The measurement of coping in achievement situations: an international comparison

Personality and Individual Differences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The measurement of coping in achievement situations: an international comparison Heinz Walter Krohne a,*, Stefan C. Schmukle a, Lawrence R. Burns b, Boris Eglo€ a, Charles D. Spielberger c a

Psychologisches Institut, Johannes Gutenberg-UniversitaÈt Mainz, D-55099, Mainz, Germany b Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, USA c Center for Research in Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology/Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA Received 11 January 2000; received in revised form 24 April 2000

Abstract English and German versions of a newly developed instrument for measuring coping with achievement stressors (the Mainz Coping Inventory Ð Ego Threat; MCI-E) were presented to samples of American and German students. Equivalence of the two versions was determined by principal component and con®rmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA included a multiple group analysis. This analysis was employed to compare factor patterns, loadings, factor variances and covariances across the two samples. In addition, relationships between the coping instrument and tests which are already established in English and German versions (among others, the NEO Five Factors Inventory, the State-Trait Personality Inventory, the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, and the Monitor-Blunter Style Scale) were analyzed. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Coping measurement; Achievement; Cross-cultural comparison; Multiple group analysis; Mainz Coping Inventory (MCI)

1. Introduction Personality oriented research on stress and coping has established two concepts central to an understanding of the cognitive response to an aversive situation: vigilance, i.e., being oriented toward the threat-related aspects of a situation, and cognitive avoidance, that is turning attention

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] mainz.de (H.W. Krohne). 0191-8869/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0191-8869(00)00105-7

1226

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

away from threatening cues (cf. Krohne, 1989, 1993b; Roth & Cohen, 1986). Approaches corresponding to these conceptions are `repression-sensitization' (Byrne, 1964), `monitoring/blunting' (Miller, 1987); `attention/rejection' (Mullen & Suls, 1982); or `distress/restraint' (Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990). With regard to the relationship between these two constructs, Byrne's approach speci®es a unidimensional, bipolar structure, while Miller as well as Mullen and Suls leave this question open. Krohne as well as Weinberger and co-workers (Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990; Weinberger, Schwartz & Davidson, 1979), on the other hand, explicitly postulate an independent functioning of the dimensions speci®ed in their approaches. The advantage of such a twodimensional conceptualization is the possibility to distinguish between those individuals who employ an increased amount of both vigilance and cognitive avoidance when confronted with stressors and those who do not tend toward either form of coping. Research on these and related constructs has become a major topic of interest in various theoretical and applied areas within psychology (e.g., personality and social psychology, health psychology, behavioral medicine, or educational psychology; cf. Krohne, 1993a, 1996a; Zeidner & Endler, 1996, for overviews). Although a multitude of coping instruments has been developed (cf. Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996), international research (and research oriented application) is impaired by a lack of adequate and cross-culturally equivalent inventories for measuring these two coping dispositions. As a consequence of this de®cit, results obtained with participants of di€erent languages are dicult to compare. In order to deal with this problem, an English adaptation of an established German stress coping test, the Mainz Coping Inventory (MCI; Eglo€ & Krohne, 1998; Krohne, 1996b; Krohne & Eglo€, 1999), has been elaborated. The MCI originated from the model of coping modes (MCM; Krohne, 1989, 1993b) developed for describing and explaining individual di€erences in cognitive-behavioral regulation under stressful conditions. Core constructs of the model are the coping dimensions of vigilance and cognitive avoidance. Both dimensions are conceived to vary independently. Vigilance is de®ned as a class of coping strategies employed in order to reduce uncertainty triggered by the high degree of ambiguity inherent in most threat situations. Consequently, vigilant behavior is considered to be uncertainty motivated. Thus, vigilant individuals strive to construe a schema of the aversive situation and its eventual course in order to prevent negative surprise. Cognitive avoidance, in contrast, refers to coping strategies which aim at shielding the organism from distressing stimuli that induce emotional arousal (arousal-motivated behavior). An existing emotional state experienced as too intensive would thereby be reduced, or an impending strong and possibly uncontrollable increase in arousal would be prevented. Although experienced uncertainty will very likely trigger emotional arousal, vigilants' main concern is not to defend themselves against arousal but to reduce uncertainty. In fact, they even tolerate a further increase in arousal when they focus their attention on threat related cues (cf. Krohne, 1993b). The MCI was constructed for the measurement of dispositional (trait) vigilance and cognitive avoidance. It is organized as a stimulus-response inventory and contains two parts: the subtest Ego-Threat (MCI-E) and the subtest Physical Threat (MCI-P). Both subtests can be administered independently. In each subtest four ®ctitious threat scenarios are presented to the participants. In the subtest MCI-E the four ®ctitious scenarios assumed to induce ego-threat are `public speech', `taking an exam', `job interview', and `mistake on the job'. Each scenario is conjoined with ®ve vigilant and ®ve cognitive avoidant coping strategies, thus allowing the separate assessment of

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

1227

vigilance (VIG) and cognitive avoidance (CAV) in either ego-threatening or physically threatening situations. Examples of vigilant coping strategies are `anticipation of negative outcomes' or `information search', whereas cognitive avoidance includes strategies such as `attentional diversion' or `denial' (cf. Fig. 1). Participants indicate on a true-false scale which of the strategies listed they usually employ in a given situation. The answers are summed up separately with regard to vigilance and cognitive avoidance items across the situations of one subtest. In order to achieve equivalence between the German original and its English adaptation, we followed the Guidelines of the International Test Committee (cf. Hambleton, 1994). These guidelines involve context in¯uences, problems of test development and adaptation, as well as forms of test presentation and documentation. The project employed the technique of backward translation (cf. Brislin, 1986) as a central element for testing the linguistic equivalence. Detailed information on the construction strategy of the MCI is given in Krohne (1989). Initial results obtained with the MCI's English adaptation concerning internal structure, reliability, and validity of the instrument are presented by Krohne and Eglo€ (in press) and Krohne et al. (2000).

