Using an Internet daily diary methodology, this study tested the goodness of fit hypothesis, which highlights the importance of the match between controllability appraisals and coping efforts in adjustment to stressful events. For 28 days, 190 undergraduates described their most stressful event and its controllability, how they coped, and their daily positive and negative mood. Individuals demonstrated fit across situations, with control appraisals associated positively with problem-focused coping and negatively with emotional approach coping and avoidance coping. A pooled within-person interaction indicated that problem-focused coping had a stronger positive association with positive mood when dealing with high versus low control stressors. Significant variation also was found in several other within-person interactions between control appraisals and coping, and some evidence was found for the notion that individual differences in the degree of matching coping to control appraisals were associated with person-level adjustment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Affleck, G., Zautra, A., Tennen, H., & Armeli, S. (1999). Multilevel daily process designs for consulting and clinical psychology: A preface for the perplexed. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 746-754.
2.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Russell Sage.
3.
Aldwin, C. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New York: Guilford.
4.
Alloy, L. B., & Tabachnik, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psychological Review, 91, 112-149.
5.
Berghuis, J. P., & Stanton, A. L. (2002). Adjustment to a dyadic stressor: A longitudinal study of coping and depressive symptoms in infertile couples over an insemination attempt. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 433-438.
6.
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902.
7.
Brissette, I., Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2002). The role of optimism in social network development, coping, and psychological adjustment during a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 102-111.
8.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92-100.
10.
Carver, C. S., Harris, S. D., Lehman, J. M., Durel, L. A., Antoni, M. H., Spencer, S. M., et al. (2000). How important is the perception of personal control? Studies of early stage breast cancer patients. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 139-149.
11.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful transaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 184-195.
12.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The psychology of what works (pp. 182-204). New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.
14.
Christensen, A. J., Benotsch, E. G., Wiebe, J. S., & Lawton, W. J. (1995). Coping with treatment-related stress: Effects on patient adherence in hemodialysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 454-459.
15.
Conway, V. J., & Terry, D. J. (1994). Appraised controllability as a moderator of the effectiveness of different coping strategies: A test of the goodness of fit hypothesis. Australian Journal of Psychology, 44, 1-7.
16.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
17.
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress in the coping process: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839-852.
18.
Folkman, S. (1992). Making the case for coping. In B. N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application (pp. 31-46). Westport, CT: Praeger.
19.
Forsythe, C. J., & Compas, B. E. (1987). Interaction of cognitive appraisals of stressful events and coping: Testing the goodness of fit hypothesis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 473-485.
20.
Kreft, I., & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. New York: Russell Sage.
21.
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion (pp. 25-59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Lasch, C. (1984). The minimal self. New York: Norton.
23.
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1996). SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
24.
McCrae, R. R. (1990). Controlling neuroticism in the measurement of stress. Stress Medicine, 6, 237-241.
25.
Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event- and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology research, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771-785.
26.
Park, C. L., Folkman, S., & Bostrom, A. (2001). Appraisals of controllability and coping in caregivers and HIV+ men: Testing the goodness-of-fit hypothesis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 481-488.
27.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2001). HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
28.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078.
29.
Schwartz, J., & Stone, A. (1998). Strategies for analyzing ecological momentary assessment data. Health Psychology, 17, 6-16.
30.
Shiffman, S. (2000). Real-time self-report of momentary states in the natural environment: Computerized ecological momentary assessment. In A. A. Stone, J. S. Turkkan, C. A. Bachrach, J. B. Jobe, H. S. Kurtzman, & V. S. Cain (Eds.), The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice (pp. 277-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Stanton, A. L., Danoff-Burg, S., Cameron, C. L., & Ellis, A. P. (1994). Coping through emotional approach: Problems of conceptualization and confounding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 350-362.
33.
Stanton, A. L., Kirk, S. B., Cameron, C. L., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2000). Coping through emotional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1150-1169.
34.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2000). The perception of personal control: Sufficiently important to warrant careful scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 152-156.
35.
Tennen, H., Affleck, G., Armeli, S., & Carney, M. A. (2000). A daily process approach to coping: Linking theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 55, 626-636.
36.
Terry, D., & Hynes, G. (1998). Adjustment to a low-control situation: Reexamining the role of coping responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1078-1092.
37.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
38.
West, S. G., & Hepworth, J. T. (1991). Statistical issues in the study of temporal data: Daily experiences. Journal of Personality, 59, 609-662.
39.
Zakowski, S. G., Hall, M. H., Cousino Klein, L., & Baum, A. (2001). Appraised control, coping, and stress in a community sample: A test of the goodness-of-fit hypothesis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 23, 158-165.
40.
Zeidner, M., & Saklofske, D. (1996). Adaptive and maladaptive coping. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 505-531). New York: John Wiley.
