Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10862-016-9539-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Outcome expectancies for specific coping strategies may help explain why people vary in their choices of coping strategies (e.g., whether to smoke a cigarette or talk to a friend). These choices have relevance to both physical and mental health. The current study evaluated the psychometric properties of a new measure of mood regulation expectancies for specific explicit coping strategies, the Coping Expectancies Scale (CES). 552 adults completed the CES and other measures online. Factor analysis of the CES using Maximum Likelihood Extraction with promax rotation revealed three factors: Expectancies for Passive/Avoidant Coping, Expectancies for Active Behavioral Coping, and Expectancies for Active Cognitive Coping. Concurrent, discriminant, and predictive validity for these factors were strong, as was retest reliability. The CES enables researchers to measure expectancies for specific coping strategies, which may in turn help to explain people’s choices of strategies. In addition, the ability to measure these expectancies may allow for the development of treatment interventions that directly target them, ultimately enabling clients to adjust their expectancies and their choices of coping behavior, with implications for health and well-being.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
ESM 1 (PDF 250 kb)10862_2016_9539_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Baer, R. A., & Huss, D. B. (2008). Mindfulness- and acceptance-based therapy. In J. L. Lebow (Ed.), Twenty-first century psychotherapies: Contemporary approaches to theory and practice (pp. 123–166). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cano, M. Á., Lam, C. Y., Chen, M., Adams, C. E., Correa-Fernández, V., Stewart, D. W., et al. (2014). Positive smoking outcome expectancies mediate the association between negative affect and smoking urge among women during a quit attempt. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 22(4), 332–340. doi: 10.1037/a0036749. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. CrossRef
Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed., ). London: Sage.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In H. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (vol. 1, pp. 15–63). New York: Academic Press. CrossRef
Meng, X., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175. CrossRef
Newport, F. (2011). More than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God: Professed Belief Is Lower among Younger Americans, Easterners, and Liberals. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx
O’Connor, B. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402. CrossRef
R Development Core Team (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES–D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. CrossRef
Reicherts, M., & Perrez, M. (1991). Stress and coping process questionnaire. In M. Perrez, & M. Reicherts (Eds.), Stress, coping, and health: A situation-behavior approach: Theory, methods, applications (pp. 207–225). Kirkland, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Revelle, W. (2010). Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research (Version 1.0–90 Edition) [Computer Software Module]. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Robins, C., Bagby, R., Rector, N., Lynch, T., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Sociotropy, autonomy, and patterns of symptoms in patients with major depression: A comparison of dimensional and categorical approaches. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 285–300. CrossRef
Rood, L., Roelofs, J., Bögels, S., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schouten, E. (2009). The influence of emotion-focused rumination and distraction on depressive symptoms in non-clinical youth: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 607–616. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.07.001. CrossRefPubMed
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogenous versions of the marlowe-crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193. CrossRef
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed., ). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tice, D. M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good: the place of emotion regulation in the context of general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 149–159. CrossRef
Watson, D., David, J. P., & Suls, J. (1999). Personality, affectivity, & coping. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: the psychology of what works (pp. 119–140). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Measuring Outcome Expectancies for Specific Coping Behaviors: the Coping Expectancies Scale (CES)
Dara G. Friedman-Wheeler
Jo Ellyn Pederson
Hilda M. Rizzo-Busack
David A. F. Haaga
- Springer US
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment
Print ISSN: 0882-2689
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3505