Fig. 1. Coping reactions for the threat scenario `public speech'. Items No. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9 indicate vigilant coping, items 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10 indicate cognitive avoidance.

1228

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

2. Plan of the study Based on the results of three analyses, this article presents the ®rst systematic comparison of the English and German versions of the subtest for measuring coping in achievement (egothreatening) situations (MCI-E). Employing four independent samples in each language, the MCI-E was administered to American and German university students. (For details of the samples see Table 1.) Analysis 1 ®rst inspected the statistical and psychometric properties of the scales and tested both samples for di€erences attributable to nationality and gender. The primary aim of this analysis, however, was a ®ne-grained comparison of the equivalence of the two versions of the MCI. Statistical procedures performed for determining equivalence were exploratory and con®rmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA included a multiple group analysis which was designed to systematically compare factor patterns, loadings, factor variances and covariances across the two samples (Bentler, 1995). Analysis 2 provided further information on the equivalence of both test versions by comparing the American and the German participants' appraisals of the four ego-threatening MCI-E scenarios. Stress responses and the subsequent use of coping strategies depend on the way a person evaluates (appraises) an encounter with respect to a number of attributes. Although a multitude of appraisal dimensions has been proposed (cf. Lazarus, 1991), at least three dimensions seem to be so fundamental that they should be taken into account when establishing the cross-cultural equivalence of a stress-coping test. Threat scenarios should induce a certain degree of threat and, hence, require coping e€orts. However, in order to allow for variability in coping reactions, the experienced threat should not be too severe. Furthermore, situations elicit coping reactions if they lack predictability and controllability (cf. Epstein, 1972; Krohne, 1996a). However, threatening situations should not be appraised as being completely unpredictable and uncontrollable, because this would paralyze any coping e€ort. As a consequence, we expect medium appraisals on the dimensions of aversiveness (threat), predictability, and controllability. Table 1 Description of samplesa Sample

A1 A2 A3 A4 G1 G2 G3 G4

N

360 227 90 259 360 267 281 108

Gender

Age

Men

Women

M

SD

180 57 33 110 180 119 123 23

180 170 57 149 180 148 158 85

21.8 21.8 24.4 20.0 24.6 27.3 25.5 24.4

5.0 6.6 6.7 1.6 4.3 9.9 6.6 6.3

Validity data Appraisals, STAI, MCSD STPI, STAXI NEO-FFI, MBSS Appraisals STAI, MCSD STPI, STAXI, NEO-FFI, MBSS

a A1±A4: American samples; G1±G4: German samples. STAI=State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, MCSD=Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale, STPI=State-Trait Personality Inventory, STAXI=State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, MBSS=Monitor-Blunter Style Scale, NEO-FFI=NEO Five Factors Inventory.

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

1229

Analysis 3 obtained further information concerning equivalence by employing several personality inventories and emotion as well as coping scales which already exist in established, equivalent English and German versions. Relationships between these instruments and the MCI-E were analyzed in order to gain information about convergent and discriminant associations with personality, coping, and emotion variables. 3. Analysis 1 3.1. Participants and procedure The sample consisted of 720 graduate and undergraduate university students, 360 American and 360 German (Samples A1 and G1; cf. Table 1). The graduate students in both countries were primarily psychology majors, whereas undergraduate students pursued di€erent majors. Gender was evenly distributed in both samples. Participants completed the MCI-E in group sessions as part of their course requirement. In order to obtain independent samples for the exploratory (principal component) and the con®rmatory factor analysis, the American and the German samples were evenly (and randomly) split into exploratory and con®rmatory samples containing an equal number of male and female participants (n=90) in each sample. 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Psychometric properties The reliabilities of the two MCI-E subscales are satisfactory and very similar for both samples (cf. Table 2). Cronbach's  coecients varied between =0.75 (CAV-E in the American sample) and 0.82 (VIG-E in the German sample). 3.2.2. Nationality and gender di€erences As indicated in Table 2, there are obvious mean di€erences between American and German participants as well as between men and women. Separate 2 (nationality)2 (gender) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were carried out for the VIG-E and CAV-E scales. These ANOVAs only Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of the MCI-E scalesa Sample and scale

Men

Women

M American VIG-E CAV-E German VIG-E CAV-E a

13.97 12.03 11.19 11.01

(n=180) (n=180)

SD

M

3.85 3.55

15.15 10.54

4.42 3.73

12.28 9.89

Total SD

(n=180) (n=180)

3.34 3.95 4.23 3.85

M (N=360) 14.56 11.29 (N=360) 11.73 10.45

VIG-E=Vigilance, CAV-E=Cognitive avoidance. =Cronbach's coecient alpha.

