Neuroticism and coping with anger: The trans-situational consistency of coping responses

Person.

rndiki.

Pergamon 0191-8869(94)00101-4

DrJf Vol.

Il.

No. 6. pp 769-782.

Copyright

0

1994 Elsevier

Printed m Great Britain.

Swnce

1994 Ltd

All rights merved

0191~8869/94

$7.00 + 0.00

NEUROTICISM AND COPING WITH ANGER: THE TRANS-SITUATIONAL CONSISTENCY OF COPING RESPONSES MARK ATKINSON”*

and CLAUDIO VIOLATO’

‘Department of Psychiatry, Foothills HospitalJ 1403 29th Street, N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 2T9 and ‘Department of Educational Psychology, University of Calgary. 2500 University Drive, N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T24 IN4 (Received

10 February

1994)

Summary-The present study examined the association between neuroticism and individuals’ coping responses within and across irritating life events. Data on the magnitude and consistency of coping responses were collected using an experience sampling methodology (ESM). Over the course of 10 weeks, 149 undergraduate students provided information on their coping responses and thoughts in response to five naturally occurring anger situations (nObg= 745). Neuroticism scores were positively associated with higher ratings of the intensity, duration and situational importance of experiences. Furthermore, ANCOVA analyses revealed significant increases across Low, Moderate and High neuroticism groups on Avoiding and Self-Blaming coping styles. Trans.situational stability estimates were calculated using Generalizability Coefficients. These analyses revealed that subjects within the high neuroticism group were significantly less consistent across situations on four coping styles than the rest of the sample. The situational contexts and thought processes associated with fluctuations in coping style scores were examined.

INTRODUCTION Recent findings indicate a substantial convergence between conventional personality measures on at least five dimensions (e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1987; Digman, 1989, 1990). This has stimulated a resurgence of interest in personality structure (Goldberg, 1993; Wiggins & Pincus, 1992). Research using the dimensions of neuroticism and extraversion has provided consistent evidence of a relationship between personality characteristics and individuals’ emotional experiences (Tellegen, 1985). A strong association has been found between the extraversion-sociability dimension of most major personality instruments and positive emotional experiences (e.g. Diener, Sandvik, Pavot & Fujita, 1992). Intense negative emotions and emotional instability, on the other hand, have typically been associated with neurotic traits such as stress reaction, alienation, worry, hostility and feelings of anxiety (Costa & McCrae, 1989,199O; Hepburn & Eysenck, 1989; Terry, 199 1). The major purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between neuroticism and coping responses to a negative primary emotion, anger. The trans-situational stability estimates of Ss’ coping responses across several naturally occurring angering situations were of particular interest. Consistency was addressed using reliability analyses based on generalizability theory. Substantial evidence suggests that neuroticism underlies poor psychological adjustment. Piedmont, McCrae and Costa (1991) for example, found that individuals with higher neuroticism scores tended do worse on measures of self-confidence, personal and social adjustment. Other researchers have substantiated these findings (Hepburn & Eysenck, 1989; Piedmont et al., 1991; Terry, 1991). Moreover, individuals with higher neuroticism scores experience a greater degree of stress over time than those with lower scores (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Gallagher, 1990; Watson & Clark, 1984). There is evidence to suggest that an individual’s neuroticism measured years prior to an experience of acute anxiety, is a better predictor of resultant psychological distress than are the situational stressors themselves (Diener er al, 1992; Ormel & Wohlfarth, 1991). The manner(s) in which neuroticism and life stressors interact to accentuate states of negative emotion are not well understood. Two major explanatory views, however, are under current consideration: a temperamental and an instrumental perspective (McCrae & Costa, 199 1). Advocates *To whom all correspondence should be addressed. tFoothills Hospital is academically associated with the University 769

of Calgary.

MARK

770

A I KIYWN

and CI AI IIIO

VIOI .\I-o

of a temperamental perspective have suggested that individuals possess innate personality characteristics (e.g. diatheses) which predispose them to more intense negative emotion and thereby augment the impact of aversive life events (Gray. 1987). In contrast, advocates of an instrumental perspective suggest that neuroticism measures tap individuals’ tendency to engage in unproductive thought patterns and coping responses (e.g. Lazarus, 199la).

Temperamentalists view neuroticism as an innate psychobiological reactivity to aversive environmental conditions (McCrae & Costa, 1986; Eysenck, 1967; Tellegen, 1985). Gray ( 1987) has suggested that the pronounced emotional sensitivity of neurotic individuals is a product of heightened neurological responsiveness to negative stimuli (Gray. 1987; Larsen & Ketelaar. 1989; Tellegen. 19X5). Such over sensitivity to punishment signals in the environment results in longer and more acute experiences of negative emotion (e.g. anxiety. fear, anger and sadness). A related temperamental hypothesis is that more neurotic persons possess a lower affective threshold or set point. It is proposed that a set point defines individuals’ upper tolerance limit for emotional stimulation. beyond which, attending emotionally charged situations becomes difficult (Larsen & Zarate, 1991). It has been shown that highly sensitive individuals employ more avoidant and distracting coping responses when dealing with stressful life events (e.g. McCrae & Costa, 1986; Larsen, Diener & Cropanzano, 1987). The use of avoidant coping responses are thought to moderate neurotic over-sensitivity by shifting individuals’ attention away from negative stimuli. thus serving to dampen or attenuate emotional intensity (Diener. Colvin. Pavot & Allman, 199 I ; Larsen & Zarate, 1991). Wallbott and Scherer ( 199 I ). for example. report that Ss with high scores on anxiety denial measures rated stress inducing situations as significantly less stressful than low denial Ss. Interestingly. Diener. Larsen, Levine and Emmons (1985) have noted that Ss’ tendency to limit or dampen arousal (e.g. through avoidant or distancing mechanisms) appears to affect both negative and positive emotionality equally (see also Larsen rt c/l., 1987).

