Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
297311
This article reports the construction and empirical evaluation of the English adaptation
of the Mainz Coping Inventory (MCI). The MCI, which is based on the model of
coping modes (Krohne, 1993), is organized as a stimulusresponse inventory and
contains two subtests. Eight fictitious situations are presented to the participants. Four
of these situations represent physical threat (subtest MCI-P) and four ego threat
(subtest MCI-E). Each situation is conjoined with five vigilant and five cognitive
avoidant coping strategies, thus allowing the separate assessment of the coping disposi-
tions of vigilance and cognitive avoidance. Analyses concerning appraisals of the
threat situations, factorial structure, and psychometric properties of the MCI as well
as convergent and discriminant associations with coping and affect variables are
presented. Results of the analyses indicate that the MCI is a reliable and valid measure
of two central coping dimensions.
KEY WORDS: affect; vigilance; cognitive avoidance; coping measurement.
297
0147-5916/00/0600-0297$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation
298 Krohne et al.
MCI-P
1. Dentist: Imagine that you havent been to the dentist for quite a long time. You are now sitting
in his waiting room because you are having problems with your teeth.
2. Group of people: Imagine that you are walking alone through town in the late evening. A group
of people, who look suspicious, approach you from out of a side street.
3. Inexperienced driver: Imagine that you are a front seat passenger next to an obviously inexperienced
driver. Road conditions are poor due to snow and ice.
4. Turbulent flight: Imagine that you are sitting in an airplane. The flight has been turbulent for quite
a while now, and the No Smoking and Fasten Seat Belts signs have lit up.
Note. MCI-E, Mainz Coping Inventory Ego threat subtest; MCI-P, Mainz Coping Inventory Physical
threat subtest.
of the strategies listed they would 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, thus yielding four scores of dispositional coping:
vigilance in the Ego threat (VIG-E) or Physical threat (VIG-P) subtests, and cogni-
tive avoidance in both subtests (CAV-E and CAV-P). In addition, total scores
(VIG-T and CAV-T) can be calculated.
A sequence of three studies, employing independent samples from different
university campuses, explored the characteristics of the MCI. Study 1 inspects the
factorial structure of the MCI as well as the statistical and psychometric properties
of the scales. Study 2 reports the appraised aversiveness, controllability, and predict-
ability of the different scenarios devised for assessing coping strategies. Further-
more, this study presents the results of an empirical comparison of the classifications
of individuals according to the MCI subscales with the related approach proposed
by Weinberger, Schwartz, and Davidson (1979). Study 3 assesses the construct
validity of the MCI in examining relationships with various measures of coping and
emotion variables.
STUDY 1
Participants
The data for this study were obtained by merging data from two samples of
undergraduate students. The first sample (N 169) was comprised of students
enrolled at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. The second sample
consisted of 179 students of York University, Ontario, Canada. The samples were
comparable with regard to age, gender distribution, and vigilance and cognitive
avoidance scores. The total (combined) sample included 348 participants (76 men,
272 women) with a mean age of 22.2 years. Participants completed the MCI in
group sessions as part of their course requirements.
second factor) while fixing the other loadings at zero. First, we inspected the chi-
square statistic of goodness-of-fit. This statistic, however, is problematic because it
is directly related to sample size, and almost every model will be rejected if the
sample size is large enough (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Thus, we also used
the following indexes to assess the goodness-of-fit (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988): the
Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), the Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), and
the Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR). Adequate to good fit is indicated by
GFI and AGFI values above .90, and by RMSR values of .05 or below. Our analysis
exhibited the following results: 2(19) 69.02, p .001, GFI .95, AGFI .91,
and RMSR .05. With the exception of the chi-square value, which was highly
significant and thus indicated that the model did not provide a perfect fit of the
data, the other indexes indicated a good fit. Taken together, this analysis further
confirmed the two-dimensional structure of the MCI-E subtest.
