Assessment of Cognitive Coping Styles. a Closer Look at Situation-response Inventories

Clinical Psychology Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 85–104, 2001Copyright © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

0272-7358/01/$–see front matter

PII S0272-7358(99)00041-0

85

ASSESSMENT OF COGNITIVE COPING STYLES:

A CLOSER LOOK AT SITUATION-RESPONSE INVENTORIES

Patricia Bijttebier

1

, Hans Vertommen,and Gilbert Vander Steene

University of Leuven

ABSTRACT.

Cognitive coping style approaches establish two concepts central to the under-standing of people’s responses to a stressful situation: “attention” and “avoidance”. Theoreticalframeworks corresponding to these conceptions are Sensitization-Repression (Byrne, 1961), Mon-itoring-Blunting (Miller, 1980), and Vigilance-Cognitive Avoidance (Krohne, 1986). Such typesof cognitive coping styles are usually measured by means of situation-response inventories. In thepresent article, we take a closer look at this kind of coping assessment by considering the scenarios,the coping options and response formats, the dimensionality of the constructs, and published dataon the reliability and the validity of seven situation-response inventories. Three important pointsdeserve to be highlighted: (a) it probably makes little sense to assess coping style using scenariosthat diverge maximally with respect to controllability and predictability since coping is not as-sumed to show such complete cross-situational stability; (b) similarly named inventories rely onlargely different operationalizations and can hardly be considered as measuring similar con-structs; and (c) monitoring/vigilance and blunting/avoidance generally emerge as independentconstructs, which argues against use of summary scores. © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.

KEY WORDS.

Assessment, Coping style, Situation-response inventory.

C

OGNITIVE

COPING

STYLE

approaches establish two concepts central to the understand-ing of people’s responses to a stressful situation: “attention,” which is to be alert forand sensitized by the threat-related aspects of information, versus “avoidance”, whichis to cognitively avoid or transform threat-relevant information or to seek distraction

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Patricia Bijttebier, Department of Psychology, Uni-versity of Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]

1

Postdoctoral Fellow for the Fund of Scientific Research—Flanders(Belgium)(FWO).

86 P. Bijttebier et al.

(Krohne, 1996). Theoretical frameworks corresponding to these conceptions are Sen-sitization-Repression (Byrne, 1961), Monitoring-Blunting (Miller, 1980), and Vigi-lance-Cognitive Avoidance (Krohne, 1986).

For a long time, the most widely used self-report questionnaire for the assessment ofcognitive coping styles has been Byrne’s (1961) Repression-Sensitization Scale. How-ever, this scale has been criticized because of its lack of discriminant validity withrespect to measures of trait anxiety (Abbott, 1972; Miller, 1987). Inspired by situation-response inventories in anxiety research (e.g., Endler, Hunt, & Rosenstein, 1962), sev-eral new inventories, corresponding with the theoretical models of Miller andKrohne, have been developed. Using PsychLit, the search and retrieval system of theAmerican Psychological Association, we identified seven inventories: the Mainz Cop-ing Inventory (MCI(-R); Krohne, 1989), the Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS;Miller, 1987), the Threatening Medical Situations Inventory (TMSI; Van Zuuren,1992) and the Monitoring-Blunting Questionnaire (MBQ; Muris, Van Zuuren, DeJong, De Beurs, & Hanewald, 1994) for adults and the Child Behavioral Style Scale(CBSS; Miller, Roussi, Caputo, & Kruus, 1995), the Monitoring and Blunting Scale forChildren (MBSC; Lepore & Kliewer, 1989) and an interview method of Hoffner(1993) for children.

Situation-response inventories for assessment of cognitive informational styles tappeople’s coping reactions in a number of hypothetical situations (e.g., the BrokenLamp scenario of CBSS: “Imagine that you’re playing in the living room with a friendand you accidentally break a lamp. Your mother will be home soon. What would youdo, while you are waiting with your friend for your mother to come home?”) Answersto items of the same type (e.g., items referring to monitoring coping style) aresummed up across situations to compute coping style scores. The rationale for thistype of inventory is that coping disposition is reflected in the tendency to report theconsistent use of a characteristic type of coping across situations. Behavior is aggre-gated over situations to investigate individual differences in the resulting aggregateunits. By removing situational variance, this procedure accentuates stable individualdifferences at a situationless level (Mischel & Peake, 1983).

Some authors argue that progress in coping assessment can only be achievedthrough enhancing the psychometric quality of coping measures (Endler & Parker,1994; Parker & Endler, 1992). De Ridder (1997), however, points out that efforts toimprove coping assessment should not be limited to psychometrics since many meth-odological shortcomings reflect more basic conceptual problems. Similarly, Barker,Pistrang, and Elliott (1994) argue that not just reliability and validity considerationsneed to be taken into account when appraising a measure. They stress the importanceof looking closely at the fine detail of how it is put together.

In this article, we discuss methodological issues relevant to assessment of cognitivecoping styles, bringing in both conceptual aspects and psychometric properties ofthe measures identified in the PsychLit search. All of these inventories provide de-scriptions of hypothetical stress-evoking situations, followed by a list of coping op-tions, referring to the two cognitive coping styles under investigation (vigilance andcognitive avoidance in MCI and MCI-R; monitoring and blunting in the otherscales). In the first section, we discuss relevant characteristics of hypothetical scenar-ios. In the second section, coping options are analyzed, whereas in the third section,different methods to use subscale scores for the definition of coping style groups arediscussed. In the fourth and final section, reliability and validity data are summa-rized.

Cognitive Coping Styles 87

SCENARIOS

According to Krohne and Egloff (in press), scenarios of situation-response inventoriesfor assessment of coping styles have to meet at least three prerequisites. First, theyhave to be sufficiently imaginable for the respondents. This means that a vast majorityof the people should have experienced similar stressors before. Imaginability is di-rectly related to ecological validity. Scenarios that are too far removed from the every-day experience of the respondents do not guarantee valid answers. Second, scenarioshave to induce a certain degree of threat in order to require coping efforts. But theexperienced threat should not be too severe, in order to allow for variability in copingreactions. Third, scenarios should vary with regard to the configuration of appraisedcontrollability and predictability. Below, we discuss each of these criteria, giving somecritical comments and referring to the extent to which they are fulfilled in the inven-tories under review.

Imaginability

Arguments for use of hypothetical situations rather than people’s own real-life experi-ences center around validity aspects (Van Zuuren, De Groot, Mulder, & Muris, 1996).Asking all respondents to imagine the same fictitious situations has the obvious advan-tage that they have more or less the same situation in mind while endorsing items. Incontrast, people who recall a prior real-life situation experience something that has aunique personal significance for them but maybe not for others, which complicatescomparability between situations (Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996). However, use of hy-pothetical situations can also impair the validity of the responses. It is important tochoose scenarios people are sufficiently familiar with to ensure that they can imaginethemselves being confronted with it (Muris, Van Zuuren, De Jong, et al., 1994) andthat they have knowledge of the range of coping options available in it (Hoffner, 1993).