Advocates of an instrumental perspective suggest that personality traits are shaped by social forces and, at the same time, play an instrumental role determining an individuals’ emotional responses to their social environment. This recursive intluence occurs during ongoing processing of person-environment interaction. Pervin (1968, 1985), an early proponent of an ecological or congruence model of personality. recognized the dynamic interplay which exists between an individual’s characteristics and environmental conditions. More recently, some theorists have based their models of stress, emotion, and human adaptation on an ecological model (e.g. Lazarus, 1991 b,c). Lazurus (199 la) used the term ‘adaptive fit’ to describe more favorable person-environment interactions which result in experiences of emotional well-being. Such models conceptualize negative emotion as a manifestation of incongruence between an individuals’ needs, actions or aspirations, and current situational constraints. Novaco (1979), for example, noted that the presence of a distorted cognitive view or unproductive behavioral characteristics interacts with the social context to prolong and intensify experiences of anger and psycho-social distress. Moreover, there exists a growing body of evidence suggesting that thoughts and coping behaviors mediate the duration and intensity of most, if not all, types of emotional experience (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; MacNair & Elliott, 1992: Mayer, Salovey, Gomberg-Kaufman & Blainey, 1991; Morris & Reilly, 1987).

I’I;RPOSE

OF

THE

CURRENT

RESEARCH

The foregoing review indicates that neuroticism. whether viewed from a temperamental or instrumental perspective, interacts with life stressors to accentuate acute and chronic states of negative emotion. Moreover, recent research suggests that of the two general approaches to coping with difficult life events (i.e. problem- and emotion-focused strategies), neurotic individuals tend to employ emotion-focused strategies, characterized by avoidance and self-blame (Terry, I99 I ).

Neuroticism

and coping

771

While many theorists refer to the emotional instability of neurotic individuals, to date few reports have explored the impact of neuroticism on the consistency of coping responses across different situations and events. Inquiry into coping styles and the dimension of neuroticism has, for the most part, been limited to a particular situational context (Endler & Parker, 1990; Terry, 199 1). As Epstein (1990) noted, such a restricted focus may reduce the degree to which research results can be generalized to other situational contexts. Moreover, such research designs make the evaluation of the trans-situational stability or specificity of coping responses difficult, if not impossible. The major purpose of the present study was to examine the relationships between neuroticism, emotional experience, and coping responses across a variety of angering life events. Of specific interest were differences between neuroticism groups regarding the qualities of the emotional experiences, the degree to which various coping styles were employed, and the stability of coping style scores across different situations.

METHOD

Subjects Ss (n = 149) in the present study were undergraduates enrolled in a child development course at a large Canadian university (enrollment = 20,000). The majority of Ss (70%, n = 104) were between the ages of 18 and 24 yr (mean age = 20.2 yr). Females made up 78.5% (n = 117) of the sample, while 21.5% (n = 32) were male. Most Ss were single (75%, IZ= 112), with 25% (n = 37) currently or having been married. Instruments

und dam collection

procedures

A modified experience sampling methodology (ESM) was employed (Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983) in which participants kept a diary and recorded five angering experiences which occurred during a 10 week period. Ss were asked to record the characteristics of each emotional experience (e.g. the intensity and duration of the emotion as well as information on situational context and its importance to them), their thoughts about the causes of the emotional situation, and their coping behavior within the situation. Ss used these diaries to prompt recall of events during the weekly data collection sessions. At the end of the study all diaries were collected. Several points were emphasized during orientation of Ss. Participants were told that they could choose any situation to report on. What was important, however, was that they selected situations which were as different from each other as possible. This point was stressed so as not to artificially inflate tram-situational stability (of coping style scores) due to situational similarity. A series of statistical analyses were conducted to evaluate the degree to which Ss complied with this request. A second point of emphasis was the importance of taking notes soon after the emotional experience. It was explained that the diary entries were intended to reduce the effects of recall bias and memory between the actual experience and the weekly data collection sessions. In order to ensure such timeliness and completeness, the diaries were checked and initialled by a research assistant immediately prior to each data collection session. Following preparation of research participants, all Ss completed the NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), an instrument which has received favourable psychometric evaluation (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1989, 1990). Every 2 weeks, for a period of 10 weeks, Ss completed a composite data collection questionnaire which gathered specific information on a recent anger experience. This questionnaire was composed of: (a) items eliciting information on the subjective importance, intensity and duration of the emotional situation, (b) the Causal Dimension Scale (CDS) (Russell, McAuley & Tarico, 1987; Weiner, 1985, 1986)-an attribution questionnaire used to collect data on Ss’ thoughts about the causes of their emotional situation-and (c) the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988)-a coping instrument used to obtain data on Ss’ coping responses within the situation. Codgication and class$cation ofdiays entries. In order to classify Ss’ written descriptions of their emotional situations, two classification coding protocols were developed using a content analysis procedure. Diary entries from 40 Ss (i.e. 200 situations) were randomly reviewed. From an initial reading of these descriptions of emotional events, two broad domains were identified for classification. The first involved the types of persons playing a key role in the Ss’ experience (e.g. persons responsible

