Testing personality-coping diatheses for negative and positive affect: a longitudinal evaluation

Abstract

The current study examined how trait-consistent coping and trait-inconsistent coping were predictive of negative and positive affect. It was hypothesized that coping behaviors (e.g., social support) that were consistent with dimensions of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of Personality (e.g., Extraversion) would be associated with positive affect, whereas traits that were inconsistent would be associated with negative affect. Longitudinal data from 673 military recruits revealed that dimensions of the FFM moderated the relationship between coping and affect. Individuals either high on Neuroticism, high on Agreeableness, or low on Conscientiousness who used more avoidance coping experienced more negative affect. Individuals high in Extraversion who used more approach coping and individuals low in Agreeableness who used more avoidance coping experienced more positive affect. The results are discussed with respect to the behavioral concordance model (BCM) (Coté & Moskowitz, 1998) and the differential coping choice-effectiveness model (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995).

Keywords:

• personality processes
• five-factor model
• coping
• stress
• multilevel modeling

Notes

1. We realize that the direction of this prediction contradicts much of the N-coping literature, which was summarized in the Introduction section. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the generalizability of the BCM, so the predictions were specified strictly according to this theory. However, we fully expected the predictions of the BCM to be incorrect for some FFM dimensions, including N.

2. The inclusion of Distance coping in an Approach coping factor may appear counter-intuitive. However, Distancing is operationalized by items such as Made light of the situation; refused to get too serious about it and Didn't let it get to me. A reviewer noted that Distancing may be an adaptive way to avoid stress and may facilitate approach coping, but it doesn't appear to be approach coping. This certainly may be the case. However, the items used to operationalize Distancing do not reflect avoidance of the stressfulness of basic training, but rather may indicate an active attempt to reduce negative emotion and/or gather one's thoughts as a prelude to problem solving, for example. Regardless, the factor analyses suggested that Distancing co-occurs enough with more traditional forms of Approach coping, and thus we have retained this variable in the broader Approach coping factor.

3. A three-level model was tested with basic training company at the third-level (repeated observations nested within individuals nested within companies). ICCs less than .01 were found for negative and positive affect, respectively. Thus, a two-level model was used on all further analyses.

4. Because negative affect and positive affect were significantly and negatively correlated, we controlled for this covariation in all analyses.

5. In the prediction of negative affect both a statistically significant main effect for ethnicity (b=.17, p<.001) and a cross-level Ethnicity X Avoidance coping interaction (b=.12, p=.017) were found. For the former, Caucasians experienced significantly negative affect relative to ethnic minority group members. For the latter, a stronger positive negative affect-avoidance coping slope was found in ethnic minority group members relative to Caucasians. No other significant covariate effects were found in the prediction of negative and positive affect.