Mediating Effect of Coping Strategies in the Relationship

between Big Five Factors and

Psychological DistressA quantitative study on private sector executives in Sri

LankaPresentation by

Jayamini Samarathunge(MBA (HRM), MSc. Applied Psychology,

BSc. Accountancy (Special), MCIM, Certified Coach, NLP Trainer & Hypnotherapist)

Introduction Mental health problems in the workplace have taken on a great deal of importance in

the research literature over the last years. This is due in part to effects on individual well-being and the massive costs to

organisations due to employee absenteeism, turnover and reduced performance (Vearing and Mak 2007:1745), lost business productivity, income replacement outlays and health service use (Marchand, Demers, and Durand 2005: 2).

It is identified that the negative effect of PD not only affects the work performance of employees but can also contribute to wider social problems.

Mental and behavioural problems associated with PD are in the rise in Sri Lankan business organisations. This trend can be observed across all industries and business sectors with noticeable effect in the private sector.

Researchers have come to the conclusion that mental distress experienced by employees is not solely the direct consequence of a stressor-strain relationship.

Marchand, Demers and Durand (2006) concluded that only 11% of the variation in distress was associated with work factors alone, while 21% of the variation was associated with personal factors, such as personality, family, and social network.

Introduction (contd.) Among the individual characteristics which have the potential of

moderating stressors-strain relationship, personality is more prevalent as it can influence each stage of the stress process: exposure to stress, appraisal of the event as stressful, coping, and response (Grant and Langan-Fox 2006: 160).

Although situational factors explain a significant change in coping responses, personality is considered as an important influence almost in every aspect of the stress coping process (Lee-Baggley, Preece, and DeLongis 2005: 1142).

Personality has been associated to the probability of the occurrence of stressful events, the appraisal of an event as stressful, the possibility of using certain coping strategies, and the effectiveness of those coping strategies (DeLongis and Holtzman 2005:15).

Research Objective

To find out whether Primary Coping Strategies (PCS) mediate the relationship between Big Five Factors (BFFs) and Psychological Distress (PD), and if mediation exists to what extent it mediates this relationship.

Conceptual Framework

Research Model

Dependent Variable

Independent Variables

Mediating Variables

• Extraversion• Neuroticism • Agreeableness • Openness to

Experience • Conscientiousness

Psychological Distress

• Problem Solving • Cognitive

Restructuring • Express Emotions • Social Support• Problem Avoidance • Wishful Thinking• Self Criticism • Social Withdrawal

Literature Review TRANSACTIONAL STRESS THEORYBy Lazarus and Folkman (1984) has been the principal model in psychological stress research. It recognises the impact of an individual’s thoughts and behaviours on stress. The fundamental proposition of this theory is that, stress does not result purely due to the environmental factors or personal variables, but results from the ongoing relationship between them, which is called the transaction. PERSONALITY AND STRESSA study conducted in Malaysia taking 120 academic administrators of a university, revealed that there was a significant relationship between personalities with work related stress (Desa et al. 2014).A recent Chinese study conducted by taking 1738 medical undergraduates, reported that Agreeableness and Openness to Experience were negatively related to depressive symptoms while Neuroticism was positively related to the same symptoms (Shia et al. 2015). PERSONALITY AND COPINGA research conducted in Iran by taking a sample of 4268 non-academic employees, concluded that some personality traits are associated with passive copings and cause high stress level, therefore it was suggested improving and strengthening effective coping strategies in individuals with maladaptive traits as a crucial component of prevention and control programs of stress (Afshar et al. 2015: 353). A META analysis studying the associations between personality and coping confirmed the relationship between the two variables (Connor-smith and Flachsbart 2007: 1080).