The hypothetical scenarios used in the inventories differ with respect to frequencyof occurrence in people’s lives. The Hostage situation (MBSS; “being held hostage bya group of armed terrorists”) in particular has been found to be too far removed fromthe everyday experience of many people (Steptoe, 1989), leading to low imaginabilityof the scenario (Muris, Van Zuuren, De Jong, et al., 1994). Difficulties have also arisenwith the Dubious People scenario (MCI-R, MBQ; “In the late evening, a group of du-bious people approaches you from out of a side street”) and, in some samples, withthe Airplane scenario (MBSS, MCI-R, MBQ; “turbulent flight”) since many personshave never flown nor have any intention of ever doing so (Steptoe, 1989). These diffi-culties demonstrate the situational and cultural relativity of the scenarios, which mayimpair the ecological validity of the responses.

To overcome problems of ecological validity three solutions have been put forward:(a) omission of scenarios that are too far removed from everyday experience; (b) ad-dition of specific concern-related scenarios attuned to the sample to be studied; and(c) construction of specific questionnaires pertaining to a more circumscribed do-main (e.g., medical threat).

(a) To overcome the problem of low imaginability of the MBSS Hostage and Air-plane scenarios, Steptoe (1989) has proposed to use an abbreviated MBSS withonly the two scenarios that are close enough to everyday experience, namelyDentist (“you have to get some dental work done”) and Dismissal (“you might


be laid off”). This abbreviated questionnaire was found to provide an adequateestimate of responses to the complete questionnaire. However, the author doesnot report the internal consistency of the abbreviated subscales. Knowing thathomogeneity of the complete MBSS subscales (based on four scenarios) gener-ally falls at the low end of the traditionally acceptable range (see below), theabbreviated subscales stand a chance of failing to meet reliability standards. In-sufficient reliability of such a shortened form was reported recently by VanZuuren, De Jongh, Beekers, and Swinkels (1999), who administered only theDentist scenario from the MBSS and found the internal consistency of the cor-responding subscales to be insufficient.

(b) A second solution was suggested by Krohne (1989), who advises researchers toadd a specific stress scenario attuned to the sample to be studied. Van Zuurenet al. (1996) investigated usefulness of this situation-specific kind of assessmentby extending the TMSI with specific stress scenarios for HIV patients and sur-gery patients. They found that the mean subscale scores on the sample scenar-ios lie somewhat higher than these of the more remote, standard scenarios,which suggests that people find coping alternatives pertaining to their actualthreatening situation rather easily applicable. Nevertheless, it remains impor-tant to emphasize that such scenarios must also be used with care. The factorstructure of the ad hoc developed item sets cannot be taken for granted andtheir internal consistency is usually too low to allow for separate use.

(c) The last solution was put forward by Van Zuuren and Hanewald (1993). Sincethe monitoring-blunting concept is studied most frequently within the domainof threatening medical situations, the samples often consist of medical pa-tients. These people sometimes get irritated over the irrelevant, hypotheticalcharacter of some MBSS and MCI scenarios. For this reason, Van Zuuren andHanewald (1993) have devised the TMSI, focusing specifically on the domainof medical threat. The idea behind the TMSI is that medical situations are lesshypothetical in nature for patient samples, which might enhance the validity ofthose patients’ answers. Moreover, it appears to be much more motivating forpeople to fill in a questionnaire when the situations described are relevant tothe context that they find themselves in (Van Zuuren & Muris, 1993).

Threatfulness

Krohne and Egloff (in press) state that the situations used in situation-response inven-tories for the assessment of cognitive informational styles should, to some extent, bethreatening. Not all authors share this conviction. According to Schwarzer andSchwarzer (1996), scenarios should not be restricted to situations that are appraisedas threatening; all scenarios that are appraised as stressful tend to elicit coping re-sponses and are thus suitable for use in situation-response inventories to assess cop-ing. Folkman (1984) distinguishes three types of stressful appraisals: harm/loss,threat, and challenge. Harm/loss refers to injury or damage already done, threat to apotential for harm or loss, and challenge to an opportunity for growth, mastery, orgain. In other words, Schwarzer and Schwarzer (1996) recommend the addition ofscenarios that lead to a primary appraisal of harm/loss or challenge.

McCrae (1984) investigated the influence of threat, loss, and challenge appraisalson the choice of coping mechanisms. He found significant differences in the copingoptions chosen depending on the type of appraisal. In response to threat, for exam-


ple, people are more inclined to use avoidant coping mechanisms (such as active for-getting), whereas positive reappraisal is used more often in response to challenge.

For scenarios appraised as threatening, threatfulness should not be too high either, inorder to allow for coping variability. Krohne and Egloff (in press) hypothesize thathighly threatening scenarios will promote monitoring or vigilant responses, since peo-ple generally find it difficult or even impossible to distract themselves from very intensethreat. The data of Hoffner (1993), however, seem to suggest that this is certainly not al-ways the case. She found reappraisal to become the favored blunting method when thethreatfulness of the situation is judged likely to interfere with cognitive distraction. Theresults of both McCrae (1984) and Hoffner (1993) show that situational appraisals havean impact on coping choices but do not necessarily outreach the impact of dispositionalfactors. In the studies reported here, they only lead to the choice of another subtype ofmonitoring or blunting strategies (e.g., blunting by reappraisal instead of by avoid-ance), not to a switch from monitoring to blunting or vice versa.

Muris and De Jong (1993) assessed the perceived threatfulness of hypothetical situ-ations used in MBSS, TMSI, and MCI. They found considerable variation in the de-gree of perceived threat across situations. Relatively low levels of threatfulness were as-cribed to the Dentist scenario (MBSS, MCI) and the Appendicitis scenario (TMSI;“the doctor diagnoses an acute appendicitis and tells you have to be operated as soonas possible”), whereas the Headache scenario (TMSI; “you suffer from headaches anddizziness, the doctor tells you things don’t look too well and refers you for a rather try-ing medical examination”), the Passenger scenario (MCI; “you are riding in a car as afront-seat passenger next to an obviously inexperienced driver”) and the Hostage sce-nario (MBSS) were perceived as fairly threatening. With respect to the child invento-ries, Hoffner (1993) investigated the appraised threatfulness of the four situationsused in her method, namely Airplane, Dentist, Vaccination (“you have to get a vacci-nation”), and Test (“waiting for the results of an important test”). She found the Den-tist scenario to be appraised as significantly less threatening than the other scenarios,which is in line with the results of Muris and De Jong (1993).

Situational appraisals have not only been studied across situations. Studies exploringvariation in situational appraisals across respondents suggest that the perceived threat-fulness of scenarios is related to monitoring coping styles: individuals with a high moni-toring coping style tend to perceive situations as more threatening than individuals witha low monitoring coping style (Muris & De Jong, 1993; Russell & Davey, 1993; VanZuuren & Wolfs, 1991). This suggests that monitoring coping style not only affects cop-ing behavior (reflected in the coping options endorsed) but already has an influence onthe appraisal process (the perceived situational characteristics of the scenarios).

