making them worse	3	0.78	0.70
Self-blame	Blamed yourself for your problems	3	0.75	0.79
Emotional containment	Tried to act as if you were not upset	4	0.88	0.87
Passive resignation	Tried to just take whatever came your way	4	0.61	0.54
Cognitive avoidance	Tried to distract yourself from your troubles	3	0.78	0.83
Factor components
Problem-focused		12	0.81	0.85
Emotional-avoidant		11	0.77	0.79
Emotional-engagement		10	0.87	0.85

Table II.  Means (SDs) of coping responses to general stressors or specific relationship conflicts and depressive symptoms as a function of abuse in women's dating relationships in study 1.

	Physical assault		Psychological aggression
	Absent	Present	< 3 events	>3 events
Coping with general stressors	(n = 170)	(n = 36)	(n = 129)	(n = 77)
Problem-focused	2.62 (0.85)	2.58 (0.73)	2.64 (0.84)	2.56 (0.80)
Emotional-engagement	1.91 (0.80)	2.28 (0.81)	1.88 (0.79)	2.14 (0.82)
Emotional-avoidant	1.86 (0.88)	2.37 (0.79)	1.80 (0.92)	2.19 (0.78)
Coping with relationship conflict	(n = 212)	(n = 54)	(n = 156)	(n = 110)
Problem-focused	2.12 (0.71)	2.32 (0.64)	2.14 (0.70)	2.19 (0.70)
Emotional-engagement	1.57 (0.75)	1.91 (0.75)	1.51 (0.73)	1.83 (0.77)
Emotional-avoidant	1.72 (0.65)	2.01 (0.63)	1.69 (0.64)	1.90 (0.65)
Depressive symptoms	8.92 (7.08)	12.30 (8.10)	8.05 (6.27)	11.94 (8.32)

Table III.  Regression analyses of moderating effects of abuse on the relations between coping propensities (each dimension in a separate analysis) and depressive symptoms (outcome) in study 1.

	Coping dimension
	Problem-focused			Emotional-engagement			Emotional-avoidant
	r	β	R^2	r	β	R^2	r	β	R^2
Step 1: abuse			0.083***
Physical	0.18**	0.07		–	–	–	–	–	–
Psychological	0.28***	0.25***		–	–	–	–	–	–
Step 2:			0.002
Measure specificity	− 0.04	− 0.04		–	–	–	–	–	–
Step 3:			0.080***			0.140***			0.133***
Coping dimension	− 0.29***	− 0.30***		0.40***	0.39***		0.40***	0.38***
Step 4:
Two-way interactions with measure			0.009			0.007			0.004
Step 5: coping * abuse			0.023***			0.004			0.008
* Physical	0.15*	0.24
* Psychological	− 0.10*	− 0.17***
Step 6:
Three-way interactions			0.009			0.002			0.008

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Note: Steps 1 and 2 were identical for all three regression analyses. Standardized regression coefficients were from the step of entry.

Table IV.  Regression analyses assessing moderating effects of coping propensities on the relations between abuse and affective reactivity to abuse stressor video in study 2.

	Anxiety			Hostility			Agency
	r	β	R^2	r	β	R^2	r	β	R^2
Step 1: abuse			0.111*			0.027			0.015
Physical	0.25**	0.40**		0.01	− 0.10		0.10	0.06
Psychological	− 0.04	− 0.26*		0.14	0.20		0.11	0.08
Model I
Step 2: coping			0.015			0.020			0.002
Problem-focused	0.12	0.12		0.13	0.14		0.07	0.04
Step 3: coping * abuse			0.015			0.043			0.105*
* Physical							− 0.11	0.13
* Psychological							− 0.31**	− 0.41**
Model II
Step 2: coping			0.006			0.005			0.000
Engagement	0.15	0.08		− 0.09	− 0.07		0.03	0.02
Step 3: coping * abuse			0.020			0.042			0.129**
* Physical							0.21	− 0.00
* Psychological							0.36*	0.36*
Model III
Step 2: coping			0.057*			0.021			0.004
Avoidant	0.32**	0.25*		0.12	0.15		− 0.04	− 0.06
Step 3: coping * abuse			0.043			0.091*			0.114**
* Physical				− 0.22*	− 0.39*		0.22*	0.23
* Psychological				− 0.18	− 0.05		0.33**	0.23^+

⁺p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Note: Standardized regression coefficients were from the step of entry.

Figure 1 Relations between problem-focused (top), emotional-engagement (middle) and avoidant (bottom) coping styles and self-reported feelings of positive agency in response to the abuse stressor video among women reporting varying degrees of psychological aggression in their dating relationships, ranging from minimal (one SD below the mean) to severe (one SD above the mean).

Table V.  Regression analyses assessing moderating effects of coping propensities on the relations between abuse and affective reactivity to an academic stressor video in study 2.

	Anxiety			Hostility			Agency
	R	β	R^2	r	β	R^2	r	β	R^2
Step 1: abuse			0.293***			0.177**			0.036
Physical	0.54***	0.57***		0.41***	0.48***		0.09	0.20
Psychological	0.27*	− 0.06		0.14	− 0.13		− 0.09	− 0.21
Model I
Step 2: coping			0.069**			0.027			0.037
Problem-focused	− 0.28**	− 0.26**		− 0.17	− 0.16		0.20*	0.19
Step 3: coping * abuse			0.140***			0.063			0.017
* Physical	− 0.45***	− 0.18
* Psychological	− 0.29**	− 0.26*
Model II
Step 2: coping			0.043*			0.022			0.001
Engagement	0.32**	0.21*		0.24*	0.15		0.07	0.03
Step 3: coping * abuse			0.107**			0.061			0.005
* Physical	0.47***	0.02
* Psychological	0.33*	0.32*
Model III
Step 2: coping			0.041*			0.048*			0.022
Avoidant	0.36***	0.22*		0.35***	0.23*		− 0.10	− 0.16
Step 3: coping * abuse			0.128***			0.037			0.009
* Physical	0.52***	0.02
* Psychological	0.32**	0.36***

*p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Note: Standardized regression coefficients were from the step of entry.

Figure 2 Relations between problem-focused (top), emotional-engagement (middle) and avoidant (bottom) coping styles and self-reported feelings of anxiety in response to the academic stressor video among women reporting varying degrees of psychological aggression in their dating relationships, ranging from minimal (one SD below the mean) to severe (one SD above the mean).