Literature Review (Contd.) BIG FIVE FACTORS AND STRESS COPINGThe research to date indicates that the BFFs are important in every aspect of the stress process (Vollrath 2001; 338). Karimazde and Besharat (2011), in their study investigating the relationship between personality dimensions and stress coping found that all Big Five dimensions were associated with coping strategies. Penly and Tomaka (2002) also confirmed that BFFs are associated with perceived stress and coping strategies.A META analysis testing moderators of relations between BFFs and coping identified that personality was weakly related to broad coping strategies such as ‘Engagement’ or ‘Disengagement’, however, predicted specific coping strategies: Extraversion and Conscientiousness predicted more problem-solving and cognitive restructuring and Neuroticism less on those but more on disengagement strategies like Wishful Thinking and Social Withdrawal (Connor-Smith and Flachsbart 2007: 1080).

STRESS AND COPINGRelationship between stress and coping is well established in research.In a study conducted on mediating effects of coping strategies in the relationship between automatic negative thoughts and depression, found that emotion-focused coping functioned as a partial mediator between negative thoughts and depression (Clarke and Goosen 2009: 460). In a study held in Japan examining the relationship between depression and stress coping strategy among the general population, it was found that depression was positively associated with avoidant strategies but negatively with problem-solving strategies (Nagase et al. 2009). MEDIATING EFFECT OF COPINGIn a recent study conducted in Cyprus using a 489 community sample, in order to establish the meditational relationship, Baron and Kenny (1986) approach was applied. This study found out that there is a meditational effect of dispositional coping on the relationship between personality and distress (Panayiotou, Kokkinos and Kapsou 2014).A recent study conducted in Hungary taking 1140 adults, concluded that Extraversion and Conscientiousness are mediated by the approach belief system which includes positive thinking, sense of control, sense of coherence and sense of self-growth, and self-regulating coping systems encompassing synchronicity, impulse control, emotion control and irritability control (Mirnics et al. 2013).

Literature Review (Contd.)

Methodology – Sample Purposive Sample Sample size: 137 working executives (Job roles: : Executive, Senior

Executive, Head of Department, Assistant Manager, Manager and Director)

Industries: IT, garment, banking, manufacturing, and hotel Response rate: 91% Education background

27% of the participants had Bachelor’s degree 21% had postgraduate qualifications 52% had other professional qualifications, GCE O/L and A/L

Gender 68% of the participants – Males 32% of the participants - Females

Mean age: 34.1 years (SD=7.34)

Methodology - Measures The Big Five Inventory (BFI)

A 44 item, 5-point Likert type scale Measuring the Five Dimensions of a Personality: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness to experience and Conscientiousness The Cronbach's alpha for the BFI ranges from 0.70 to 0.80

Coping Strategy Inventory (CSI) A 72 item, 5-point Likert type scale Provided scores for primary, secondary and tertiary subscales of coping strategies The Cronbach's alpha for the CSI range from 0.71 to 0.94

Kessler’s Psychological Distress Scale (K10) A 10 item, 5-point Likert type scale Measure the extent and the severity of generalised distress in the preceding month The Cronbach's alpha for the K10 is in the range of 0.90 Previously validated in Sri Lanka

Methodology - Analysis The goal of mediation analysis is to establish the

extent to which some putative causal variable X influences some outcome variable Y through one or more mediator variables.

Four distinct steps of the the approach proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) for establishing the mediation: Step 1: Show that the independent variables are correlated

with the dependent variable Step 2: Show that the independent variable is correlated with

the mediator Step 3: Show that the mediator is significantly related to the

dependent variable Step 4: Establish mediation

Methodology – Analysis (contd.) The effects of the independent variables (BFFs) on the dependent

variable (PD) were measured while controlling for the mediator (PCS). (Regression Analysis and Pearson Correlation)

If the relationship is reduced to nonsignificant levels, a full mediation is demonstrated while a partial mediation occurs when the correlation between BFFs and PD is reduced but still significant.

Model 1: Variable X that is expected to cause variable Y. The variable X is called the causal variable and the variable that it causes (Y) is called the outcome variable. Path C indicates the Total Effect.