Controllability and Predictability

One of the most important situational characteristics affecting coping responses iscontrollability. In contrast to the situational dimensions described above, controllabil-ity is clearly believed to affect the choice between monitoring and blunting. In one ofher first papers on monitoring and blunting, Miller (1981) writes:

When an aversive event is controllable, monitoring is the main coping mode. Although itheightens arousal, this tactic enables the individual to execute controlling actions. Whenan aversive event is uncontrollable, however, monitoring (which heightens arousal) hasno instrumental value. Therefore, blunting becomes the main coping mode on these oc-


casions since an individual without controlling actions can most effectively ‘tune out’ andreduce stress....(p. 215)

Besides controllability, predictability also has been assumed to influence coping.Miller and Green (1985) point out that even in uncontrollable aversive situations,high levels of predictability may interfere with the person’s ability to distract psycho-logically. In fact, the effects of controllability and predictability can be expected tostrengthen each other, with the combination of high predictability and high control-lability promoting monitoring and the combination of low predictability and low con-trollability promoting blunting (Van Zuuren et al., 1996).

The scenarios of some situation-response inventories for the assessment of cognitiveinformational coping styles (e.g., MCI(-R), TMSI) have explicitly been chosen to con-tain varying degrees of controllability and predictability in order to rule out as manysituational effects as possible. A point of critique often given on scales with scenariosthat do not diverge in this respect (MBSS, CBSS, and MBSC, which contain mainly un-controllable scenarios) is that these instruments do not enable the researcher to assesscoping style since manifestation of only one type of behavior (the less adaptive inthose situations) can be related to habitual tendencies. For example, blunting is themain coping mode in uncontrollable situations. In inventories with mainly uncontrol-lable scenarios, the influence of situational factors may outreach that of dispositionalfactors, leaving it unclear whether the blunting score is determined by situative or byhabitual factors (Krohne, 1996).

It is important to emphasize that this is only one point of view, reflecting a verystringent conceptualization of coping style, assuming cross-situational stability of cop-ing even across situations that are divergent on such critical characteristics. The aggre-gation of coping responses over scenarios rules out situational effects, consideringthem as “error.” By choosing scenarios that diverge as much as possible, the situationeffects on the coping responses are maximized. Mischel and Peake (1983) argue that,in such approaches, one can question the usefulness of summing up items across situ-ations and treating the resulting sum scores as a reflection of one’s “true” position onthe coping dimension.

According to us, a somewhat less stringent conceptualization of coping style, suchas the one mentioned by Benjamins, Schuurs, Kooreman, and Hoogstraten (1996)might solve this problem. Coping is assumed only to be relatively stable in comparablesituations, while it may show considerable variation is dissimilar situations, dependingon situational controllability and predictability. In this line of reasoning, it makes littlesense to assess coping style by means of situation-response inventories with maximallydivergent scenarios, since coping is not assumed to show such complete cross-situa-tional stability. The assessment of coping style within one type of situation, namely sit-uations that are similar with respect to such critical characteristics as controllability,may be a less ambitious project than assessing an overall coping disposition, but itprobably is a better reflection of reality and it almost certainly will have a greater pre-dictive value towards actual coping in that type of situation.

COPING OPTIONS AND RESPONSE FORMAT

The “situation” component of situation-response inventories is reflected in the scenar-ios, the “response” component in the items: i.e., coping options. Based on a macroan-alytic approach to coping, questionnaires of this type do not assess a large number of


specific coping strategies but operate at a higher level of aggregation, thus concentrat-ing on more fundamental constructs in coping research (Krohne, 1996). In most ofthe inventories under review, scenarios are followed by a list of coping options, refer-ring to one of both cognitive coping styles (monitoring/vigilance, blunting/avoid-ance). People are asked to indicate for each coping option the extent to which theywould rely on it by choosing one of the response categories. In the first section, we an-alyze the coping options used as operationalizations of monitoring and blunting. Inthe second section, we discuss response formats.

Operationalizations of Monitoring and Blunting

A closer inspection of the items used as operationalizations of monitoring/vigilanceand blunting/avoidance reveals a wide and diverse range of coping options. To obtainsome grip on these operationalizations, we have classified the items of five cognitiveinformational style scales into subcategories of monitoring and blunting according totheir content.

Operationalizations of monitoring.

Monitoring is generally assumed to refer to the basiccoping dimension of approach: more specifically, approach through threat-related at-tention. Two broad groups of monitoring items can be distinguished, correspondingwith the two forms of threat-related attention described by Miller et al. (1995), namelysensory vigilance and active information seeking. Sensory Vigilance reflects a persever-ative attentional and cognitive focus on threat in an attempt to emotionally processthe event as it is unfolding (Miller et al., 1995). It involves attention to sensory infor-mation in the situation (sights, sounds, or feelings, e.g., “watch every movement of thecaptors and keep an eye on their weapons,” MBSS Hostage), recall of previous nega-tive events (e.g., “remember previous dental treatments,” MCI-R Dentist), anticipationof negative events (e.g., “think about what I don’t want the dentist to do,” CBSS Den-tist) and cognitive problem-solving, that is, thinking about how to behave in the situa-tion, coming up with action strategies (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) (e.g.,“think about what I can do if I lose track of what I wanted to say,” MCI-R Speech).

The second group of monitoring strategies is labeled active information seeking,manifesting itself in question asking (e.g., “ask the doctor exactly what he is going todo,” MBSC Vaccination), talking about the stressor with other people or consultingother sources (“carefully read the information leaflets about tooth diseases and treat-ments in the waiting room,” MCI-R Dentist), in some cases with the intention to takeprecautions (“read the security instruction for emergencies and look for the nearestemergency exit,” MCI-R Airplane). This group of strategies involves a more proactiveproblem-solving search than sensory vigilance, which generally refers to a rather rumi-native focus on threat (Miller et al., 1995).

The distribution of the monitoring items over the monitoring categories is given inTable 1. An inspection of the table reveals that the inventories differ considerably inthe content of their monitoring items. The content analysis reveals the largest similar-ities between the adult MCI-R and the child CBSS (stressing sensory vigilance) and be-tween the adult TMSI and the child MBSC (emphasizing active information search)with respect to the monitoring items.

Operationalizations of blunting.

Blunting refers to the basic coping dimension of avoid-ance, which serves as a form of escape from the unpleasant stressful situation (Parker &


Endler, 1992). Blunting strategies allow the person to absent him/herself psychologi-cally from the danger signal (Miller, 1981). Compared with the various strategies thatreflect the tendency to monitor, blunting strategies appear less homogeneous and areoften subject to conceptual confusion (Fuller & Connor, 1990). An example of thisconfusion is the fact that some strategies described as forms of blunting clearly implyeffortful and purposeful reactions and can be considered as real coping (e.g., behav-ioral distraction), whereas others can rather be viewed as unconscious processes,closely related to defenses (e.g., denial) (Phipps, Fairclough, & Mulhern, 1995).