MARK ATKINSON and CLAUDIO VIOLATO

717

for, or towards whom the emotion was directed). The classification system for this area was called the Involved Person Coding Protocol. A second domain was the type of issues or tasks around which emotional experiences occurred. The classification system developed for this area was called the Issues-Task Coding Protocol. After several recursive readings and modifications of these two sets of coding categories, 10 Involved Person categories and nine Issue-Task categories were finalized. For conceptual clarity, the nine categories of the Issues-Task Coding Protocol were organized into three groups: (a) indirect situations/events involving personal memories, vicarious and empathic exchanges, (b) situations involving instrumental or achievement tasks, and (c) situations involving issues of social and familial unity or belongingness. The 10 categories of the Involved Persons Coding Protocol were organized into three groupings based on whether anyone was involved (i.e. if Ss were alone at the time) and whether Ss were familiar or unfamiliar with this person. The intra-rater reliability of each coding protocol was evaluated by a 2 week code-recode procedure of 10% of the total data (75 incidents from 15 Ss). The code-recode reliabilities for both the Involved Persons and Situational Issue/Task protocols were high (0.97 and 0.87, respectively). The inter-rater reliability of coding protocols was also evaluated using 10% of the total data set and comparing percentage agreement between its developer and another trained coder. The agreement for the non-aggregated Person Categories was 93 and 86% for the non-aggregated Issue-Task Categories. Both the intra- and inter-rater results, therefore, indicate a high degree of reliability of the coding protocols.

A description

of statistical

methods

In order to evaluate the stability or reliability of coping styles across repeated observations, generalizability coefficients (Ep’) were calculated using the methods described by Brennan (1983), called Generalized Analyses of Variance (GENOVA). The mean squares estimates for Persons and Person X Occasions were used to calculate Ep’ stability estimates in the following manner: Ep’ = a’(p)/a’(p) + &pi) Estimated Variance Due to Persons Estimated Variance Due to Persons

= o’(p) X Occasions

= &pi)

where: Estimated cr’(p) = [MS@)-MS@i)In,] Estimated cr’(pi) = MS@) n, = number of observations (i.e. Occasions) MS = Mean Squares Estimates, ANOVA Analysis. Within the GENOVA analyses, each individual within the study was treated as a level of Persons factor. Each of the measurement occasions (i.e. five observations) was treated as a level of the Occasion factor. This resulted in a 149 X 5 data matrix for each coping style. Eight Ss X occasion ANOVAs provided the mean squares estimates on which Ep’coefficients were based. Ep’ for the total sample and for each of the neuroticism groups were computed. Generalizability coefficients provided information regarding the stability of coping style score estimates; lower coefficients indicate greater score instability. Such instability is the result of a smaller proportion of variance attributable to person factors compared to the sum of person and person-occasion (or error) variance. Generally speaking, score instability in the current research design is a function of the situational and person-situation interactional effects on the variability of coping style scores. Since Ss were asked to report on as diverse situations as possible, it was anticipated that the stability coefficients would not be greatly affected by consistencies between situations. The effects of situational and attributional factors on coping style score variation were evaluated using a backward regression procedure. For each of the Ss’ five situations, coping style deviation scores were computed by computing a mean coping style score (for that S) and subtracting it from the coping style score in each situation. The deviation scores were predicted using situation classification (six dummy variables, three for each coding protocol) and CDS attribution variables. The resultant predicted values were used as covariates within the Ep’ GENOVA analyses. thus

Neuroticism and coping Table

I

Issues/tasks

categories

and the frequency Lowi

1. Familial

773 of anger Moderate

reports* High

and social

involvement

1.

Family

involvement

and participation 2.

Social

I8

27

II

33

33

43

(Z%,

(Z%,

18

6

6

45

45

42

78

91

84

21

I4

27

involvement

and participation Totals

51 (20%)

II. Instrumental

tasks

I.

Transpottation

2.

Scholastic

and other

achievement 3.

Social

coordination

and organization 4.

Employment

and

finances 5.

Maintenance,

accident

and repair Totals

111. Empathic

27

22

189

178

I75

(76%)

(71%)

(74%)

7

4

I

3

6

5

IO

IO

(4%)

(4%)

16

or reflective

experiences

I.

Media

and

entertainment 2.

Personal

thoughts

and

empathic

experiences

Totals

*x2 (d.f. tThe

2) = 2.05,

percentages

P = 0.72. are computed

from

column

totals.

adjusting generalizability estimates by statistically controlling for predicted score variation due to situational/attributional variables. This method controlled for covariation between situational factors and coping style scores (cf. Locascio, Lee & Meltzer, 1988 for a discussion of covariate procedures). RESULTS

Initial analyses were performed to identify possible differences between the neuroticism groups and the situational context of emotional experiences. Based on the rank-order of neuroticism scores, Ss were divided into three groups by taking the bottom (n = 50), middle (n = 50) and top third (n = 49). Table 1 presents the frequency of reports using the Issues/Tasks coding categories by neuroticism group (Table 1). A X’analysis on the three broad Issues/Task categories (i.e. familial/social involvement, instrumental and empathic/reflective experiences) by neuroticism was not significant [x2 (d.f. 4) = 2.05, P = 0.721. A second analysis was conducted to determine whether neuroticism groups differed on the types of persons involved in reported experiences. A x2 analysis of Involved Persons categories by neuroticism grouping was significant. Neuroticism groups differed on the types of persons involved in angering situations [x2 (d.f. 4) = 17.00, P < 0.01). The low neuroticism group compared to others, reported a greater proportion of anger experiences involving less familiar individuals and proportionally less anger experiences within intimate relationships. Moderate and high scorers, on the other hand, tended to report more anger experiences involving intimate relationships. Subjective

differences

in emotional

experiences

between

neuroticism

groups

Significant differences were also found between low, moderate, and high neuroticism groups on the reported intensity, importance and duration of emotional experiences. These data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance procedures. As shown in Table 3, the dimensions of emotional intensity and duration increased significantly from low to high neuroticism groups.