Based on this two-dimensional model, we again performed a CFA of the eight
coping variables of the MCI-P subtest. The goodness-of-fit for the hypothesized
two-factor model was not adequate. The chi-square value was highly significant,
2(19) 198.47, p .001, GFI .89, AGFI .79, RMSR .09. An inspection
of the standardized residuals, however, revealed that model respecification could
yield a substantially better fit if the residuals associated with two pairs of variables
were free to covary. These covariances involved CAV and VIG in situation 1, and
CAV and VIG in situation 4. Because the standardized residuals associated with
these pairs of variables were distinctively larger than all the remaining ones, and
because findings of residual covariances are not unusual in the validation of psycho-
logical, in particular personality, measures, we respecified the model to include
the estimation of these parameters. This redefinition of parameters resulted in a
substantial improvement of the goodness-of-fit: 2(17) 34.32, p .01, GFI .98,
AGFI .95, RMSR .04.
Table II. Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities of the Mainz Coping Inventory Subscales
Men Women Total sample
Scale M SD M SD t(346) M SD rretest
VIG-E 14.20 3.67 14.60 3.42 0.89 14.51 3.47 .74 .70
VIG-P 12.07 3.68 13.46 3.70 2.92** 13.16 3.73 .75 .71
VIG-T 26.26 6.59 28.06 6.35 2.16* 27.67 6.44 .84 .76
CAV-E 11.93 3.00 10.58 3.93 2.78** 10.88 3.78 .76 .81
CAV-P 11.01 3.46 9.74 3.88 2.58** 10.02 3.82 .74 .78
CAV-T 22.95 5.69 20.33 6.91 3.03** 20.90 6.74 .84 .84
Note: N(total sample) 348; N(men) 76; N(women) 272; N(retest) 145 (time span: 2 weeks);
, Cronbachs ; VIG-E, Vigilance subtest Ego threat; VIP-G, Vigilance subtest Physical threat;
VIG-T, Vigilance total score; CAV-E, Cognitive Avoidance subtest Ego threat; CAV-P, Cognitive
Avoidance subtest Physical threat; CAV-T, Cognitive Avoidance total score.
* p .05; ** p .01 (two-tailed t-test for gender differences).
302 Krohne et al.
.76 for the subtests and .84 for the total scores. Two-week testretest correlations
were determined for 145 participants from the Stony Brook sample and varied
between rtt .70 (VIG-E) and .84 (CAV-T). Although the psychometric properties
of the scales were very similar for both genders, a comparison between males and
females revealed that female participants scored higher on the vigilance scales and
lower on the cognitive avoidance scales (p .05 for all comparisons with the
exception of VIG-E; see Table II).8
Discussion
The scales of the MCI yielded satisfactory reliability coefficients (internal
consistency and retest reliability). In addition, results of the correlational as well
as factorial analyses of the MCI-E provided convincing support for the hypothesis
of the independence of vigilance and cognitive avoidance. Results obtained for the
MCI-P subtest are somewhat more complicated. As the results of the CFA indicated,
the hypothesized two-factor model did not provide a perfect fit to the data. Only
a respecification of the model, which allowed the residuals associated with vigilance
and cognitive avoidance in situations 1 and 4 to covary freely, raised the goodness-
of-fit to a satisfactory level. These results indicate that responses to the vigilance
and cognitive avoidance strategies in the scenario dentist and turbulent flight
were not completely independent of each other, as predicted by the model of
coping modes.
The observed gender differences in the use of coping strategies are in accor-
dance with previous findings (Miller & Kirsch, 1987). Weidner and Collins (1993)
demonstrated in their literature review that men use avoidant coping strategies
more frequently if the stressor is of short duration (as in the MCI scenarios). Women
appear to be more attentive to threats, especially to threats to their physical well-
being. These gender differences in coping may be explained by differences in
perceiving physiological arousal or relying on different cues when determining
emotional states (Roberts & Pennebaker, 1995). However, because the findings in
these areas are controversial (Jones, 1994), further research is needed to clarify
these issues.
STUDY 2
Discussion
These results demonstrate that we were able to meet the prerequisites for the
construction of stimuli in an sr inventory of habitual (trait) coping. The situations
were experienced as moderately threat inducing and exhibited different patterns
of controllability and predictability (Table III).
Additional information about the validity of the MCI variables was achieved
by comparing the coping-mode classification based on the dimensions vigilance and
cognitive avoidance with the Weinberger et al. approach. We did not expect a
perfect match between the classifications (in that case one procedure would be
redundant), but a considerable overlap. Results of this analysis indicated that find-
ings concerning repressers and sensitizers were indeed comparable across both
assessment approaches. In contrast, the group designated as low anxious (low
vigilance, low cognitive avoidance) did not correspond with the low anxious group
(low anxiety, low SD) described by Weinberger et al. The same was true for the
groups with high scores on both pairs of scales. Furthermore, the MCI-E subtest,
as compared to MCI-P, exhibited a closer convergence with the Weinberger et
al. classification.