SD



3.65 3.82

0.76 0.75

4.35 3.83

0.82 0.76

1230

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

yielded signi®cant main e€ects for Nationality and Gender, Fs for interactions <1. German participants scored lower in vigilance, F(1, 716)=90.84, p<0.001, and cognitive avoidance, F(1, 716)=8.83, p<0.01, while female students exhibited higher vigilance, F(1, 716)=14.59, p<0.001, and lower avoidance scores than men, F(1, 716)=21.44, p<0.001. 3.2.3. Internal structure of the MCI-E As predicted from the model of coping modes, vigilance and cognitive avoidance are only moderately associated, with very similar coecients observed in both samples (American sample: r= 0.16; German sample: r= 0.19). In order to further explore the dimensionality of the MCI-E, we performed principal-component analyses (PCAs) with subsequent varimax rotation. The answers of the ®ve vigilance (VIG) and ®ve cognitive avoidance (CAV) strategies of each of the four scenarios were summed up, thus creating eight coping variables. These variables were subjected to the PCA. Concerning the number of factors to be extracted and the extent to which they were considered worthy of interpretation, the following criteria were applied (cf. Rost & Schermer, 1989): eigenvalue greater than 1, accounting for at least 3% of the total variance, and de®ned through at least three marker variables. Marker variables of a factor had to meet the criteria signi®cant absolute factor loading (a>0.40), and relative one-dimensionality, i.e., the share of both highest loadings on the communality should di€er at least 25% …‰a21 a22 Š!SLASH!h2 > 0:25†. Results were, again, very similar for both samples. The PCAs produced two eigenvalues greater than 1, with the third eigenvalue being distinctly smaller than the second one (American sample: 2.47, 1.96, 0.98; German sample: 2.87, 2.05, 0.86). Based on this solution, we inspected the rotated factor matrices with two components, which accounted for 55.4% of the total variance in the American and for 61.4% in the German sample. This solution resulted in a clear separation of the four vigilance (Factor 1) and the four cognitive avoidance variables (Factor 2; cf. Table 3). To further test the equivalence of the American and the German versions of the MCI-E, we performed con®rmatory factor analyses (CFAs) employing EQS, version 5.7a (Bentler, 1995). These analyses were based on the data of the con®rmatory samples. Table 3 Results of the principal-component analysis with varimax rotation of the vigilance and cognitive avoidance scores summed up for each situationa Scale

American sample (N=180) F1

VIG-E1 VIG-E2 VIG-E3 VIG-E4 CAV-E1 CAV-E2 CAV-E3 CAV-E4 a

0.69 0.69 0.78 0.79 0.07 0.05 0.16 0.01

F2 0.09 0.04 0.10 0.21 0.65 0.71 0.72 0.83

German sample (N=180) h2 0.48 0.48 0.62 0.67 0.42 0.51 0.55 0.69

F1 0.77 0.82 0.87 0.65 0.06 0.04 0.24 0.06

F2 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.25 0.79 0.76 0.75 0.74

Marker variables are shown in boldface. VIG-E1=Vigilance score in situation 1, etc. h2=communality.

h2 0.60 0.67 0.76 0.49 0.63 0.58 0.62 0.55

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

1231

Evaluation of model ®t was based on multiple criteria. The most often used criterion, the 2 likelihood ratio statistic, tests the hypothesis that the population covariance matrix matches the model-implied covariance matrix. Since the 2 variate is a direct function of sample size, the probability of rejecting any model increases as N increases, i.e., almost every model will be rejected if the sample size is large enough (cf. Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Thus, the 2 test is no reliable guide to model adequacy. As a consequence, alternative measures of ®t, so-called ®t indices, are frequently used. Hu and Bentler (1998) recently evaluated the sensitivity to model misspeci®cation of di€erent ®t indices in a large Monte Carlo study with di€erent sample sizes, estimation methods, distributions, and model misspeci®cations. Best results were obtained with the maximum likelihood (ML) method. The authors found that the ML-based standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) proved to be sensitive to models with misspeci®ed factor covariances, and the ML-based comparative ®t index (CFI) was sensitive to models with misspeci®ed factor loadings. Following the authors' recommendations, we employed the SRMR and the CFI indices in our study. With respect to ®t criteria, Hu and Bentler (1999) observed that CFI values of 0.96 or above in combination with SRMR values of 0.09 or below indicated a good ®t between the hypothesized model and the observed data. To con®rm the structure obtained by the principal-component analyses, we performed two con®rmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of the eight MCI-E coping variables described above, one for the American and one for the German sample. A two-factor model was obtained by constraining the four vigilance (VIG) variables to load on one factor, and the four cognitive avoidance (CAV) variables on the other factor. Our analyses exhibited the following results for the American sample: 2 (19, N=180)=31.96, p=0.03; CFI=0.96; SRMR=0.06. For the German sample the following values were found: 2 (19, N=180)=98.52, p<0.001; CFI=0.82; SRMR=0.07. While the model displayed a good ®t for the American sample, the German failed to meet the criteria for a good model ®t. The Lagrange Multiplier test (LM test; Bentler, 1995) was applied to the data of the German sample to identify relationships not postulated in the nested model that could potentially improve model ®t. This test revealed that the covariance between the residuals of VIG and CAV in Situations 1 and 4, respectively, should be freed. This rede®nition of parameters resulted in a good model ®t for the German sample: 2 (17, N=180)=31.64, p=0.02; CFI=0.97; SRMR=0.05. Fig. 2 presents the rede®ned model for the German sample and its parameter estimates along with the above described model for the American sample. For the American sample the factor loadings ranged from 0.60 to 0.76 and for the German sample from 0.57 to 0.79. All loadings were signi®cantly greater than zero (ps<0.001). The correlations of the two latent factors were small, with 0.28 for the American sample and 0.22 for the German sample. The factor loadings and correlations for the two samples were quite similar, but still slightly di€erent. Our next step was to test whether these factor loadings and correlations were statistically di€erent. We therefore performed a series of hierarchically nested multiple group CFAs with invariance constraints being imposed sequentially on the parameter estimates for the American and German samples (Bentler, 1995; Byrne, 1994; Byrne, Shavelson & MutheÂn, 1989). The results of the di€erent models are presented in Table 4. Assessment of sample invariance was governed by three criteria: (a) goodness-of-®t of the constrained model in terms of the CFI

1232

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

and SRMR, (b) the probability level of the di€erence in 2 between the models, and (c) the probability level of the equality constraints as determined by the LM test. Model 1 is the baseline model. It was based on the ®nal models for each sample, as shown in Fig. 2. It contained no cross-group equality constraints on any parameters. In Model 2, the factor loadings were constrained to be equal across groups. The LM test suggested releasing the cross-group equality

Fig. 2. Path diagram of con®rmatory factor analytic models with parameter estimates for the American sample (left) and the German sample (right). e1±e8=residuals, VIG-1±VIG-4=vigilance in situations 1±4, CAV-1±CAV-4=cognitive avoidance in situations 1±4. N=180 in each sample.