771

JO 13 IY 1112 (43';

Ss were asked the degree to which reported situations were typical of those in everyday life with respect to intensity, duration and importance (i.e. a six point scale from much less to much more). Results of these analyses suggest that groups did not differ on the degree to which they believed that reported situations were of typical duration and importance. Ss in the high neuroticism group, however, indicated that they reported on situations which were slightly more intense than usual (means = 3.0. 3.1, 3.3, low, moderate and high groups respectively, P < 0.05).

Differences between low, moderate and high neuroticism groups on their mean trans-situational coping style scores (from the WOCQ) were evaluated usin g eight repeated measures ANCOVA analyses. Each of the coping style ANCOVA analyses consisted of a between-subjects factor (Neuroticism Group) and two covariates (Sex and the Intensity of reported emotional experiences). The effects of intensity and sex were covaried out due to their possible confounding influence. Figure 1 presents a graphical representation of these results. Main effects for neuroticism groups using trans-situational mean coping style scores (Fig. I) were found for the Avoidance [Low/Mod/High, 0.33/0.37/0.54, F(2) = 8.7 I, P < 0.00 I ] and Accepting Responsibility scales [Low/Mod/High. 0.54/0.68/0.77. F(3) = 3.8 I. P = 0.021. Coping style score .stuhility hy twurotic.i.sttt grorrp

Prior to analyzing the stability of coping styles across angering experiences, it was necessary to determine whether differential situational heterogeneity (by neuroticism group) might confound a

Neuroticism

and coping

RWR

CNFR

DIGT

Coping

2 r

Lou

Neuro t icsn

Style

Scales

Mod Neuroticlsn

-High

Neuroticlsn

Fig. I. Trans.situational average coping style scores by neuroticism groups. ** Neuroticism main effects: P < 0.001. DIST, distancing: RSTR, self-control (behavioral restraint); CNFR, confrontation; SOC, seeking social support; AVOID, avoidance; PRBL. problem-solving strategies; RAPR, positive reappraisal: RSPN, accepting

responsibility.

comparison of group stability estimates. Due to the importance of this analysis, situational heterogeneity was evaluated in two ways. First, the number of situational coding category ties (i.e. identical Involved Person and Issues/Task category ratings across situations) were calculated for each S and analyzed by neuroticism group. The average number of ties for the Involved Persons category by neuroticism group was not significant [Overall x = 1.8, L,M,H x’s 1.8, 1.9, 1.8 F(2) = 0.083, P = 0.921. The average number of ties for the issue/tasks categories was 2.0, also no significant differences between groups were observed (L,M,H k’s 1.9, 1.9, 2.2, F(2) = 1.02, P = 0.361. A second analysis examined the proportion of broader person and issues/tasks category matches by neuroticism group. The number of matches within each category were counted and divided by twice the number of composite subcategories. These proportions were then summed over all three broader categories. The results for the broader person categories were not significant [an overall mean of 0.8 1, L,M,H _%‘sof 0.80,0.85,0.75; F(2) = 2.2, P = 0.12 J. The proportion of broader issues/tasks matches between neuroticism groups was also not significant [overall mean = 0.69, L,M,H ii’s 0.68,0.70,0.69 F(2) = 0.23, P = 0.791. As a result, the authors felt that it was fairly safe to assume that adequate similarity existed between neuroticism groups with respect to situational heterogeneity. In order to analyze the consistency of& coping style responses, generalizability coefficients (Ep’) were calculated for the total sample and each of the neuroticism subgroups using the Mean Squares estimates derived from Ss by Occasions ANCOVA analyses (Cracker & Algina, 1986; Brennan, 1983). These stability estimates provide an index of the trans-situational stability (e.g. reliability) of observed scores. Figure 2 presents the Ep’ for the total sample and neuroticism groups by coping style. To aid interpretation, 95% confidence intervals have been calculated using Fisher’s Z-transformation statistics for the total sample Ep’ (indicated in Fig. 2 by confidence interval I-beams). The stability estimates of Avoidance, Problem-Solving, Positive Reappraisal, and Accepting Responsibility scores for the high neuroticism group were significantly lower than that for the total sample (Fig. 2). The score stability for Positive Reappraisal among the moderate group was also significantly lower than that for the total sample. Overall, the low neuroticism group’s coping style scores manifest the greatest trans-situational stability, notably for Accepting Responsibility, Positive

MARK ATKINSON and CLAUDIO VIOLATO

116

089

T

0.8

RSiR

CNFR

sot

FlUdID

PRbL

RSbN

RAbR

Copinq Styles @

Overall

*Lou

Neuroticism

--++ nod Neuroticism

+3

High Neuroticism

Fig. 2. Coping style score trans-situation stability estimates (generalizability coefficients). DIST, distancing; RSTR, self-control (behavioral restraint); CNFR, confrontation; SOC, seeking social support; AVOID, avoidance; PRBL, problem-solving strategies; RAPR, positive reappraisal; RSPN, accepting responsibility.