Altshuler and Ruble (1989) made a significant contribution to the conceptualiza-tion of avoidance-based coping by dividing avoidance tactics according to two charac-teristics. First, they make a distinction between strategies serving to completely shutout stressful information from consciousness (complete avoidance) and strategies thataccomplish some degree of arousal reduction but do not impede completely the pro-cessing of threat-relevant information (partial avoidance or distraction). Second, theydistinguish behavioral strategies from cognitive strategies. This classification yieldsfour distinct groups of avoidance-based coping tactics, namely Behavioral Distractionand Cognitive Distraction as forms of partial avoidance, and Behavioral Avoidance(escape) and Cognitive Avoidance (denial) as forms of complete avoidance.

Distraction (or partial avoidance) can be defined as turning away from a salient un-pleasant stimulus and focusing on incompatible thoughts or activities. This meansthat the person diverts his attention away from the stressor but remains aware of it tosome degree (Altshuler & Ruble, 1989). Cognitive Distraction refers to cognitive at-tempts to keep thoughts away from a stressor (Ryan-Wenger, 1992) (e.g., “do mentalpuzzles in my mind,” MBSS Dentist), whereas behavioral distraction means that theperson uses an alternative behavioral activity to avoid thinking about the event (Alt-shuler & Ruble, 1989) or to delay the need to deal with it (Ryan-Wenger, 1992) (e.g.,

Table 1. Distribution of Monitoring Items over Monitoring Categories

MBSS TMSI MCI-R CBSS MBSC

Sensory vigilancePerceptual focus 31% 8% 10% 13% 29%Recall similar situations – – 18% 19% –Cognitive focus 19% – 2% 31% 7%Negative anticipation – 17% 25% 31% –Cognitive problem-solving – – 15% – –

Active information searchQuestion-asking expert 19% 33% 3% 6% 29%Talking with others 13% 17% 5% – 11%Information other sources 6% 25% 8% – 4%Precautions 13% – 5% – 21%

Rest categorySocial comparison – – 3% – –Self-blame – – 8% – –

Note

. MBSS

5

Miller Behavioral Style Scale; TMSI

5

Threatening Medical Situations Inventory;MCI-R

5

Mainz Coping Inventory; CBSS

5

Child Behavioral Style Scale; MBSC

5

Monitoringand Blunting Scale for Children.


“put on the earphone and listen to music,” MCI-R Airplane). One particular subtypeof behavioral distraction, by some authors (Endler & Parker, 1990) considered as adistinct category, is social diversion, that is, seeking out other people to avoid thinkingabout the event (e.g., “exchange life stories with the other hostages,” MBSS Hostage).

Complete avoidance comprises strategies serving to completely shut out stressful in-formation from consciousness. Cognitive avoidance consists of cognitive attempts toavoid acknowledging the existence of a stressor (Ryan-Wenger, 1992) or to act asthough the stressor is not real (Carver et al., 1989) (e.g., “close your eyes and pretendyou are someplace else,” CBSS Dentist). Behavioral avoidance refers to behavioral at-tempts to keep oneself away from a stressor (e.g., “hide with a friend when it’s time togo,” MBSC Vaccination).

Since not all items in the blunting subscales can be considered as forms of (behav-ioral or cognitive) distraction or (behavioral or cognitive) avoidance, three other cate-gories emerge: reappraisal, comforting self-talk, and direct tension reduction. Thestrategies tapped by these blunting items are less clearly avoidance-based but moreclosely related to emotion-focused coping. Therefore we use the term emotion-fo-cused blunting to refer to them.

Reappraisal means redefining the stressor as benign and construing a stressful en-counter in positive terms (e.g., “tell myself: these are completely normal turbulencesthat occur during every flight,” MCI-R Airplane). Comforting self-talk involves the useof self-statements or thoughts reflecting attempts to alleviate fears and discomfort(Curry & Russ, 1985). By means of such emotion-regulating cognitions, the individualtries to convince him/herself that he or she will be able to manage the situation (e.g.,“think things will turn out to be allright,” TMSI Headache Examination). Finally, di-rect tension reduction (Altshuler & Ruble, 1989) includes symptom-directed strate-gies, devoted to moderate distress (Lazarus, 1976) (e.g., “order a drink or a tranquil-lizer,” MBSS Airplane). The distribution of the blunting items over the bluntingcategories is given in Table 2.

Table 2. Distribution of Blunting Items over Blunting Categories

MBSS TMSI MCI-R CBSS MBSC

DistractionBehavioral distraction 19% 8% 15% 38% 18%Social diversion 13% – 3% 6% 21%Cognitive distraction 25% – – 38% 39%

AvoidanceBehavioral avoidance 19% – – – 18%Cognitive avoidance 13% 17% 10% 13% 4%

Emotion-focused bluntingReappraisal – – 15% 6% –Comforting self-talk – 50% 38% – –Tension reduction 13% 25% 20% – –

Note

. MBSS

5

Miller Behavioral Style Scale; TMSI

5

Threatening Medical Situations Inventory;MCI-R

5

Mainz Coping Inventory; CBSS

5


5

Monitoringand Blunting Scale for Children.


Response Format

Most inventories under review use fixed responses and provide their respondents withdiscrete response scales to answer the items. MCI, MCI-R, the original MBSS, CBSS,and MBSC have a dichotomous response scale with a yes/no format, whereas theadapted Dutch-language MBSS and the TMSI use a 5-point rating scale, ranging from1

5

“not at all applicable to me” to 5

5

“strongly applicable to me”. The advantage ofa 5-point scale over a dichotomous scale is that it leads to more variability in the data,which generally increases the reliability. Muris, Van Zuuren, De Jong, et al. (1994)compare the dichotomous and the 5-point versions of MBSS and find that both ver-sions correlate significantly with each other but that only the 5-point version meets thecriterion of sufficient internal consistency (see below). A slightly different responseformat is used in MBQ, which requires the respondents to give two 10-point ratings(one for monitoring and one for blunting) per scenario. The internal consistency ofthe MBQ subscales is found to be considerably higher than that of MBSS and TMSI,but given the fact that there is only one monitoring and blunting rating per scenario(formulated in an identical way for all scenarios), the coefficients reported reflectcross-situational coping stability rather than internal consistency.

In the method of Hoffner (1993), open-ended responses are used rather than afixed response scale. Children hear stories depicting stressful situations (cf. scenarios)and are asked to describe what they would do or think about while in each of these sit-uations. An advantage of this method is that it has the potential of eliciting a muchbroader range of coping responses (whatever response the child provides). However,in Hoffner’s method, children’s responses are assigned to a priori coding categoriesderived from Miller’s theoretical formulations rather than to empirically derived cate-gories. Doing this, the chance of discovering “new” aspects of monitoring and blunt-ing is minimized rather than maximized.

DIMENSIONALITY OF THE CONSTRUCTS

In situation-response inventories, answers to items of the same type are summed upacross situations to compute coping style scores, by means of which respondents canbe classified into coping style groups. Depending on the assumptions concerning thedimensionality of the contructs, several methods have been used to accomplish thisand below we will make clear that the three cognitive informational coping style theo-ries mentioned above differ from each other in this respect.

