Testing a Dimensional Versus a Typological Approach to the Communal Coping Model in the Context of Type 2 Diabetes

ABSTRACT

The impact of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is far reaching, influencing the lives of both patients and their families. The communal coping model argues that people cope with stress in the context of their relationships, including family relationships, and that coping responses are both cognitive and behavioral in nature. According to the model, communal coping exists along two continuous dimensions: (a) appraisal, which assesses whether people’s cognitions are individual or shared, and (b) action, which pertains to whether people engage in sole or joint behavior to diminish the negative effects of their stress. Theoretically, the dimensions of communal coping cross to create four distinct types of coping. However, this typology has not been statistically tested in existing research, so one goal of this study was to test the typology. A second goal was to assess how the dimensions and types of communal coping are related to family cohesion and individual T2D outcomes. In partial support of the communal coping model, three types of coping emerged, and overall, coping together was beneficial for patient outcomes.

Notes

1. A series of independent samples t-tests was conducted to determine whether differences existed between participants recruited from the hospital and those recruited through university students (hospital sample = −1, university sample = 1). In terms of demographic characteristics, participants recruited from the hospital were older (hospital M = 61.79, SD = 13.84; university M = 50.53, SD = 19.64), t(152) = 3.95, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .66; more white (hospital M = 5.64, SD = 1.10; university M = 4.93, SD = 1.77), t(157) = 3.04, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .49; less educated (hospital M = 3.21, SD = 1.72; university M = 4.46, SD = 2.16), t(156) = −3.76, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .64; had fewer family members living with them (hospital M = 2.15, SD = 1.26; university M = 3.43, SD = 1.48), t(155) = −5.25, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .92; and had more diabetes complications (hospital M = .51, SD = .51; university M = .33, SD = .47), t(155) = 2.07, p < .05, Cohen’s d = .38. They exhibited no significant differences on appraisal, action, or locus of control.