Model 2: The effect of X on Y may be mediated by a mediating variable M, and the variable X may still affect Y. Path C’ in the mediated model indicates the Direct Effect and path A – B indicates the Indirect Effect.

Results - Correlations

Variable

Psychological Distress (K10 Score)

Problem Solving

Cognitive Restructuring

Express Emotions

Social Support

Problem Avoidance

Wishful Thinking

Self-criticism

Social Withdrawal

Extraversion .053 .148 .170* .126 .245** -.150 -.026 .076 -.220**

Agreeableness .409** .034 .123 -.127 .072 -.075 -.157 -.290** -.190*

Conscientiousness .231** .267** .247** -.137 .048 -.232** -.260** -.337** -.187*

Neuroticism -.488** -.118 -.176* .142 .059 .109 .321** .250** .181*

Openness to experience .184* .104 .193* .097 .037 .042 -.029 -.015 .095

Correlations of Dependent, Independent and Mediating Variables

Note *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).Note **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).Note. PD indicated by K10 was inversely scored.

• PD was correlated with all BFFs except Extraversion• Several significant correlations between BFFs and PCS were noticed:

- Extraversion was correlated with Cognitive Restructuring, Social Support and Social Withdrawal

- Neuroticism was correlated with all PCS except Problem Solving, Problem Avoidance, Express Emotions and Social Support

- Agreeableness was correlated with Self Criticism and Social Withdrawal

- Openness to Experience was correlated only with Cognitive Restructuring

- Conscientiousness was correlated with all PCS except Express Emotions and Social Support

Results - Step 1 of the Mediation ModelRegression Coefficients to Predict Psychological Distress from Big Five Factors

Model B SE β t p1 (Constant) 36.454 3.513   10.377 .000

Extraversion .077 .125 .053 .620 .536  (Constant) 17.889 4.009   4.462 .000

Agreeableness .584 .112 .409 5.206 .000  (Constant) 28.466 3.720   7.653 .000

Conscientiousness .284 .103 .231 2.753 .007  (Constant) 51.316 2.011   25.519 .000

Neuroticism -.584 .090 -.488 -6.501 .000  (Constant) 27.869 4.965   5.614 .000

Openness to experience .289 .133 .184 2.175 .031

Results - Step 2 of the Mediation ModelRegression Coefficients to Predict Psychological Distress from Primary Coping Strategies

Model B SE

β t p

2 (Constant) 37.452 3.165   11.832 .000Problem Solving .035 .095 .03

2.370 .712

  (Constant) 32.087 3.365   9.535 .000Cognitive Restructuring

.203 .103 .166 1.962 .052

  (Constant) 40.403 2.723   14.839 .000Express Emotions -.068 .100 -.058 -.673 .502

  (Constant) 39.155 2.385   16.419 .000Social Support -.019 .079 -.020 -.236 .814

  (Constant) 38.457 2.438   15.776 .000Problem Avoidance .006 .101 .005 .063 .950

  (Constant) 46.461 1.945   23.890 .000Wishful Thinking -.321 .077 -.339 -4.184 .000

  (Constant) 42.839 1.601   26.762 .000Self-criticism -.185 .066 -.234 -2.799 .006

  (Constant) 42.742 1.834   23.302 .000Social Withdrawal -.184 .078 -.199 -2.355 .020

Results - Step 3 of the Mediation ModelRegression Coefficients to Predict Wishful Thinking, Self-criticism and Social Withdrawal from Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism

Model B SE β t p3 (Constant)   41.428 5.312   7.799 .000

Agreeableness Self-criticism -.524 .149 -.290 -3.526 .001  (Constant)   32.839 4.651   7.061 .000