Byrne (1964) explicitly conceptualizes repression-sensitization as a unidimensionalbipolar construct and measures it by the Repression-Sensitization Scale. Persons lo-cated at one pole of the dimension are called “repressors,” whereas persons at the op-posite pole are named “sensitizers.” This conception has largely been criticized(Chabot, 1973; Miller, 1987) because of the implicit assumption that all people prefer-entially rely on either repression or sensitization, which makes it impossible to identifypeople scoring high on both coping styles and people scoring low on both copingstyles. These two groups probably score in the middle range of the S–R scale and can-not be distinguished from each other on the basis of their score.

Krohne (1989) postulates an independent functioning of the vigilance and cogni-tive avoidance dimensions. In line with his theoretical model, MCI-R vigilance andcognitive avoidance scores are considered as orthogonal dimensions, with the combi-nation of both leading to four coping style configurations: consistent vigilance, consis-


tent avoidance, situation-related coping, and fluctuating coping (Kohlmann, 1993).Persons with high vigilance scores and low avoidance scores are called “sensitizers,”whereas persons with high avoidance scores and low vigilance scores are named “re-pressors.” “Nondefensives” score low on both vigilance and cognitive avoidance,which enables them to adopt a flexible, situation-related use of coping strategies. Fi-nally, persons with high scores on both vigilance and cognitive avoidance show a pat-tern of “fluctuating coping”.

The approach of Miller is rather inconsistent. In some early papers (e.g., Miller,1980), she considers monitoring and blunting as the opposite poles of one dimen-sion, namely “seeking out versus distracting from threat-relevant information.” Inmore recent articles (Miller, 1987), however, monitoring and blunting are consideredas dimensions on their own, referring to “seeking versus not seeking threat-relevantinformation” and “seeking versus not seeking distraction under threat.” There is a dis-similarity across studies in the approach of dimensionality and consequently also inthe method of manipulating monitoring and blunting scores to define coping stylegroups. In all child studies published thus far, monitoring and blunting are treated asindependent dimensions. Using the MBSC, Kliewer (1991) computes both a monitor-ing and a blunting score, distinguishes high and low monitors and high and low blunt-ers using median split procedures, and conducts separate analyses for monitoring andblunting. Miller et al. (1995) focus on monitoring and only use the CBSS monitoringscore to divide their participants into high and low monitors, while Phipps et al.(1995) perform median split procedures on both the monitoring and the bluntingscore and distinguish four configurations: Monitors (high monitoring, low blunting),Blunters (low monitoring, high blunting), Active Copers (high on both scales), andPassive Copers (low on both scales).

Some investigations using the adult MBSS (e.g., Miller & Mangan, 1983) considermonitoring and blunting as opposite poles of one dimension. In these studies, MBSSscores are combined and a median split procedure is performed on the resulting scoreto divide participants into “monitors” and “blunters.” In other studies however, monitor-ing and blunting are treated as independent dimensions and generally only monitoringscores are used in the analyses, leading to “high monitors” versus “low monitors.” Muris,Van Zuuren, De Jong, et al. (1994) investigated the relationship between MBSS sum-mary scores and separate monitoring and blunting scores and found high Pearson cor-relations (

r

5

.74,

p

,

.01, for summary score and monitoring;

r

5

2

.76,

p

,

.01, forsummary score and blunting). However, this does not mean that it makes no differencewhether a researcher uses separate scores or a summary score. The choice between thetwo methods should also be made on a conceptual basis. Given the recent formulationsof monitoring and blunting as independent constructs and the large deal of empiricalevidence (Miller, Brody, & Summerton, 1988; Muris, Van Zuuren, De Jong, et al., 1994)suggesting that monitoring and blunting subscale scores are unrelated, it appears ratherinappropriate to calculate a summary score.

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Reliability and validity are commonly used psychometric criteria to evaluate the qual-ity of self-report questionnaires. In this section, we discuss some commonly investi-gated forms of reliability and validity in the context of cognitive informational copingstyle measurement. Empirical data from psychometric studies of the questionnaires


under review are summarized in tables

2

. A brief description of the samples used in thestudies on which the review is based is given in Table 3.

Reliability

Two types of reliability are commonly investigated with respect to cognitive informa-tional style questionnaires, namely internal consistency and test-retest reliability.Barker et al. (1994) give some standards for evaluating the reliability of measure-ments. Generally speaking, coefficients below .60 are considered as insufficient (“

2

”).Coefficients exceeding .60 can be considered as marginal (“

6

”), exceeding .70 as ac-

Table 3. Description of the Samples in Reliability and Validity Studies

Instrument(s) Study Sample

MCI Krohne (1989) review, samples not describedMCI Krohne (1993) review, samples not describedMCI Hock, Krohne, & Kaiser (1996) 58 studentsMCI-R Egloff & Hock (1997) 119

1

162 studentsMCI-R Krohne & Egloff (in press) 227

1

169

1

325 studentsMBSS Miller, Roussi, Altman, Helm & Steinberg

(1994)36 gynecologic patients

MBSS Miller & Mangan (1983) 40 gynecologic patientsMBSS Steketee, Bransfield, Miller, & Foa (1989) 33 phobic patientsMBSS Steptoe & O’Sullivan (1986) 71 gynecologic patientsMBSS Davey (1993) 136 people (community)MBSS Muris & Schouten (1994) 583 studentsMBSS Muris, Van Zuuren, DeJong, De Beurs, &

Hanewald (1994)70 students

MBQ Muris, Van Zuuren, DeJong, DeBeurs, & Hanewald (1994)

42 students

MBSS, TMSI, MCI

Muris, Van Zuuren, & De Vries (1994) 70 students

TMSI Van Zuuren, De Groot, Mulder, & Muris (1996)

123 students, 80 dental patients, 42 HIV patients, 123 surgery patients

TMSI Van Zuuren & Dooper (1999) 60 people (community)TMSI Van Zuuren, De Jongh, Beekers, &

Swinkels (1999)68 dental patients

CBSS Miller, Roussi, Caputo, & Kruus (1995) 82 dental child patientsMBSC Kliewer (1991) 100 school children

Note

. MCI, MCI-R

5

Mainz Coping Inventory; MBSS

5

Miller Behavioral Style Scale; MBQ

5

Monitoring-Blunting Questionnaire; TMSI

5

Threatening Medical Situations Inventory; CBSS

5


5

Monitoring and Blunting Scale for Children.

2

We omit Hoffner’s method from the tables, since it is an interview method using open-endedquestions rather than a quantitative self-report questionnaire. Moreover, we found no data onany of the reliability or validity aspects tabulated. Hoffner (1993) only provides some data oninterrater agreement, namely 85.0% interscorer agreement for individual coping strategies and89.5% for coping style categories.


ceptable (“

1

”) and exceeding .80 as good (“

11

”). Table 4 summarizes the reliabilitiesof the scales, based on Krohne (1989, 1993) and Hock, Krohne, and Kaiser (1996) forMCI; Egloff and Hock (1997) and Krohne and Egloff (in press) for MCI-R; Miller,Roussi, Altman, Helm, and Steinberg (1994) for the dichotomous MBSS, and Muris,Van Zuuren, De Jong, et al. (1994) for the 5-point MBSS; Van Zuuren et al. (1996), VanZuuren and Dooper (1999) and Van Zuuren et al. (1999) for TMSI; Muris, Van Zuuren,De Jong, et al. (1994) for MBQ; Miller et al. (1995) for CBSS; Kliewer (1991) for MBSC.