STUDY 3
and Weintraub (1989) and the Social Problem-Solving Inventory (SPSI) of DZurilla
and Nezu (1990). Data analysis of the latter instrument was based on the five-factor
model proposed by Maydeu-Olivares and DZurilla (1996).
Table IV presents the correlations between the four MCI subscales, the VIG-
T and CAV-T scores and the different variables from the other coping tests. With
a few exceptions the pattern of correlations converged and diverged in a theoretically
meaningful way. For example, Carver et al. (1989) hypothesized that vigilant coping
is linked with planning, a focus on emotional reactions, and seeking support for
instrumental reasons. All these predictions could be verified by our analysis. Taking
into account our definition of cognitive avoidance as arousal-motivated coping, the
negative correlation between CAV and focusing on and venting of emotions is
theoretically meaningful as well. Not predicted by Carver et al. are the positive
associations of vigilance with active coping and seeking emotional support. How-
ever, if one considers the very high correlations between planning and active coping
as well as between the two support-seeking variables as reported by Carver et al.
(1989, Table 3; r .67 and .69, respectively), this pattern of correlations is not
surprising. The coefficients observed for the COPE subscale denial clearly discon-
firmed our theoretical expectations. However, in our opinion the items of this scale
have an ambiguous relationship with the coping dimensions cognitive avoidance
and vigilance as conceptualized in the model of coping modes. Wording of these
items contains elements of orientation toward as well as away from a stressor (e.g.,
I pretend that it hasnt really happened; a clear avoidance item would be, for
example, Very rarely have bad things happened to me).9
Similarly, correlations between the MCI and the subscales of the SPSI showed
a theoretically meaningful pattern, with positive problem solving (an optimistic
view concerning the outcome of a problem) being positively correlated with avoid-
ance, and negative problem orientation (anxiety and pessimism) yielding negative
correlations with avoidance and positive associations with vigilance. The significant
positive correlation between vigilance and rational problem solving did not come
unexpectedly since this subscale contains some items which clearly focus on informa-
tion seeking (When I have a problem to solve, one of the first things I do is get
as many facts about the problem as possible). With regard to the SPSI subscale
avoidance style, we have severe doubts whether this name is justified, since the
main elements of this dimension are procrastination, passivity, and dependency.
None of these items addresses the central aspect of cognitive avoidance: turning
attention away from threat-relevant cues.
SPSI-R, Social Problem Solving Inventory-Revised; EASI-III, EASI-III Temperament Survey; BIS/BAS Scales, Behavioral Inhibition System and Behavior
Activation System scales; PANAS, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule.
* p .05; ** p .01; *** p .001 (two-tailed).
308 Krohne et al.
legen, 1988; and the EASI-III Temperament Survey; Buss & Plomin, 1975), aversive
and appetitive motivation (the Behavioral Inhibition/Activation Scales, BIS/BAS;
Carver & White, 1994), and self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965).
Table IV displays the correlations between the MCI and these variables. As
expected from the MCM, cognitive avoidance, especially as related to ego-threaten-
ing stressors, correlated positively with positive affectivity and negatively with nega-
tive affectivity, while vigilance was only associated with negative affectivity. An
almost identical pattern of associations was observed for the fear subscale of the
Buss and Plomin Temperament Survey. In addition, the CAV-E scale showed a
moderately negative correlation with the expression of anger. Of the BIS/BAS
scales, only behavioral inhibition was substantially and meaningfully related to the
MCI dimensions, with vigilance yielding positive and cognitive avoidance negative
associations with inhibition. Concerning self-esteem, only the tendency to employ
cognitive avoidance in ego-threatening situations, as compared to physical threat,
was substantially related to this variable.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
In this article we have reported the development of the Mainz Coping Inventory
(MCI), a new instrument to assess the two central (habitual) coping dimensions of
vigilance and cognitive avoidance. These dimensions were derived from the model
of coping modes. Within this model, vigilance is defined as a class of coping strategies
which are employed in distressing situations in order to reduce uncertainty. On the
other hand, cognitive avoidance describes strategies which aim to shield the organ-
ism from stimuli which induce arousal. Consistent with the view of Carver et al.
