The self-perception of flexible coping with stress: A new measure and relations with emotional adjustment

Figures & data

Table 1. Studies 1, 2 and 3 Loadings for Self-Perceived Flexible Coping with Stress (SFCS) (*items included in Studies 2 and 3)

	Study 1 PAF (N = 395)			Study 2 CFA (N = 645)			Study 3 CFA (N = 558)
Items	Multiple CSU	Situational coping	Coping rigidity	MultipleCSU	Situational coping	Coping rigidity	Multiple CSU	Situational coping	Coping rigidity
*I can easily find new ways to cope with stress if needed.	.86	–	–	.80			.76
*Even when the stress is new to me, I can come up with a way to deal with it.	.85	–	–	.76			.75
When I’m dealing with stress, I can do or think many different things to cope.	.78	–	–	X			X
*When I need to, I can change how I deal with stress.	.71	–	–	.72			.80
*I can use many different ways to cope with a new stressor.	.71	–	–	.72			.87
I can come up with lots of ways to make myself feel better if I am stressed.	.70	–	–	X			X
*When stress has not improved, I can find new ways to try to cope.	.69	–	–	.72			.82
When the way I’m coping with stress isn’t working, I try something different.	.68	–	–	X			X
*I can change how I cope with stress.	.67	–	–	.80			.76
When things continue to be stressful, I try new ways to cope.	.66	–	–	X			X
If the way I’m coping with stress isn’t working, I can try a new way of coping.	.61	–	–	X			X
*The way I cope with stress usually depends on what is happening to me.	–	.59	–		.60			.50
There are many different ways to cope with stress.	–	.57	–		X			X
*Some ways of coping work best for some stress, but other ways of coping work best for other stress.	–	.53	–		.68			.66
*Using the same coping response is not always helpful.	–	.53	–		.52			.40
Someone can learn how to cope better by trying new things.	–	.52	–		X			X
*Sometimes changing the usual way of coping with stress can be helpful.	–	.51	–		.53			.76
If a way of coping is not working, it is best to try and find a new way to cope.	–	.48	–		X			X
*It is best to try many different ways of coping with a stressor.	–	.45	–		.56			.56
*Coping with every stressor in the same way doesn’t work well for me.	–	.45	–		.53			.51
In order to find the best way to cope, changing what you do or think can be a good idea.	–	.41	–		X			X
*No matter what the stress, I seem to keep doing the same thing to cope with it.	–	–	.65			.70			.47
*I have only one good way to cope with stress.	–	–	.62			.57			.77
*It is usually not helpful to try a different way to cope with stress.	–	−.32	.58			.50			.52
*My way of coping with stress hasn’t really changed much over time.	–	–	.54			.46			.59
*I don’t really have more than one way to cope with stress.	–	–	.53			.88			.82
*Even if how I cope with something bad doesn’t seem to help, I keep trying it.	–	–	.51			.28			.39
Even if what I do to cope with a problem isn’t helping, I seem to keep coping in the same way.	–	–	.51			X			X
It is almost impossible for people to change how they cope with stress.	–	–	.48			X			X

Note. PAF = principle axis factoring. CFA = confirmation factor analysis. Mult CSU = multiple coping strategy use.

—Values less than |.25| are not shown.

X = Item not included in 18-item SFCS.

Fit for Study 2 CFA: χ²(127) = 400.5, p < .01, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .058 (90% CI .051 to .064, p = .02).

Fit for Study 3 CFA: χ²(119) = 453.32, p < .001, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .071 (90% CI .064 to .078, p < .001).

Standardized loadings are reported.