Reappraisal, Problem-Solving and Seeking Social Support. From the evident that the high neuroticism group was less stable than the other (i.e. Avoidance, Problem-Solving, Positive Reappraisal and Accepting the low neuroticism group showed higher stability than the other groups Positive Reappraisal, Problem-Solving and Seeking Social Support. Increasing

stability

estimates

data reported in Fig. 2, it is groups on four coping styles Responsibility). Conversely, on Accepting Responsibility,

using the total sample and the high neuroticism

group

In order to examine the effects of Involved Persons, Issues/Tasks and Ss’ causal attributions on coping style score stability estimates, all situational and attributional variables were entered into regression equations used to predict Ss’ coping style deviation scores (see statistical methods section). The predicted coping style score deviation estimates were subsequently used as a covariate in the Generalizability ANCOVAs (i.e. GENCOVAs) re-analyses and adjusted Ep’ were calculated. Using the total sample, the largest changes in Ep’ occurred for Confrontation (Unadjusted/Adjusted for Situation/Adjusted for Situation and Attribution 0.5 l/0.66/0.67) and Accepting Responsibility (Unadjusted/Adjusted for Situation/Situation and Attribution 0.47/0.66/0.77). Otherwise, adjustment of the total sample generalizability coefficients resulted in little change on the remaining six coping style scales (Distancing, Self-Control, Seeking Social Support, Avoidance, Problem-Solving, and Positive Reappraisal strategies). Since the high neuroticism group was associated with the greatest score instability, Ep’ were recalculated employing the same regression-covariate procedure used for the total sample. Figure 3 presents the unadjusted and adjusted Ep’ for situational classification and attributional data. The black bar represents the unadjusted stability estimates for the whole sample.

Neuroticism

and coping

777

0.9

0

sot

AU010 Styles

Coping 0

NO Adjustment

@Fldj -Total

for

Situation

Ss,

Not

m

f-Idj

for

Sit

& CDS

Adj

Fig. 3. Adjusted generalizability coefficients for the high neuroticism group within anger states. DIST, distancing; RSTR, self-control (behavioral restraint); CNFR, confrontation; SOC, seeking social support; AVOID, avoidance; PRBL, problem-solving strategies; RAPR, positive reappraisal; RSPN, accepting responsibility.

A similar pattern was found among the high neuroticism group on Confrontation and Accepting Responsibility scores as was observed using the total sample (Fig. 3). The adjusted stability of Confrontation scores for this group increased substantially when situational context was taken into account (0.49-0.63). In addition, adjustment of the Accepting Responsibility Ep* coefficients was heavily influenced by causal attributions (0.22-0.41). A final area in which the adjustment procedures had a pronounced effect was Avoidance. In contrast to the total sample, the stability of Avoidance scores among high scorers was significantly affected by situational context (0.43-0.57). Adjustment of stability estimates for Problem-Solving and Positive Reappraisal, both of which were significantly lower than for the total sample, resulted in small and nonsignificant increases in the Ep’ values. Moreover, these adjusted values often fell on, orjust within the lower 95% confidence intervals for the total samples unadjusted Ep’ values. Evidently the adjusted Problem-Solving and Positive Reappraisal Ep2 estimates remained significantly low. Factors

affecting

coping style score instability

The variables which entered the regression equations and predicted coping style score variation provide some indication of the major situational and attributional factors affecting Ss’ coping responses. Only the predictor variables which significantly improved score stability estimates for the high neuroticism group are presented here. The stability of Confrontation scores for this group were significantly improved when the effects of situations involving intimate others were removed from GENOVA stability estimates. Analysis of the regression P-weights revealed that confrontation scores increased when more intimate persons were involved in the angering situations. The stability of

Avoidance scores among high scoring Sa was also affected by situational factors. The Avoidance scores increased when Ss were alone and struggling with issues of family/social unity. Concluding this set of analyses, the stability of high neurotics’ Accepting Responsibility scores were affected both by situational variables and Ss’ thoughts regarding the causes of these events. This groups’ responsibility scores increased when they were alone and dealing with issues of social/familial unity. In addition, these Ss’ view that the causes of situations were potentially controllable, that events were internally caused, and that the situations were unintended all contributed to these Ss’ tendency to blame themselves.