Table 4 Summary of ®t statistics for models of the multiple group analysisa Competing models

2

df

CFI

SRMR


2


df

1. No cross-group constraints 2. Factor loadings invariant 3. Factor loadings, variances, and covariances invariant

63.60** 75.77** 80.86***

36 42 45

0.97 0.96 0.96

0.05 0.07 0.08

12.17 5.09

6 3

a N=360; CFI=comparative ®t index; SRMR=standardized root mean square residual. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

1233

constraint for the factor loading of VIG in situation 4. However, the values for the CFI and the SRMR indicated a good ®t of Model 2, and the 2 di€erence between Model 2 and Model 1 was not signi®cant. We therefore concluded that the factor loadings were not statistically di€erent between the two samples and, hence, our hypothesis of equal factor loadings in both samples was not discon®rmed. In Model 3, the factor variances and covariances were additionally constrained to be invariant between groups. The ®t indices indicated a good ®t of Model 3, and the 2 difference between Model 3 and Model 2 was not signi®cant. This result indicated the similarity of the factors and their relationships in the two samples. To summarize, the con®rmatory analyses showed the equivalence of the MCI-E scales VIG and CAV across the two nationalities. The only di€erence between the two samples were the correlated errors in situations 1 and 4 of the German sample. 3.3. Discussion The internal consistencies of the MCI-E scales VIG and CAV were satisfactory and very similar for both nationalities. The observed gender di€erences, with women exhibiting more vigilance and men more cognitive avoidance, are in accordance with numerous previous ®ndings (see Krohne, 1996a; Miller & Kirsch, 1987; Weidner & Collins, 1993, for overviews). A comparison of nationalities revealed that American students employed more vigilant as well as cognitive avoidant coping strategies than their German counterparts. This ®nding could indicate di€erences in item-response tendencies, with American students checking more `true' alternatives than Germans. It may, furthermore, mean that Germans are more reluctant than Americans to employ (or, at least, to check at the answer sheet) multiple coping strategies. Instead, German participants might have concentrated on a few strategies which they considered to be most typical of their coping with these speci®c situations. Calculation of the e€ect sizes, however, revealed that di€erences between American and German students were especially marked for vigilance (d=0.71), while the di€erences for cognitive avoidance were less expressed (d=0.22). This result could indicate that the two samples are especially di€erent with regard to vigilance-related appraisals of the four threat scenarios. We will resume this idea when we discuss di€erences in appraisals (see Analysis 2). In both samples, results of the correlational as well as principal component analyses (PCAs) provided convincing support for the hypothesis of an independent functioning of vigilance and cognitive avoidance, i.e., for the discriminant validity of the scales VIG-E and CAV-E. The PCAs resulted in the identi®cation of two strong factors which clearly separated the vigilant from the avoidant strategies. Consequently, correlations of the subscales VIG and CAV were low. Further convincing support for the cross-national equivalence of the MCI's two-dimensional structure was provided by the results of the con®rmatory factor analyses, obtained with two samples that were independent of the PCA samples. While the ®t between the speci®ed model and the observed data proved to be perfect for the American sample, a marginal limitation had to be tolerated in the German sample. The ®t for this sample raised to a satisfactory level only after the residuals associated with vigilance and cognitive avoidance in situations 1 and 4, respectively, were allowed to covary freely. However, observing correlated residuals in CFAs is not uncommon and for the speci®c test under study not even implausible. It may very well happen that vigilant and avoidant coping strategies are negatively correlated, i.e., exclude each other, in a

1234

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

single speci®c situation, despite the fact that the scores aggregated for all test situations vary independently. More speci®cally, the situations 1 (`public speech') and 4 (`mistake on the job') might have certain attributes for German participants that led to the emergence of negative correlations of vigilance and avoidance. One hypothesis could be that the German participants appraised the situations in a speci®c way and that these appraisals were responsible for the negative correlations of vigilance and avoidance. However, an inspection of the appraisals of the di€erent threat scenarios, described in more detail in Analysis 2, revealed that no systematic differences between American and German participants existed for the speci®c scenarios. Therefore, further research is needed to clarify this issue. 4. Analysis 2 4.1. Participants and procedure The American sample (A2; cf. Table 1) consisted of 227 undergraduate students with di€erent majors. The German sample (G2) included 267 graduate and undergraduate students. The graduate students were primarily enrolled in psychology, whereas undergraduates pursued different majors. Gender was somewhat unevenly distributed across both samples, with the American sample containing a higher proportion of female students than the German sample, 2 (1, N=494)=20.26, p<0.001. Participants completed the MCI-E and a questionnaire assessing appraisals of the four threat scenarios as part of their course requirement. Employing a 5-point response scale (`not all Ð a little Ð moderately Ð quite Ð very'), participants were asked to indicate the degree of aversiveness, predictability, and controllability they assign to each threat scenario. 4.2. Results To compare the appraisals across samples, we conducted 2 (sample)2 (gender)4 (situation) multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) with sample and gender as between-subject factors and situation as within-subject factor. These analyses were carried out separately for each appraisal dimension. We observed signi®cant samplegendersituation interaction e€ects for aversiveness, Wilks's =0.98, F(3, 488)=3.89, p<0.01, and predictability, Wilks's =0.97, F(3, 488)=4.72, p<0.01. Controllability yielded signi®cant gendersituation, Wilks's =0.98, F(3, 488)=3.28, p<0.03, and samplesituation interaction e€ects, Wilks's =0.96, F(3, 488)=6.50, p<0.001. To further inspect the triple interactions, we conducted separate 2 (sample)2 (gender) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for each situation. For aversiveness, these ANOVAs yielded signi®cant main e€ects of gender for situation 1, F(1, 490)=13.32, p<0.001; situation 3, F(1, 490)=27.03, p<0.001; and situation 4, F(1, 490)=28.47, p<0.001 with women experiencing more aversiveness in these situations than men (cf. Table 5). For situation 2 (taking an exam), a signi®cant samplegender interaction e€ect emerged, F(1, 490)=5.68, p<0.02. While the genderspeci®c mean aversiveness ratings showed no signi®cant di€erence in the American sample, German women gave signi®cantly higher ratings than German men, t(265)=5.35, p<0.001.