Agreeableness Social Withdrawal

-.293 .130 -.190 -2.250 .026

  (Constant)   36.563 3.898   9.381 .000Conscientiousness

Wishful Thinking

-.338 .108 -.260 -3.131 .002

(Constant)   41.428 4.547   9.145 .000Conscientiousness

Self-criticism -.524 .126 -.337 -4.163 .000

(Constant)   31.312 4.049   7.733 .000Conscientiousness

Social Withdrawal

-.248 .112 -.187 -2.210 .029

(Constant)   15.666 2.305   6.789 .000Neuroticism Wishful

Thinking.405 .103 .321 3.934 .000

(Constant)   14.630 2.819   5.189 .000Neuroticism Self-criticism .377 .126 .250 2.995 .003(Constant)   17.380 2.444   7.112 .000Neuroticism Social

Withdrawal.233 .109 .181 2.135 .035

Results - Step 4 of the Mediation ModelPredict Psychological Distress from Big Five Factors Controlling for Primary Coping StrategiesModel B SE β t p

4 (Constant) 22.023 4.804   4.584 .000Agreeableness .532 .117 .372 4.559 .000Self-criticism -.100 .065 -.126 -1.544 .125

  (Constant) 21.709 4.666   4.652 .000  Agreeableness .550 .114 .385 4.840 .000  Social Withdrawal -.116 .074 -.125 -1.576 .117

 (Constant) 38.821 4.583   8.471 .000Conscientiousness .188 .102 .153 1.838 .068Wishful Thinking -.283 .079 -.299 -3.597 .000

  (Constant) 34.274 4.682   7.321 .000  Conscientiousness .210 .108 .171 1.944 .054  Self-criticism -.140 .070 -.176 -2.006 .047  (Constant) 33.146 4.425   7.490 .000  Conscientiousness .247 .104 .200 2.374 .019  Social Withdrawal -.149 .078 -.161 -1.909 .058

 (Constant) 54.329 2.281   23.818 .000Neuroticism -.506 .093 -.423 -5.450 .000Wishful Thinking -.192 .074 -.203 -2.616 .010

  (Constant) 52.703 2.191   24.054 .000  Neuroticism -.548 .092 -.458 -5.941 .000  Self-criticism -.095 .061 -.120 -1.552 .123  (Constant) 53.155 2.347   22.649 .000  Neuroticism -.559 .091 -.468 -6.152 .000  Social Withdrawal -.106 .071 -.114 -1.501 .136

When controlling for the Wishful Thinking, Neuroticism was still a significant predictor of PD indicating a partial mediation. The Sobel test showed a mediation in the model (z = -2.131, p = .033).

When controlling for the Wishful Thinking, Conscientiousness was not a significant predictor of PD, indicating a full meditation. The Sobel test indicated a mediation in the model (z = 2.311, p = .021).

When controlling for the Self-criticism, Conscientiousness was not a significant predictor of PD, indicating a full meditation. However, the Sobel test did not indicate a mediation in the model (z = 1.766, p = .077).

Results - Step 4 of the Mediation Model

Discussion It was found that PCS mediated the relationship between BFFs and PD. It was found that only two Big Five traits were identified to be mediated by PCS.

Neuroticism and Conscientiousness - both were mediated by Wishful Thinking. Wishful Thinking fully mediated Conscientiousness and partially mediated Neuroticism.

Neuroticism is the personality trait which had the highest impact on PD. Wishful Thinking is considered as Problem Focused Disengaged methods of coping.

Therefore, it is not recommended for individuals with high Neuroticism. Wishful Thinking fully mediated Conscientiousness; individuals with high level of

Conscientiousness can also restrain from using it as a way of coping with stress. Findings of the present study are useful for organisation when designing stress

management programmes as well as during the recruitment and selection process.

Limitations: • The retrospective and self-selection bias that could have occurred in the process of selecting

stressful events and coping responses. • The effect of personality on coping and stress outcomes vary by the situational context in

which stress occurs. Investigating the interactive effect of Big Five personality dimensions will need to be

considered for future research.

Q & A

Thank you!