An inspection of the table reveals that most subscales show a sufficient level of inter-nal consistency and that monitoring/vigilance subscales are generally somewhat morehomogeneous than blunting/avoidance subscales. Only the internal consistency coef-ficients of the blunting subscales from the original, dichotomous MBSS and the CBSSare problematically low. With respect to test-retest reliability, it makes little sense tocompare the reliabilities of the instruments since there are substantial differences be-tween studies in the length of the time period between the first and the second ad-ministration. Generally, responses on the blunting/avoidance subscales are found tobe somewhat more stable than responses on the monitoring/vigilance subscales.

Validity

An important form of validity is construct validity, indicating the extent to which thetest may be said to measure a theoretical construct (Anastasi, 1976). Two subtypes ofconstruct validity have been distinguished. Internal construct validity refers to the ex-tent to which the internal structure of the instrument represents the underlying theo-

Table 4. Summary of Reliability Data

MCI MCI-RMBSS

(dichotomous)MBSS

(5-point) TMSI MBQ CBSS

n

items 72 80 32 32 24 20 32Response

format 0–1 0–1 0–1 1–5 1–5 VAS 0–1Internal

consistencyMonitoring/

vigilance

11 11 1 1 1/11

n.a.

6

Blunting/avoidance

11 11 2/6 1 1

n.a.

2

Test-retest (1 week) (2 weeks) (4 months) (2 weeks) (1 month)Monitoring/

vigilance

6 1 1

?

11 6

?Blunting/

avoidance

6 11 1

?

11 11

?

Note

. Relying on the reliability criteria of Barker, Pistrang, and Elliott (1994), the following signsare used to indicate internal consistency and test-retest coefficients:

11

5

good (

r

.

.80);

1

5

acceptable (

r

.

.70);

6

5

marginal (

r . .60); 2 5 insufficient (r , .60); ? 5 no data available;n.a. 5 not applicable.MCI, MCI-R 5 Mainz Coping Inventory; MBSS 5 Miller Behavioral Style Scale; TMSI 5 Threaten-ing Medical Situations Inventory; MBQ 5 Monitoring-Blunting Questionnaire; CBSS 5 Child Be-havioral Style Scale, VAS 5 Visual Analogue Scale.


retical construct and is usually investigated by means of factor analysis. External con-struct validity asks whether the pattern of relationships between the instrument andother instruments is consistent with theoretical expectations. A distinction can be madebetween convergent validity (correlation with other measures of the same construct)and discriminant validity (absence of correlations with measures of other constructs).

Factorial validity. Factorial validity has not been investigated for all cognitive informa-tional style scales reviewed in this article. Thus far, we only found published data onadult inventories, namely MCI (Krohne, 1989), MCI-R (Krohne & Egloff, in press),the Dutch-language version of MBSS2 (Muris & Schouten, 1994) and TMSI (VanZuuren et al., 1996). Despite the fact that all these studies rely on principal compo-nents analysis with varimax rotation, there is divergence between studies with respectto which scores are entered into the analysis.

Some authors (Muris & Schouten, 1994; Van Zuuren et al., 1996) enter all individ-ual responses to the monitoring and coping items into the analysis, while others(Krohne, 1989; Krohne and Egloff, in press) sum up several items and enter thesesums into the analysis3. In all four studies two factors are extracted. These factors ex-plain together 24% of the total variance in the MBSS study of Muris and Schouten(1994), about 34% in the TMSI study of Van Zuuren et al. (1996), 44% in the MCIstudy of Krohne (1989) and 39% in the MCI-R study of Krohne and Egloff (in press).Despite the fact that the authors of the four studies mentioned clearly had the inten-tion to check how well the data fit the theoretical two-factor model (calling for a con-firmatory approach), they all relied on exploratory principal components analysis.

Table 5. Summary of Intercorrelations Between the Corresponding Scales

Monitoring/vigilance Blunting/avoidance

MCI-MBSS 1 11MCI-TMSI 11 11MBSS-TMSI 11 1

Note. Relying on the validity criteria of Barker, Pistrang, and Elliott (1994), the following signs areused to indicate convergent validity evidence: 11 5 good (r . .50); 1 5 acceptable (r . .40).MCI 5 Mainz Coping Inventory; MBSS 5 Miller Behavioral Style Scale; TMSI 5 ThreateningMedical Situations Inventory.

2Despite the large body of empirical research using the original English-language MBSS, thereare no published data on its factor structure.

3Krohne (1989) summed up the answers to the nine vigilance and the nine avoidance optionsacross the four physical threat situations of MCI and performed a principal component analysison the resulting 18 variables. Krohne and Egloff (in press) used a different procedure: theysummed up the answers to the five vigilance and the five avoidance options for each situation ofMCI-r, thus creating eight vigilance and eight avoidance variables (corresponding with eight sit-uations). In our opinion, these two methods provide an answer to different questions. The firstmethod aggregates over situations and explores the extent to which the coping categories dis-tinguished by the authors indeed represent the two higher-order categories. The secondmethod aggregates over coping options and appears to measure cross-situational consistencyrather than construct validity.


Convergent validity. To examine the convergent validity of their instrument, most cogni-tive informational style researchers have computed correlations between the subscalesof their instrument and related measures and relied on a visual inspection of the cor-relation matrix looking for significant intercorrelations. Values of coefficients in valid-ity research are typically substantially lower than in reliability research. Inspired by thestandards proposed by Barker et al. (1994), validity values exceeding .30 are consid-ered marginal (“6”), exceeding .40 acceptable (“1”) and exceeding .50 good4

(“11”). Values below .30 are insufficient (“2”). Table 5 summarizes empirical dataon the intercorrelations of three inventories for use in adult samples, based on aDutch study by Muris, Van Zuuren, and De Vries (1994). Thus far, we have not foundany published data on the intercorrelations between child measures nor any data onthe convergent validity of the MBQ with other adult scales.

Discriminant validity. To examine discriminant validity of cognitive informational stylescales, correlations have been computed with measures of dispositional anxiety andpsychopathology. Table 6 provides a summary of discriminant validity evidence, basedon Hock et al. (1996) for MCI; Krohne and Egloff (in press) for MCI-R; Miller andMangan (1983), Steketee, Bransfield, Miller, and Foa (1989), Davey (1993), Muris,Van Zuuren, De Jong, et al. (1994), and Steptoe and O’Sullivan (1986) for MBSS; VanZuuren et al. (1996) and Van Zuuren et al. (1999) for TMSI; Muris, Van Zuuren, DeJong, et al. (1994) for MBQ.