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

1235

Table 5 Appraisals of the MCI-E situationsa Situation

1. Public speech Men Women Total 2. Taking an exam Men Women Total 3. Job interview Men Women Total 4. Mistake on the job Men Women Total

American sample Aversiveness Predictability

Controllability

German sample Aversiveness Predictability

Controllability

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

2.98 3.28 3.20

1.16 1.14 1.15

3.60 3.18 3.28

0.82 0.89 0.89

4.28 4.01 4.08

0.67 0.80 0.78

2.71 3.22 2.99

1.14 1.11 1.15

3.50 3.41 3.45

1.01 0.99 1.00

4.06 3.74 3.88

1.02 1.07 1.06

3.02 3.22 3.17

1.27 1.10 1.15

3.23 3.35 3.32

1.09 0.84 0.91

4.16 4.26 4.24

0.96 0.84 0.87

2.60 3.33 3.00

1.17 1.07 1.17

3.74 3.33 3.51

0.86 1.03 0.98

3.97 3.81 3.88

0.98 1.19 1.10

2.07 2.64 2.49

0.94 1.01 1.02

2.77 2.74 2.75

0.89 0.90 0.89

3.70 3.86 3.82

0.96 0.87 0.90

2.30 2.78 2.57

1.03 1.05 1.06

2.94 2.76 2.84

0.97 1.03 1.00

3.59 3.39 3.48

1.09 0.99 1.04

2.91 3.65 3.46

1.12 1.05 1.11

2.65 2.37 2.44

0.95 0.91 0.93

2.96 2.96 2.97

0.98 1.00 0.99

2.95 3.33 3.16

1.12 1.01 1.08

3.13 2.86 2.98

1.09 1.10 1.10

3.24 2.97 3.09

1.03 1.03 1.04

a

American sample: N=227 (57 men, 170 women); German sample: N=267 (119 men, 148 women). The aversiveness, predictability, and controllability appraisals were made on a scale ranging from 1 to 5.

Compared across nationalities, American men were signi®cantly higher in their aversiveness rating of the exam scenario than their German counterparts, t(174)=2.17, p<0.04, while women manifested no signi®cant nationality di€erence. For predictability, a similar pattern emerged. While situation 3 exhibited no signi®cant sample or gender di€erences, situation 1, F(1, 490)=7.88, p<0.01 (public speech), and situation 4, F(1, 490)=7.30, p<0.01 (mistake on the job), were more predictable for men than for women (cf. Table 5). In addition, situation 4, F(1, 490)=23.62, p<0.001, showed a main e€ect for sample, with German participants reporting more predictability of this stressor than Americans. Again, for situation 2 a signi®cant samplegender interaction e€ect emerged, F(1, 490)=8.21, p<0.01. While American men and women were very similar in their predictability ratings of the exam situation, German men reported signi®cantly higher predictability than German women, t(265)=3.46, p<0.01. In addition, this situation was more predictable for German than for American men, t(174)=3.39, p<0.01, while no cross-national di€erence was observed for female participants. For controllability, the gendersituation interaction showed that men and women only differed in situation 1, t(492)=2.81, p<0.01 (public speech), with men reporting more controllability than women. The samplesituation interaction, on the other hand, exhibited that American students experienced more controllability in situation 1, t(492)=2.25, p<0.03; situation 2, t(492)=3.95, p<0.001; and situation 3, t(492)=3.96, p<0.001, than their German counterparts, while no sample di€erence was observed for situation 4 (cf. Table 5).

1236

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

4.3. Discussion The main objective of this analysis was to compare the threat appraisals of American and German participants on the three fundamental threat-appraisal dimensions of aversiveness, predictability, and controllability. Equivalence of the two test versions would be questionable if both samples substantially di€ered in their appraisals of the threat scenarios. Except for situation 2, however, only minor national di€erences were registered. Compared to their German counterparts, American students, especially men, experienced `taking an exam' as being more aversive, less predictable, but more controllable. For the remaining scenarios, only a few signi®cant sample di€erences emerged: `Mistake on the job' was a more predictable encounter for Germans, while `public speech' and `job interview' received higher controllability ratings from American participants. The sample e€ect observed for `taking an exam' could be attributed to national di€erences in the frequency of this encounter. While American students take exams every semester, German students are examined less frequently. In general, they only take two exams, one intermediate and one ®nal. Hence, exams are more imminent (and consequently more threatening) events for American students, while, on average, they are more remote for German students. On the other hand, American students have more opportunities to improve their exam-taking competence. This should increase their expectancy of successfully coping with (controlling) this situation and, at the same time, prevent them from developing the unrealistically optimistic trust that they can tell in advance which questions will be asked. To conclude, although the scenario `taking an exam' exhibited marked national di€erences, it should be included in every test assessing anxiety and coping in ego-threatening situations. In fact, taking an exam is the prototype of an ego-threatening encounter (see, Zeidner, 1998, for an overview). This classi®cation is substantiated by the results of our exploratory and con®rmatory factor analyses (cf. Analysis 1). 5. Analysis 3 5.1. Instruments In a series of studies we collected further information about the convergent and discriminant validity of the MCI-E. We assessed relationships of the MCI dimensions vigilance and cognitive avoidance with measures of global personality dispositions, trait a€ectivity, in particular anxiety, anger, and depression, anger expression, the social desirability tendency, and the coping styles of monitoring and blunting. The following instruments, of which equivalent English and German versions exist, were administered (cf. Table 6): The NEO Five Factors Inventory (NEO-FFI; English: Costa & McCrae, 1992; German: Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993), the trait scales of the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI; English: Spielberger, 1979, 1995; German: Hodapp, 1988; Krohne & Spielberger, 1998), the trait scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; English: Spielberger, Gorsuch & Lushene, 1970; German: Laux, Glanzmann, Scha€ner & Spielberger, 1981), the StateTrait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI; English: Spielberger, 1988; German: Schwenkmezger,