(1989) that coping has a motivational basis, we defined vigilance as uncertainty-
motivated and cognitive avoidance as arousal-motivated behavior.
An inspection of the pattern of subjective appraisals of the eight fictitious
threat situations suggests that we succeeded in constructing scenarios of different
degrees of predictability and controllability. This is especially true for the scenarios
displaying physical threat, while the ego-threat situations were generally appraised,
albeit at different levels, as being more controllable than predictable.
Reliabilities of the MCI scales were satisfactory. The same applies to the
internal structure of the MCI-E, which is in accordance with theoretical expectations
derived from the model of dispositional coping modes: While habitual vigilance and
cognitive avoidance in ego threat situations varied independently, the corresponding
scales of the ego and physical threat parts were strongly correlated, thus confirming
the postulated dispositional nature of vigilant and avoidant coping. On the other
hand, the associations between both parts were not such as to make a separate
assessment of coping with both types of threat meaningless. Results obtained with
the MCI-P were somewhat more ambiguous. Whereas responses to the vigilance
and avoidance strategies of situations 2 (group of people) and 3 (inexperienced
driver) varied independently as expected from the model of coping modes, vigi-
lance and avoidance responses in the scenarios dentist and turbulent flight
were not completely independent of each other.
Assessment of Vigilance and Cognitive Avoidance 309
The network of associations between the MCI dimensions and other indicators
of coping, emotionality, and anxiety- and coping-related constructs generally con-
firmed the concurrent and discriminant validity of the MCI. Vigilance as well as
cognitive avoidance were associated with variables of coping, anxiety, and other
emotions in a theoretically meaningful way. It is especially noteworthy that none
of the coefficients reached a level which could indicate lacking discriminant validity
of the MCI scales. This is especially relevant with regard to the correlations between
vigilance and negative affectivity/anxiety, which indicated that both groups of con-
structs are related but separable.
All relationships reported so far were based on self-report data. When trying
to capture coping, especially cognitive avoidant coping, however, it seems to be
necessary to compare subjective indicators of coping, as specified in the MCI, with
behavioral measures of coping and coping outcome. This comparison is important
because it is assumed that cognitive avoidant strategies inhibit the processing of
threat-related information at all stages of awareness (e.g., automatic and strategic
processing). A number of recently completed studies introduced these behavioral
measures and provided additional empirical evidence for the validity of the MCI.
Hock, Krohne, and Kaiser (1996) examined associations between the MCI
variables and indicators of processing ambiguous (threatening/nonthreatening)
stimuli (i.e., ratings of unpleasantness, reaction time of these ratings, and recogni-
tion-memory measures). Evidence based on these parameters indicated that vigilant
individuals are characterized by processing activities that favor the intake and
storage of the threatening rather than the neutral meanings of ambiguous stimuli.
Egloff and Krohne (1996) investigated the relationship between the MCI di-
mensions and emotional responses after failure in an anagram task. In particular,
they examined the influence of these coping variables on an effect called repressive
emotional discreteness: only repressers nondominant emotions are less intense
compared to nonrepressers, whereas the dominant emotions are of equal intensity
in both coping groups. Using an experimental design in which emotions were
measured as they were actually felt, Egloff and Krohne (1996) were able to demon-
strate that repressers, compared to nonrepressers, reported the same amount of
guilt, which was dominant emotion after failure, but showed lower fear, sadness,
and hostility.
Kohlmann, Weidner, and Messina (1996) explored the relationship between
cognitive avoidance and subjective and cardiovascular stress reactions: Persons high
in avoidance (as compared to participants low on avoidance) showed stronger
increases in systolic blood pressure in relation to their increases in self-reported
anxiety during speech preparation and speech delivery. This finding supports the
idea of verbalautonomic response dissociation in persons characterized by an
avoidant coping style (Newton & Contrada, 1992; Weinberger et al., 1979).
Krohne, Slangen, and Kleemann (1996) investigated the influence of vigilance
and cognitive avoidance on state anxiety and indicators of intra- and postoperative
adjustment in patients undergoing surgery. Patients (especially women) character-
ized by high vigilance reported higher levels of anxiety symptoms and received
higher doses of the narcotic agent at anesthesia induction than low vigilant patients.