DISCUSSION

The major findings of the present study may be summarized as follows: (1) neuroticism groups reported proportionally different persons involved in angering situations. The low neuroticism group reported less anger experiences involving intimate persons. Ss in the moderate and high neuroticism groups, on the other hand, tended to report more anger experiences involving intimate relationships, (2) high neuroticism was associated with high emotional intensity, situational importance and emotional duration, (3) high neurotic Ss tended to engage in more Avoidance and Self-Blame than the lower groups, while the low neuroticism group employed marginally more Emotional Distancing and Positive Reappraisal, (4) there were substantial differences in the trans-situational stability of various coping styles by neuroticism groups-high neurotic Ss indicated the least stability-and (5) a proportion of coping style instability was a function of situational events and Ss’ attributions regarding the cause(s) of emotional situations. Anger is typically considered to be a rapid onset emotion, triggered by some form of threat or impediment to people’s wellbeing or goals (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988; Lazarus, 199 I a: Novaco, 1979: Plutchik & Kellerman, 1983). In line with this perspective, Ss’ experiences tended to involve tasks and issues which were of an instrumental or achievement nature. Reports most frequently involved persons who were not intimate but were instrumentally involved in their lives. In fact. the coping styles with the largest rating were Confrontation and Problem-solving, both active and strategic styles. These observations support the view that anger is often associated with a defensive or possessive orientation. The association between neuroticism and negative emotionality is a consistent finding (Bolger, 1990; Costa & McCrae, 1980; Smith, Pope. Rhodewalt & Poulton. 1989). In the present study we found significant stepwise increases between low, moderate and high neuroticism groups on the reported intensity, duration, and importance ofemotional incidents. It is unlikely that these differences, all in the expected direction, are due to selective reporting. With the exception of intensity. neuroticism groupings did not differ on the degree to which they believed that reported emotional experiences were similar to those typically experienced in their lives. These results suggest that Ss who score higher on the dimension of neuroticism actually experience more intense and longer negative emotional experiences than low scorers. Larsen and Ketelaar (1989) suggested that excessive negative emotionality is due to a temperamental sensitivity to negative stimuli and negative affect. Thus Ss’ importance and intensity ratings may be affected by a preoccupation with negative aspects of a situation (thus affecting its emotional impact). Alternatively, the view that the duration of emotional experiences was mediated by the ways in which these Ss both appraised and handled difficult situations is CIl~~opc~ for the present findings (Lazarus, 1991 a; Novaco, 1979; Reeder, 199 1). It is quite possible that the manner in which high neurotics coped with situations contributed to continued disturbance.

Repeated measures analysis of trans-situational coping responses, also known as idiographic-normative analysis (Epstein, 1983), revealed significant coping style differences between neuroticism groups. Robust stepwise increases on Avoidant and Self-Blaming coping styles were found between low, moderate. and high neuroticism groups. These results support the findings of Bolger ( 1990) in which Wishful Thinking and Self-Blame explained over half of the relationship between neuroticism and increases in anxiety at various times prior to a major examination. The excessive use of Avoidance

Neuroticism

and coping

779

and Self-Blaming coping strategies by neurotic individuals may account for chronic psychological distress and poor social adjustment (Endler & Parker, 1990; Hart, 1991). Temperamentally, avoidance may come naturally to highly neurotic individuals who naturally attempt to dampen their response to negative experience. Over reliance on avoidant coping behavior, however, may preclude a more productive focus on the causes of problems and impede long term psychological and social development (Buss, 1980; Leary & Miller, 1986). Moreover, repressive or suppressive strategies may only serve to bond emotional reaction to avoided stimuli and strengthen subsequent avoidant responses (Wenzlaff, Wegner & Klein, 1991). Unlike Avoidance, Accepting Responsibility involves a greater degree of cognitive elaboration with respect to events and the role of self. When individuals accept an inordinate or inappropriate amount of personal responsibility for negative events, however, such negative appraisal might best be termed Self-Blame. Self-punitive ruminations and thoughts of worthlessness likely have an instrumental impact on emotional experience (Novaco, 1979; Reeder, 1991). Individuals’ excessive rumination about personal failures, as examples of personal worthlessness, may further explain findings that high neuroticism is routinely associated with low self-esteem scores and poorer psychological adjustment (Endler & Parker, 1990). While the clinical association between neuroticism, Accepting Responsibility and depression is well elaborated (e.g. Beck, 1987), it is not as easy to account for the relationship between Self-Blame and anger experiences. A possible explanation is that high neurotics are less able to control aggressive impulses which in turn results in more socially inappropriate behavior. Subsequently, Ss may blame themselves for such behavior. Deficits in self-awareness, self-control and social skills are likely products of repeated avoidance of social conflict. An alternative possibility is that higher scorers are less accepting of their own anger responses and tend to blame themselves for their own internal responses. Unfortunately, neither of these two possibilities can be unequivocally confirmed in the present study and require further research.

Situutions

und uttributions

ufecting

the tram-situational

consistency

of coping responses

The coping behaviors of the high neuroticism group were more unstable across situations (i.e. Avoidance, Problem-Solving, Positive Reappraisal and Accepting Responsibility). Taken together with the results discussed earlier, such differences suggest that more neurotic individuals avoid negative emotional experiences, blame themselves for their actions and are more erratic at Problem-Solving and Positive Reappraisal compared to other individuals. Conversely, emotionally stable Ss were characterized by the lowest levels of avoidant and self-punitive behavior. They also engaged in marginally more Emotional Distancing from negative experiences and more Positive Reappraisal about such situations. Finally, lower scorers were more stable in their Problem-Solving and Positive Reappraisal approaches than higher scorers. In the high neurotic group, the stability of Confrontation, Avoidance and Accepting Responsibility scores were greatly affected by situational variables. The involvement of intimate persons in neurotics’ anger experiences was associated with fluctuation (amplification) of Confrontation scores. Being alone and dealing with issues of social/familial unity were associated with fluctuations (amplification) in Avoidance and Self-Blame scores. Controlling for these sources of trans-situational variation resulted in substantial increases in Ep’ coefficients. Knowing the situational and attributional sources of such variation, we are better able to predict individuals’ coping responses. This also clearly indicates that coping style is affected not only by temperamental differences but by situational exigencies as well. The stability of Accepting Responsibility measures was somewhat unique in that this coping style was affected by Ss’ thoughts about events, again suggesting an instrumental effect. Thoughts that situations were potentially controllable, that events were internally caused, and that situations were unintended contributed to neurotics’ tendency to blame themselves. This attributional data, when combined with the situational information, provides a fairly complete picture of internal and external events leading to Self-Blame. Understanding the ecological sources of coping style variation provides theoretical insight into neuroticism and improves the predictive power of related measurement instruments. Furthermore, given the trans-situational nature of these analyses, the current results can be generalized with some confidence to similar samples within situations of a similar type. PAID 17:6-E