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

1237

Hodapp & Spielberger, 1992), the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSD; English: Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; German: LuÈck & Timaeus, 1969), and the Monitor-Blunter Style Scale (MBSS; English: Miller, 1987; German: Schumacher, 1990).1 5.2. Participants and procedure Technical constraints did not permit the administration of the exact same combination of tests to the corresponding American and German samples (cf. Table 1). For example, Sample G2 Table 6 Correlations of VIG-E and CAV-E with various criterion variablesa Variable

American samples

Inventory

N

NEO-FFI Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness STPI-Trait Anxiety Anger Curiosity Depression Dysthymia Euthymia STAI Trait Anxiety STAXI Anger In Anger Out Anger Control MCSD Social Desirability MBSS Monitoring Blunting

VIG-E

German samples CAV-E

N

VIG-E

CAV-E

259 259 259 259 259

0.40** 0.09 0.04 0.11 0.06

0.34** 0.20** 0.14* 0.06 0.06

108 108 108 108 108

0.46** 0.14 0.18 0.06 0.18

0.29** 0.15 0.35** 0.04 0.18

90 90 90 90 90 90

0.27* 0.22* 0.03 0.22* 0.27* 0.16

0.29** 0.18 0.13 0.16 0.06 0.23*

108 108 108 108 108 108

0.41** 0.39** 0.18 0.31** 0.32** 0.24*

0.27** 0.10 0.29** 0.22* 0.07 0.31**

227

0.31**

0.34**

281

0.34**

0.39**

90 90 90

0.34** 0.14 0.18

0.15 0.04 0.12

108 108 108

0.23* 0.21* 0.11

0.00 0.11 0.19*

227

0.09

0.16*

281

0.18**

0.15*

259 259

0.48** 0.01

0.03 0.32**

108 108

0.26** 0.08

0.08 0.16

a VIG-E=Vigilance, Ego-threat, CAV-E=Cognitive avoidance, Ego-threat, NEO-FFI=NEO Five Factors Inventory, STPI=State-Trait Personality Inventory, STAI=State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAXI=State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, MCSD=Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale, MBSS=Monitor-Blunter Style Scale. *p<0.05; **p<0.01 (two-tailed).

1 We are aware of other important dispositional coping inventories such as the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (Endler & Parker, 1994, 1999) or the COPE (Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989). However, at the time our investigations were planned, no elaborated German versions of these tests existed.

1238

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

responded to the MCI-E and to the appraisal questionnaire (as described in Analysis 2), while the corresponding American sample additionally completed the STAI and the MCSD (in this sequence). In Germany, STAI and MCSD were ®lled out by a separate sample (G3; cf. Table 1). On the other hand, the German Sample G4 responded to the complete sequence of STPI, STAXI, MBSS, and NEO-FFI, while this set had to be split up into two parts (STPI and STAXI vs MBSS and NEO-FFI) for the American participants (Samples A3 and A4). The German samples (G3 and G4; cf. Table 1) included graduate and undergraduate students who were tested during a regular class period. The graduate students were primarily enrolled in psychology, whereas undergraduates pursued di€erent majors. The American samples (A3 and A4) were comprised entirely of undergraduate students enrolled in psychology who were tested during a regular class period. 5.3. Results and discussion Table 6 presents the correlations of the two MCI-E subscales and several global personality, trait a€ectivity, and coping styles inventories. In general, correlations converged and diverged in both samples in a theoretically meaningful way. Consequently, the pattern of coecients and even their magnitudes were very similar in both nationalities. As expected from the model of coping modes, vigilance was in both samples positively associated with a pattern of variables considered to indicate the global trait of negative a€ectivity (Watson & Clark, 1984): neuroticism (NEO-FFI), trait anxiety (STAI and STPI), and depression (STPI). With some caution one could add to this cluster the variables STPI anger (the trait to experience anger) and STAXI anger-in (the tendency to direct anger at oneself). Equally expected was the negative correlation of cognitive avoidance (i.e., the tendency to withdraw attention from aversive external and internal cues) with these variables. If one breaks down the global STPI Depression Scale into its components dysthymia (Dy) and euthymia (Eu), another theoretically meaningful pattern emerged. Spielberger (1995) de®ned dysthymia as the presence of negative (depressive) a€ects (example item: `I feel downhearted') while euthymia indicates the absence of positive a€ects. (The Eu items, e.g., `I feel alive', are inversely scored.) Employing principal component analysis with subsequent oblique (promax) rotation, Spielberger could demonstrate that the Dy and Eu items form two distinct, although correlated factors. In accordance with the concept of negative a€ectivity described above, vigilance was more closely related to the presence of negative a€ects than to the reported absence of positive a€ects, while the opposite relationship emerged for cognitive avoidance. From the more global personality dispositions, only extraversion and the conceptually related dimensions of openness (NEO-FFI) and curiosity (STPI) exhibited marginally positive correlations with cognitive avoidance, with openness and curiosity displaying a higher coecient in the German sample. We hesitate to draw far-reaching conclusions about the implications of this ®nding. Most likely, these positive associations can be traced back to the underlying dimension of social desirability, i.e., the tendency to search for social approval (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). We assume that some extraversion, openness, and curiosity items tap a tendency to emphasize positive aspects of oneself such as being sociable (extraversion), open-minded (openness), and eager to explore the environment (curiosity). The positive correlation of cognitive avoidance (CAV) and social desirability (SD) is in line with this reasoning, although the coecients were somewhat