Table 2. Correlations, Means, and SDs of Self-Perceived Flexible Coping with Stress (SFCS) Subscales

Study#	SFCS subscales	Multiple CSU	Coping rigidity	Situational coping
1 (N = 395)	Multiple coping strategy use	–
	Coping rigidity	−.39**	–
	Situational coping	.30**	−.19**	–
2 (N = 645)	Multiple coping strategy use	–
	Coping rigidity	−.25**	–
	Situational coping	.39**	−.31**	–
3 (N = 558)	Multiple coping strategy use	–
	Coping rigidity	−.19**	–
	Situational coping	.34**	−.09*	–
All studies, 12–18 years (n = 893)	Multiple coping strategy use	–
	Coping rigidity	−.22**	–
	Situational coping	.36**	−.17**	–
All studies, 19+ years (n = 705)	Multiple coping strategy use	–
	Coping rigidity	−.29**	–
	Situational coping	.34**	−.28**	–
1	M (SD)	4.17 (1.20)	3.37 (1.13)	4.83 (0.87)
2	M (SD)	4.11 (1.46)	3.40 (1.31)	4.73 (1.16)
3	M (SD)	4.21 (1.26)	3.77 (1.13)	4.58 (0.95)

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3. Correlations of Self-Perceived Flexible Coping with Stress (SFCS) Subscales with Other Measures

		SFCS subscales
Study #	Measure	Multiple CSU	Coping rigidity	Situational coping
1	Depression, Anxiety and Stress (DASS)	−.30**	.22**	.04
	Social anxiety (SAQ-A30)	−.14**	−.01	.07
	General self-worth (SPP-A)	.36**	−.26**	.03
	Support-seeking (SAS)	.21**	−.10*	.07
	Age	.13**	−.24**	.12*
2	Depressive symptoms (CES-D)	−.44**	.17**	−.12**
	Anxiety symptoms (STAI)	−.52**	.20**	−.12**
	Emotion dysregulation (ER-2)	−.44**	.20**	−.06
	Cognitive reappraisal (ERQ)	.41**	−.04	.21**
	Expressive suppression (ERQ)	−.07	.15**	−.06
	Social withdrawal (BRR)	−.27**	.10*	−.04
	Opposition (BRR)	−.09*	.10*	−.06
	Rumination (BRR)	−.33**	.05	−.01
	Distraction (BRR)	.15**	−.10*	.06
	Age	.13**	−.25**	.07
3	Depressive symptoms (MFQ)	−.40**	.12**	−.07
	Social anxiety (SAS-A)	−.43**	.15**	−.05
	Emotion dysregulation (DERS)	−.50**	.22**	−.07
	General self-worth (SPP-A)	.50**	−.20**	.09*
	Positive thoughts (ARBD)	.34**	−.11**	.12**
	Stop thoughts (ARBD)	.06	−.01	.20**
	Distraction (ARBD)	−.03	.02	.18**
	Age	.11**	.03	.05

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Note. S1 N = 390. S2 N = 645. S3 N = 558. CSU = coping strategy use. Measure used is noted in parentheses. DASS = Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales. SAQ-A30 = Social Anxiety Questionnaire for Adults. SPP-A = Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. SAS = Social Adjustment Scale. CES-D = Center for Epidemiological Studies for Depression Scale. STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. ER-2 = Emotion Regulation Inventory. ERQ = Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. BRR = Behavioral Responses to Rejection Scale. MFQ = Mood and Feelings Questionnaire. SAS-A = Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents. DERS = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. ARBD = Adolescent Responses to Body Dissatisfaction.

Table 4. Results of t-tests Comparing Self-Perceived Flexible Coping with Stress (SFCS) Subscales between Men and Women

Study #	SFCS subscales	Men	Women	Comparison
1		n = 114	n = 281	t(388)
	Multiple coping strategy use	4.40 (1.15)	4.09 (1.14)	2.47*
	Coping rigidity	3.33 (0.99)	3.29 (1.06)	0.36
	Situational coping	4.85 (0.80)	5.13 (0.74)	−3.22**
2		n = 220	n = 425	t(643)
	Multiple coping strategy use	4.45 (1.46)	3.94 (1.44)	4.26**
	Coping rigidity	3.42 (1.36)	3.38 (1.28)	0.39
	Situational coping	4.68 (1.15)	4.76 (1.16)	−0.84
3		n = 225	n = 333	t(556)
	Multiple coping strategy use	4.58 (1.16)	3.99 (1.29)	5.26**
	Coping rigidity	3.76 (1.10)	3.77 (1.15)	−0.10
	Situational coping	4.54 (0.98)	4.60 (0.94)	−0.67

*p < .05. **p < .01.