MAKK ATKINSON and CLAUDIO VIOLATO

780

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSION

The current study contributes to our understanding of the relationship between the dimension of neuroticism and coping responses within angering situations in several significant ways. High neuroticism scores are positively associated with high levels of Avoidance and Self-Blame. Moreover, differences between the high and low scorers’ ways of coping appear to be particularly pronounced when alone and coping with issues of social unity. These findings are likely associated with the construct of social anxiety, a hallmark of neurotic behavior. Overall, the high neuroticism group was less stable in the coping responses across situations, particularly with respect to Avoidance, Problem-solving, Positive Reappraisal, and Self-Blame. The higher neuroticism group tended to be less consistent when dealing with situations which elicited an anger response: particularly with respect to the coping styles of Avoidance, Problem-Solving, Positive Reappraisal and Accepting Responsibility (or Self-Blame). Controlling for the effects of situational context and attribution on such coping style score instability, resulted in fairly substantial increases in the stability estimates associated with Confrontation, Avoidance, and Self-Blame coping style. Not all of the instability in coping style scores observed in this group, however, can be attributed to the effects of particular situational and attributional events. Even after adjustment, ,!$I’ style estimates (with the possible exception of Confrontation) remained somewhat lower than those of other groups. This observation tends to favour a temperamental interpretation of instability due to neuroticism. The combined use of mean difference analyses and stability estimates (i.e. GENCOVA) provide a unique way to explore the ecological factors affecting the dynamic processes of evaluation, emotion, and coping. Taken together, the results from the present study confirm the propositions that neuroticism is not only heightened responsivity to negative affectivity, but mediates the stability of coping styles as well: high neurotics are unstable trans-situationally in their coping efforts. Conversely, low neurotics appear less responsive to negative affectivity and much more stable in their coping styles. Neuroticism, therefore, plays an important moderating role in the trans-situational stability of coping responses. Ackno~l,ledgernrnr-We

of Calgary

would like to thank John Mueller, Ph.D., Department of Educational both for his review of this manuscript and his insightful suggestions.

Psychology

at the University

REFERENCES Beck. A. ( 1987). Cognitive models of depression. Jorrrrrnl of Cognitirae Psychotherapy: An Internarionul Quclrterly. 1. S-37. Bolger. N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal ofPersoncdin cm1 Social P.sycho/oX~. 59, 525-537.

Brennan. R. (1983). Elrmerltsof‘gr,,lertr/i~crbi/jt~ theop. Iowa City, IA: The American College Testing Program. Buss, A. ( 1980). Self-consc~iousnrs.v and social anxiety. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman. Costa, P. & McCrae. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality cmd Social Psxhoiogy, 38, 668-678. Costa, P. & McCrae. R. ( 1985). nrr NE0 personality inventors manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1987). Neuroticism, somatic complajnts, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite’! Journa/ of Persona/it?;

55. 299-3

16.

Costa, P. & McCrae. R. ( 1989). The NE0 personaliry in\zentory ma~7uul supplrmem. Odessa, FL: Psychologtcal Assessment Resources. Costa, P. & McCrae. R. (I 990). Personality: Another “hidden factor” in stress research. Pvychologicul lnyuir!. I. 22-24. Cracker, L. & Algina, J. ( 1986). Irltroductiorl to moden and clo.ssica/ test theory. Toronto: Holt. Rinehart & Winston. Diener, E., Colvin, R., Pavot, W. & Allman. A. ( 199 I ). The psychic costs of intense positive affect. Jounurl of Pervorwlit~ and Social

Psyhologv.

61. 592-503.

Diener, E., Larsen, R., Levine. S. & Emmons. R. ( 1985). Intensity and frequency: Dimensions underlying positive and negative affect. Journal of Persormlity and Socicd P.vwhology, 48, 1253-l 265. Diener, E.. Sandvik, E.. Pavot, W. & Fujita, F. ( 1992). Extraversion and subjective vvell-being in a U.S. national probability sample. Jourwl of Research it1 Persormlity, 26. 205-2 IS. Diaman. J. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development. stability, and utilitv. Journcd of Pcr.wu/itv. 57. 195-2 14. Digman, J. ( 1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. An&r1 Reiierr, of P.sycho/o~~~~,41. 4 I7-440. Digman. J. & Inouye. J. ( 1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. J~,urrltr/ of Prrxmtrlitv tmd Soci~~l Psychology. SO. I I6- I 23. Ellsworth, P. &Smith, C. ( 1988). From appraisal toemotion: Differences among unpleasant feelings. Mor,nrtiorltrrrdEmotkm, 12, 271-302.