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

1239

lower than expected. (For a detailed analysis of the relationship between CAV and SD, see Eglo€ & Hock, 1997, 1999; Krohne et al., 2000.) Finally, for the associations of vigilance and cognitive avoidance with the coping-style dimensions of monitoring and blunting, the expected convergent and discriminant constellation emerged. Vigilance was strongly associated with monitoring, but unrelated to blunting, while cognitive avoidance exhibited the opposite pattern, with lower coecients observed in the German sample. 6. General discussion In this article, we systematically inspected the equivalence of the English and German versions of the Mainz Coping Inventory (MCI-E), a newly developed instrument for measuring coping with ego-threatening (especially achievement-related) situations (cf. Eglo€ & Krohne, 1998; Krohne & Eglo€, in press; Krohne et al., 2000). The two central coping dimensions assessed by this instrument are vigilance (subscale VIG-E), i.e., the tendency to be oriented toward the threatrelated aspects of a situation, and cognitive avoidance (CAV-E), the tendency to turn attention away from threatening cues (cf. Krohne, 1993b). Both dimensions are conceived to vary independently. We found that in both languages the reliabilities (internal consistencies) of the MCI-E scales VIG-E and CAV-E were satisfactory (Analysis 1). The same applied to the validity coecients (Analysis 3). In the German as well as in the American sample, vigilance was positively associated with a pattern of variables indicating negative a€ectivity (cf. Watson & Clark, 1984), while cognitive avoidance showed the inverse relationship. Within this cluster, the correlations of vigilance and avoidance with the two depression components dysthymia and euthymia are of particular interest. In both languages, dysthymia (the presence of negative a€ects) was only associated with vigilance. The absence of positive a€ects (euthymia), on the other hand, showed stronger (negative) correlations with cognitive avoidance than with vigilance. Furthermore, correlations of vigilance and cognitive avoidance with the indicators of the conceptually similar coping styles of monitoring and blunting displayed the expected convergent and discriminant pattern. In both languages, vigilance was strongly associated with monitoring, but unrelated to blunting, while the opposite relationship was observed for cognitive avoidance. For both test versions (English and German), results of the correlational and the factorial (principal component ± PCA ± and con®rmatory Ð CFA Ð ) analyses provided convincing support for the postulated independent functioning of vigilance and cognitive avoidance (Analysis 1). The meaningfulness of these ®ndings was increased by the fact that the PCAs and the CFAs were performed with independent samples of participants. Strongest support for the equivalence of both test versions came from the results of the con®rmatory factor analyses. In both samples, factor loadings and correlations of the two latent variables were similar. Results of a series of multiple group CFAs indicated no signi®cant di€erences between these values. The only (albeit marginal) di€erence between the two samples emerged when the CFA ®t indices were inspected. While the model that constrained vigilance and avoidance variables to load on separate factors displayed a good ®t for the American sample, a rede®nition had to be

1240

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

applied to the model for the German sample. Only after the residuals associated with vigilance and avoidance in two situations (1 and 4) were allowed to covary freely did the model ®t raise to an acceptable level. Since the emergence of correlated errors in CFAs is not uncommon, we hesitate to draw far-reaching conclusions from this speci®c ®nding. Further studies should clarify whether this single ®nding is stable across independent samples and, hence, a characteristic of the German MCI-E, or is an exception restricted to the speci®c sample employed. Despite the high degree of equivalence of the English and the German test versions, inspection of the mean di€erences on the coping and appraisal dimensions exhibited some signi®cant cultural di€erences (Analyses 1 and 2). American participants employed somewhat more avoidant coping and markedly more vigilant strategies than their German counterparts. This ®nding could be a result of di€erences in the appraisals of the ego-threatening scenarios. Except for the scenario `taking an exam', however, only a few and unsystematic di€erences on the appraisal dimensions aversiveness, predictability, and controllability emerged. There is a tendency for American students, compared to their German counterparts, to experience some threat scenarios as being less predictable but more controllable. This ®nding could explain the American students' enhanced employment of vigilant coping, since vigilance refers to a group of strategies employed in order to reduce the experienced uncertainty and, thus, to increase the predictability of stressful encounters. This ®nding, however, does not aid in explaining di€erences in the employment of cognitive avoidance. Further research is needed to clarify this latter issue. Noteworthy cultural di€erences were observed in the appraisal of the situation `taking an exam', with American students (especially men) rating this stressor as being more aversive, less predictable, and more controllable than their German counterparts did. We attribute this ®nding to national di€erences in the frequency of this encounter. A further source for appraisal di€erences could be the speci®c design of typical academic exams, for example, oral vs written exam, group vs individual testing, or opportunity to repeat an exam when having failed on the ®rst trial. A promising research strategy would be to ®rst vary these parameters within one cultural context. If these investigations yield systematic and meaningful appraisal di€erences, cross-cultural studies should follow. The present analyses were restricted to university students to assure homogeneity within the samples studied. However, other samples, especially from the workplace, should be investigated in the future. In addition, only self-report measures were employed. However, data obtained in experimental settings (see, Eglo€ & Krohne, 1996; Hock, Krohne & Kaiser, 1996) could also demonstrate the criterion-related validity of the MCI.

Acknowledgements The research reported in this article was partly supported by a joint grant from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) to Heinz Walter Krohne. The authors would like to thank Larry Varner, Jordan Litman, Brian March, and Carol Warsala for their assisance with data collection and processing. Also thanks to Elizabeth Ray-Schroeder and Michael Hock for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