We have only mentioned correlations with variables that have been used for thestudy of discriminant validity of at least two different inventories. Moreover, the dataare limited to adult inventories. Thus far, we have not found any published data on

Table 6. Summary of Discriminant Validity Evidence

MCI(-R) MBSS TMSI MBQ

Trait anxietyMonitoring/vigilance 2 6 1 1Blunting/avoidance 2 1 1 1

NeuroticismMonitoring/vigilance 2 2 1 ?Blunting/avoidance 2 1 1 ?

DepressionMonitoring/vigilance 6 2 1 ?Blunting/avoidance 6 1 1 ?

Psychiatric symptomsMonitoring/vigilance 2 2 1 ?Blunting/avoidance 6 1 1 ?

Note. The following signs are used to indicate discriminant validity evidence: 1 5 convincing ev-idence (nonsignificant correlations); 6 5 mixed evidence (conflicting results); 2 5 lack of dis-criminant validity (significant correlations); ? 5 no data available.MCI-R 5 Mainz Coping Inventory; MBSS 5 Miller Behavioral Style Scale; TMSI 5 ThreateningMedical Situations Inventory; MBQ 5 Monitoring-Blunting Questionnaire.

4This is not a very stringent criterion. A correlation of .50 between two scales shows that there is aconsiderable degree of convergence but it certainly does not establish that they tap same construct.


the discriminant validity of child measures. Three evaluation categories are used: con-vincing evidence (“1”), referring to nonsignificant correlations; mixed evidence(“6”), referring to conflicting results; and lack of discrimant validity (“2”), referringto significant intercorrelations with measures of anxiety and/or psychopathology5.

In the three monitoring-blunting inventories, blunting is found to be unrelated totrait anxiety, neuroticism, and psychiatric symptoms. The discriminant validity of cog-nitive avoidance subscale of MCI(-R), however, is far from evident: It shows signifi-cantly negative correlations with trait anxiety and neuroticism, and inconsistent dataemerge concerning its relationship to depression and psychiatric symptoms. With re-spect to monitoring, both TMSI and MBQ monitoring appear to be unrelated to traitanxiety. MCI(-R) monitoring and—to a lesser extent—MBSS monitoring, in contrast,are found to be related to dispositional anxiety, neuroticism, depression, and psychi-atric symptoms.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This article has discussed a number of issues relevant to the assessment of cognitive in-formational coping styles by means of situation-response inventories, more specificallyscenarios, coping options, dimensionality of the constructs, reliability, and validity.Seven of these inventories have been extensively reviewed. Below, we summarize themain points and give a few suggestions of how to handle some problems.

Scenarios

Situation-response inventories ask their respondents to imagine themselves being con-fronted with a hypothetical situation and to indicate how they would react to it. Ac-cording to Krohne and Egloff (in press), such scenarios must be sufficiently imagin-able, moderately threatening, and of varying controllability and predictability.

We agree that imaginability is important to obtain valid answers, and pointed to thesituational and cultural relativity of the scenarios. Researchers who use an existing in-strument in a new sample and particularly those who translate an existing scale to an-other language (usually to administer it in a culturally different sample) should bewell aware of this and not take for granted the comparability of the scenarios. The lowreliability of some of the measures might, for example, be related to cultural discrep-ancies in the familiarity of the scenarios. Before using a measure in a new sample(e.g., a different culture), it might be useful to investigate the situational appraisal ofthe scenarios in that sample.

With respect to the criterion of threatfulness, we questioned the necessity of choos-ing only scenarios that lead to an appraisal of threat, arguing that scenarios appraisedas loss/harm and scenarios appraised as challenge also elicit coping responses andthus can be used in situation-response inventories to measure coping styles. Research-ers using different types of appraisal in one inventory should take into account the re-

5This is a stronger criterion than the criterion Krohne and Egloff (in press) appear to rely on.These authors report significant intercorrelations between MCI-R subscales and measures ofanxiety and psychopathology (ranging in magnitude from .20 to .55) and nevertheless con-clude that discriminant validity is evidenced, since “none of the coefficients reached a level thatcould indicate lacking discriminant validity...” (p. 17).


sults of McCrae (1984), who found different blunting strategies associated with differ-ent types of appraisal. Situation-response inventories with scenarios of differentappraisal types should thus contain different types of strategies representing each cop-ing style (e.g., both distraction and reappraisal items in the blunting scale). If not,they stand a chance that situational appraisals will outreach the influence of disposi-tional factors. A similar remark can be made with respect to the intensity of threat inscenarios appraised as threatful. Given the fact that highly threatening situations havealso been found to lead to the endorsement of different strategies within the samecoping style rather than strategies of the opposite style, a sufficient degree of diversityin the coping options representing both styles is to be recommended.

Another rationale has been developed with respect to the prerequisite of varyingcontrollability and predictability. Given the established effects of these situational ap-praisals on the choice between monitoring and blunting options, we have questionedusefulness of assessing coping style using inventories with scenarios that diverge maxi-mally with respect to these characterisitics. Maximizing the situational effects on cop-ing responses and then ignoring these effects by summing up all items across situa-tions probably makes little sense. Nevertheless, we agree that situation-responseinventories with maximally divergent scenarios can be valuable, namely for researchguided by different types of questions. First, studies conducted within an interactionistframework generally use such inventories to determine the amount of variance ex-plained by persons, situations, and the interaction between both (Furnham & Jaspars,1983). Second, such inventories may also be useful in studies focusing on coping con-sistency as an interindividual difference variable. Results of the widely cited personal-ity study of Bem and Allen (1974) suggest that consistency itself may constitute an im-portant dimension of personality, reflecting individual differences in the extent towhich the person behaves in a consistent manner. Situation-response inventories withdivergent scenarios can enable the researcher to assess the degree of consistency ofpeople across different types of situations.

Coping Options

In order to get some grip on the monitoring and blunting operationalizations in situ-ation-response inventories, we have performed a content analysis. Two broad groupsof monitoring items emerged, referring to the two aspects of threat-related attentiondistinguished by Miller et al. (1995), namely sensory vigilance and active informationsearch. Blunting items were divided into three broad groups, namely distraction,avoidance, and emotion-focused blunting. A comparison of the distribution of theitems of the different scales over the monitoring and blunting categories revealed sig-nificant differences. It is striking how similarly named measures rely on considerablydifferent operationalizations of the central constructs. This may in part explain therather modest correlations found between these measures.

The content analysis of monitoring and blunting items presented in this papershould be considered as only a first step towards more conceptual clarity. Some of thedistinctions made are quite subtle and empirical confirmation is needed. In ongoingresearch, we are gathering empirical evidence for the content analysis applying confir-matory factor analyses to data from both child and adult scales.