On the other hand, individuals low in vigilance had a higher risk of manifesting an
310 Krohne et al.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported in this article was partly supported by a joint grant from
the German Academic Exchange Service and the American Council of Learned
Societies to Heinz Walter Krohne. We would like to thank Norman S. Endler and
Alexandra Rutherford for making data collected with the MCI available to us. We
also thank Simone Bausmann for her assistance with the data collection in Study
1. The helpful comments of Volker Hodapp on an earlier version of this article are
greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
Bonanno, G. A., & Singer, J. L. (1990). Repressive personality style: Theoretical and methodological
implications for health and pathology. In J. L. Singer (Ed.), Repression and dissociation: Implications
for personality, psychopathology, and health (pp. 435470). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. New York: Wiley.
Byrne, D. (1964). Repression-sensitization as a dimension of personality. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress
in experimental personality research (Vol. 1, pp. 169220). 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, 267283.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses
to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 319333.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley.
DZurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. M. (1990). Development and preliminary evaluation of the Social Problem-
Solving Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 2, 156163.
Egloff, B., & Krohne, H. W. (1996). Repressive emotional discreteness after failure. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 13181326.
Endler, N. S., Hunt, J. McV., & Rosenstein, A. J. (1962). An SR inventory of anxiousness. Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied, 76 (17, Whole No. 536).
Hock, M., Krohne, H. W., & Kaiser, J. (1996). Coping dispositions and the processing of ambiguous
stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 10521066.
Jones, G. E. (1994). Perception of visceral sensations: A review of recent findings, methodologies, and
future directions. In J. R. Jennings, P. K. Ackles, & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Advances in psychophysiol-
ogy (Vol. 5, pp. 55191). London: Kingsley.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1988). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and its application. Chi-
cago: SPSS.
Kohlmann, C.-W., Weidner, G., & Messina, C. (1996). Avoidant coping style and verbalcardiovascular
response dissociation. Psychology and Health, 11, 371384.
Krohne, H. W. (1978). Individual differences in coping with stress and anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger &
I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 5, pp. 233260). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Krohne, H. W. (1986). Coping with stress: Dispositions, strategies, and the problem of measurement.
Assessment of Vigilance and Cognitive Avoidance 311
In M. H. Appley & R. Trumbull (Eds.), Dynamics of stress: Physiological, psychological, and social
perspectives (pp. 207232). New York: Plenum Press.
Krohne, H. W. (1989). The concept of coping modes: Relating cognitive person variables to actual
coping behavior. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 11, 235248.
Krohne, H. W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research. In H. W.
Krohne (Ed.), Attention and avoidance: Strategies in coping with aversiveness (pp. 1950). Seattle,
WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Krohne, H. W. (1996). Individual differences in coping. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook
of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 381409). New York: Wiley.
Krohne, H. W., Slangen, K., & Kleemann, P. P. (1996). Coping variables as predictors of perioperative
emotional states and adjustment. Psychology and Health, 11, 315330.
Lazarus, R. S. (1983). The costs and benefits of denial. In S. Breznitz (Ed.), The denial of stress (pp.
130). New York: International Universities Press.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor
analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391410.
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & DZurilla, T. J. (1996). A factor-analytic study of the Social Problem-Solving
Inventory: An integration of theory and data. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20, 115-133.
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, 345353.
Miller, S. M., & Kirsch, N. (1987). Sex differences in cognitive coping with stress. In R. C. Barnett, L.
Biener, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. 278307). New York: Free Press.
Mullen, B., & Suls, J. (1982). The effectiveness of attention and rejection as coping styles: A meta-
analysis of temporal differences. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 26, 4349.
Newton, T. L., & Contrada, R. J. (1992). Repressive coping and verbal-autonomic response dissociation:
The influence of social context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 159167.
Roberts, T.-A., & Pennebaker, J. T. (1995). Gender differences in perceiving internal state: Toward a
his-and-her model of perceptual cue use. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 143175). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist,
41, 813819.
Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current
trends in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 2349). New York: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form V). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 10631070.
Weidner, G., & Collins, R. L. (1993). Gender, coping, and health. In H. W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention
and avoidance. Strategies in coping with aversiveness (pp. 241265). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
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, 369380.