1241

References Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Signi®cance tests and goodness of ®t in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588±606. Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-FuÈnf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae [The NEO Five Factor Inventory according to Costa and McCrae]. GoÈttingen: Hogrefe. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry, Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137±164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & MutheÂn, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456±466. Byrne, D. (1964). Repression-sensitization as a dimension of personality. In B. A. Maher, Progress in experimental personality research, Vol. 1 (pp. 169±220). New York: Academic Press. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. G. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267±283. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349±354. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley. Eglo€, B., & Hock, M. (1997). A comparison of two approaches to the assessment of coping styles. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 23, 913±916. Eglo€, B., & Hock, M. (1999). When is an agreement between two methods for assessing coping styles ``good''? A reply to Mendolia. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 27, 1021±1023. Eglo€, B., & Krohne, H. W. (1996). Repressive emotional discreteness after failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1318±1326. Eglo€, B., & Krohne, H. W. (1998). Die Messung von Vigilanz und kognitiver Vermeidung: Untersuchungen mit dem AngstbewaÈltigungs-Inventar (ABI) [The measurement of vigilance and cognitive avoidance: Investigations with the ``AngstbewaÈltigungs-Inventar'' (ABI)]. Diagnostica, 44, 189±200. Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: Task, emotion, and avoidance strategies. Psychological Assessment, 6, 50±60. Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1999). CISS: Coping inventory for stressful situations. Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Epstein, S. (1972). The nature of anxiety with emphasis upon its relationship to expectancy. In C. D. Spielberger, Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research, Vol. 2 (pp. 291±337). New York: Academic Press. Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229±244. Hock, M., Krohne, H. W., & Kaiser, J. (1996). Coping dispositions and the processing of ambiguous stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1052±1066. Hodapp, V. (1988). Bericht uÈber Entwicklungsarbeiten zum deutschen State-Trait-PersoÈnlichkeitsinventar STPI-G [Report about the development of the German State-Trait Personality Inventory STPI-G]. DuÈsseldorf: UniversitaÈt DuÈsseldorf, Institut fuÈr Physiologische Psychologie. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspeci®cation. Psychological Methods, 3, 424±453. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cuto€ criteria for ®t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria vs new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1±55. Krohne, H. W. (1989). The concept of coping modes: Relating cognitive person variables to actual coping behavior. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 11, 235±248.

1242

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

Krohne, H. W. (1993a). Attention and avoidance. Strategies in coping with aversiveness. Seattle, Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber. Krohne, H. W. (1993b). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research. In H. W. Krohne, Attention and avoidance. Strategies in coping with aversiveness (pp. 19±50). Seattle, Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber. Krohne, H. W. (1996a). Angst und AngstbewaÈltigung [Anxiety and coping]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Krohne, H. W. (1996b). Individual di€erences in coping. In M. Zeidner, & N. S. Endler, Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 381±409). New York: Wiley. Krohne, H. W., & Eglo€, B. (1999). Das AngstbewaÈltigungs-Inventar (ABI). Manual [The Mainz Coping Inventory (MCI). Manual]. Frankfurt a.M.: Swets Test Services. Krohne, H. W., & Eglo€, B. (in press). Vigilant and avoidant coping: Theory and measurement. In C. D. Spielberger, & I. G. Sarason, Stress and emotion, Vol. 17. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Krohne, H. W., Eglo€, B., Varner, L. J., Burns, L. R., Weidner, G., & Ellis, H. C. (2000). The assessment of dispositional vigilance and cognitive avoidance: Factorial structure, psychometric properties, and validity of the Mainz Coping Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 297±311. Krohne, H. W., & Spielberger, C. D. (1998). Cross-cultural assessment of state-trait depression and coping, Paper presented at the 106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, August. Laux, L., Glanzmann, P., Scha€ner, P., & Spielberger, C. D. (1981). Das State-Trait-Angstinventar (STAI) [The StateTrait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. LuÈck, H. E., & Timaeus, E. (1969). Skalen zur Messung manifester Angst (MAS) und sozialer WuÈnschbarkeit (SDE-E und SDS-CM) scales for measuring manifest anxiety (MAS) and social desirability (SDE-E and SDS-MC)]. Diagnostica, 15, 134±141. Miller, S. M. (1987). Monitoring and blunting: Validation of a questionnaire to assess styles of information seeking under threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 345±353. Miller, S. M., & Kirsch, N. (1987). Sex di€erences in cognitive coping with stress. In R. C. Barnett, L. Biener, & G. K. Baruch, Gender and stress (pp. 278±307). New York: The Free Press. Mullen, B., & Suls, J. (1982). The e€ectiveness of attention and rejection as coping styles: A meta-analysis of temporal di€erences. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 26, 43±49. Rost, D. H., & Schermer, F. J. (1989). Diagnostik des Leistungsangsterlebens [Test anxiety measurement]. Diagnostica, 35, 287±314. Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813±819. Schumacher, A. (1990). Die ``Miller Behavioral Style Scale'' (MBSS) Ð Erste UÈberpruÈfung einer deutschen Fassung [The ``Miller Behavioral Style Scale'' (MBSS) Ð First inspection of a German adaptation]. Zeitschrift fuÈr Di€erentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 11, 243±250. Schwarzer, R., & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical survey of coping instruments. In M. Zeidner, & N. S. Endler, Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 107±132). New York: Wiley. Schwenkmezger, P., Hodapp, V., & Spielberger, C. D. (1992). Das State-Trait-AÈrgerausdrucks-Inventar (STAXI) [The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI)]. Bern: Huber. Spielberger, C. D. (1979). Preliminary Manual for the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Department of Psychology. Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Spielberger, C. D. (1995). Preliminary manual for the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). STAI Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative a€ectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465±490. Weidner, G., & Collins, R. L. (1993). Gender, coping, and health. In H. W. Krohne, Attention and avoidance. Strategies in coping with aversiveness (pp. 241±265). Seattle, Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber.

H.W. Krohne et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 1225±1243

1243

Weinberger, D. A., & Schwartz, G. E. (1990). Distress and restraint as superordinate dimensions of self-reported adjustment: A typological perspective. Journal of Personality, 58, 381±417. Weinberger, D. A., Schwartz, G. E., & Davidson, R. J. (1979). Low-anxious, high-anxious, and repressive coping styles: Psychometric patterns and behavioral and physiological responses to stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 369±380. Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety. The state of the art. New York: Plenum. Zeidner, M., & Endler, N. S. (1996). Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. New York: Wiley.