Neuroticism

and coping

781

Endler, N. & Parker, J. (1990). Multidimensional assessmentofcoping: Acritical evaluation.JournalofPersonalit~andSoc;al Psychology, 58, 844-854. Epstein, S. (1983). Aggregation and beyond: Some basic issues on the prediction of behaviour. Journul offersonuliry, 5/, 360-392. Epstein, S. (1990). Comment on the effects of aggregation across and within occasions on consistency, specificity, and reliability. Merhodika, 9, 95-100. Eysenck, H. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. (I 988). Mum&for the ways ofcoping quesfionnaire, Research Edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Gallagher, D. (1990). Extraversion, neuroticism and appraisal of stressful academic events. Personaliq und Individual D#erences, II. 1053-1057. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 2634. Gray, J. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 593-509. Hart, K. (1991). Coping with anger-provoking situations: Adolescent coping in relation to anger-reactivity. Journal of Adolescenr Reseurch, 6, 357-370. Hepburn, L. & Eysenck, M. (1989). Personality, average mood and mood variability. Personalify and lndividuul Differences, 10,975-983. Larsen, R., Diener, E. & Cropanzano, R. (1987).Cognitive operations assoctated with individual differences in affect intensity. Journal of Personuli~ and Social Psychology, 53, 767-774. Larsen, R. & Ketelaar, T. (1989). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132-140. Larsen, R. & Zarate, M. (1991). Extending reducer/augmenter theory into the emotion domain: The role of affect in regulating stimulation level. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 713-723. Larson, L., Piersel, W., Imao, R. & Allen, S. (I 990). Significant predictors of problem-solving appraisal. JournulofCounseling Psychology, 37, 482490. Larson, R. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (I 983). The experience sampling method. In H. Reis (Ed.). New direcrions in nururulistic methods in the behaviorul sciences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lazarus, R. (199la). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. (199lb). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 352-367. Lazarus, R. ( 1991~). Progress on a Cognitive-Motivational-Relational theory of emotion. American Psychologisr, 46, 8 19-834. Leary, M. & Miller, R. (I 986). Social psychology and dysfunctional behavior. New York: Springer. Locascio, J. J., Lee, J. & Meltzer, H. Y. (1988). The importance of adjusting for correlated concomitant variables in psychiatric research. Psychiatric Research, 23, 3 I l-327. MacNair, R. & Elliott, T. (1992). Self-perceived problem-solving ability, stress appraisal, and coping over time. Journal of Reseurch in Personality, 60, l50- 164. Mayer, J., Salovey, P., Gomberg-Kaufman, S. & Blainey, K. (1991). A broader conception of mood experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 100-l I I. McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1986). Personality, coping and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personalif?: 54, 385405. McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Bulletin ofPersonality and Sociul Psychology, 17, 227-232. Meyer, G. & Shack, J. (1989). Structural convergence of mood and personality: Evidence for old and new directions. Journal of Personality und Sociul Psychology, 57, 69 I-706. Morris, W. & Reilly, N. (1987). Toward the self-regulation of mood: Theory and research. Morivafion and Emotion, II, 2 15-249. Novaco, R. W. (1979). The cognitive regulation of anger and stress. In P. Kendall & S. Hollan (Eds.), Cognirive-behuviorul interventions: Theory, research and procedures. New York: Academic. Ormel, J. & Wohlfarth, T. (1991). How neuroticism, long-term difficulties, and life situation change influence psychological distress: A longitudinal model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 744-755. Pervin, L. ( 1968). Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment fit. Psychological Bullerin, 69.56-68. Pervin, L. (1985). Personality: Current controversies, issues, and directions. Annual Review of Ps.vchology, 36, 83-l 14. Piedmont, R., McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1991). Adjective check list scales and the five factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 630-637. Plutchik, P. & Kellerman, H. (1983). Emotion: Theoq research and experience, (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press. Reeder, D. (I 99 I). Cognitive therapy of anger management: Theoretical and practical considerations. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 5, 147-I 50. Russell, D. (1982). The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of PersonaliQ und Social Psychology, 42, I 137-l 145. Russell, D., McAuley, E. & Tarico, V. (1987). Measuring causal attributions for success and failure: A comparison of methodologies for assessing causal dimensions. Journal of Personality und Social Psycholog?,, 52, 1248-1257. Smemou, L. & Lautenschlager, G. (I991 ). Autobiographical antecedents and correlates of neuroticism and extraversion. Personulity and Individual Differences, 12, 49-59. Smith, T., Pope, M. K., Rhodewalt, F. & Poulton, J. (1989). Optimism, neuroticism, coping, and symptom reports: An alternative interpretation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personalify and Social Psychology, 56, 640-648. Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. Mason (Eds), Anxiety and the unxiefy disorders (pp. 68 I-706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Terry, D. (1991). Coping resources and situational appraisals as predictors of coping behavior. Personulify und Individuul Differences, 12, 103 I-1047. Wallbott, H. & Scherer, K. (I 991). Stress specificities: Differential effects of coping style, gender, and type of stressor on autonomic arousal, facial expression, and subjective feeling, Journul of Personaliry und Sock/ Psychology, 61, 147-I 56.

MAKK ATKINSON and CL,wr)w

781

VIOI.A’~O

Watson, D. & Clark, L. ( 1983). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional state\. P\~c~/~,/o~ic~tr/ Bullrti,!, 96. 465390. Weiner, B. ( 1985).An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. P\\,c,lro/~,~ic,tr/ Kri,icw.. Y?, 54X-573. Weiner, B. (I 9X6). At7 mrihurior7 theory c~f‘rnofi~~rtio~c. New York: Springer. Wen.bff, R.. Wegner, D. & Klein. S. (I991 1. The role of thought suppression in the bonding of thought and mood. Jounrc~l Wiggings.

J. S. & Pincus, A. L. (1992).

Personality:

Structure and assessment. Amurrl

KeL?ew of’Psycho/o,~~.

43, 473-504.