Finally, we point to the fact that most checklist measures of cognitive informationalstyles contain an equal number of strategies referring to each style. It is important tonote, however, that in a specific threatening situation, the possibilities for monitoring


or vigilance are restricted to a few options, whereas there are many ways in which aperson can be engaged in cognitive avoidance or blunting (Muris & Schouten, 1994).Given the greater variability in the types of blunting strategies people use spontane-ously, individual blunting preferences may make people less likely to endorse particu-lar blunting items on a checklist (e.g., “go to the movies” versus “read a book”). Thiscan lead to an underestimate of blunting. To overcome this problem, Hoffner (1993)uses open-ended questions (“describe what you would do or think about...”). An alter-native solution is put forward by Muris and Schouten (1994), who argue that bluntingitems should be put in more general terms (e.g., “distract myself by engaging in someother activity, like going to the movies”) in order to apply to people who do blunt butnot by engaging in the specific activity described.

Dimensionality of the Constructs

Depending on the assumption concerning the dimensionality of the constructs, sev-eral methods have been used to divide respondents into coping style groups: mediansplit on summary scores (assumption of undimensionality), or median split on bothcoping style scores (assumption of bidimensionality). We have argued that the choicebetween the two methods should be made on a conceptual basis and should not onlybe a consequence of the empirically assessed relationship between the subscale scores.Given the recent formulations of cognitive informational styles as independent con-structs (Krohne, 1989; Miller, 1987) and the large amount of empirical evidence(Miller, et al., 1988; Muris, Van Zuuren, De Jong, et al., 1994) suggesting that subscalescores are unrelated, it appears rather inappropriate to calculate a summary score.

Reliability and Validity

The summary of published data on the reliability and validity of the instruments un-der review may have risen the expectation of a conclusion about which scale shouldbe considered as the best one. Unfortunately, data are far too scare to choose betweenthem. Moreover, given the fact that similarly named measures show only modest cor-relations with each other, considerable conceptual and empirical efforts are neededto bring clarity in this area.

REFERENCES

Abbott, R. D. (1972). On confounding of the Repression-Sensitization Scale and Manifest Anxiety Scales.Psychological Reports, 30, 392–394.

Altshuler, J. L., & Ruble, D. N. (1989). Developmental changes in children’s awareness of strategies for cop-ing with uncontrollable stress. Child Development, 60, 1337–1349.

Anastasi, A. (1976). Psychological testing (4th ed.). New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.Barker, C., Pistrang, N., & Elliott, R. (1994). Research methods in clinical and counseling psychology. Chichester,

England: John Wiley & Sons.Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time. The search for cross-sit-

uational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 506–520.Benjamins, C., Schuurs, A. H. B., Kooreman, T., & Hoogstraten, J. (1996) Self-reported and psysiologically

measured dental anxiety, coping styles and personality traits. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 9, 151–162.Byrne, D. (1961). The Repression-Sensitization Scale: Rationale, reliability and validity. Journal of Personality,

29, 334–349.Byrne, D. (1964). Repression-sensitization as a dimension of personality. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in

experimental personality research, (pp. 169–220). New York: Academic Press.


Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically basedapproach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.

Chabot, J. A. (1973). Repression-sensitization: A critique of some neglected variables in the literature. Psy-chological Bulletin, 80, 122–129.

Curry, S. L., & Russ, S. W. (1985). Identifying coping strategies in children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychol-ogy, 14, 61–69.

Davey, G. C. L. (1993). A comparison of three worry questionnaires. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 51–56.De Ridder, D. (1997). What is wrong with coping assessment? A review of conceptual and methodological

issues. Psychology and Health, 12, 417–431.Egloff, B., & Hock, M. (1997). A comparison of two approaches to the assessment of coping styles. Personal-

ity and Individual Differences, 23, 913–916.Endler, N. S., Hunt, J. M., & Rosenstein, A. J. (1962). An S-R inventory of anxiousness. Psychological Mono-

graphs, 76, 1–31.Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). The multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844–854.Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: Task, emotion and avoid-

ance strategies. Psychological Assessment, 6, 50–60.Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 46, 839–852.Fuller, B. F., & Connor, D. A. (1990). Selection of vigilant and avoidant coping strategies among repressors,

highly anxious and truly low anxious subjects. Psychological Reports, 66, 103–110.Furnham, A., & Jaspars, J. (1983). The evidence for interactionism in psychology: A critical analysis of situa-

tion-response inventories. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 627–644.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.Hoffner, C. (1993). Children’s strategies for coping with stress: Monitoring and blunting. Motivation and

Emotion, 17, 91–106.Kliewer, W. (1991). Coping in middle childhood: Relations to competence, type a behavior, monitoring,

blunting and locus of control. Developmental Psychology, 27, 689–697.Kohlmann, C. -W. (1993). Rigid and flexible modes of coping: Related to coping style? Anxiety, Stress and

Coping, 6, 107–123.Krohne, H. W. (1986). Coping with stress: Dispositions, strategies and the problem of measurement. In M. H.

Appley & R. Trumbull (Eds.), Dynamics of stress (pp. 209–234). 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, 235–248.Krohne, H. W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research. In H. W. Krohn

(Ed.), Attention and avoidance. Strategies in coping with aversiveness (pp. 19–50). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe &Huber Publishers.

Krohne, H. W. (1996). Individual differences in coping. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook ofcoping (pp. 381–409). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Krohne, H. W., & Egloff, B. (in press). Vigilant and avoidant coping. Theory and measurement. In C. D.Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and emotion, (Vol. 17). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Lazarus, R. S. (1976). Patterns of adjustment (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Books Company.Lepore, S. J., & Kliewer, W. (1989, August). Monitoring and blunting: Validation of a coping measure for children.

Poster presented at the 97th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, NewOrleans, LA.

McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss, threat and challenge. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 46, 919–928.

Miller, S. M. (1980). When is little information a dangerous thing? Coping with stressful events by monitor-ing versus blunting. In S. Levine & H. Ursin (Eds.), Coping and health (pp. 145–169). New York: PlenumPress.

Miller, S. M. (1981). Predictability and human stress: Toward a clarification of evidence and theory. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 203–256). New York: Academic Press.

Miller, S. M. (1987). Monitoring and blunting: Validation of a questionnaire to assess styles of informationseeking under threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 345–353.

Miller, S. M., Brody, D. S., & Summerton, J. (1988). Styles of coping with threat: Implications for health.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 142–148.

Miller, S. M., & Green, M. L. (1985). Coping with stress and frustration: Origins, nature and development.In M. Lewis & C. Saarni (Eds.), Socialization of emotions (pp. 263–314). New York: Plenum Press.


Miller, S. M., & Mangan, C. E. (1983). Interacting effects of information and coping style in adapting togynecological stress: Should the doctor tell all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 223–236.

Miller, S. M., Roussi, P., Altman, D., Helm, W., & Steinberg, A. (1994). Effects of coping style on psychologi-cal reactions of low-income, minority women to colposcopy. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 39, 711–718.

Miller, S. M., Roussi, P., Caputo, G. C., & Kruus, L. (1995). Patterns of children’s coping with an aversivedental treatment. Health Psychology, 14, 236–246.

Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1983). Some facets of consistency: Replies to Epstein, Funder and Bem. Psycho-logical Review, 90, 394–402.

Muris, P., & De Jong, P. (1993). Monitoring and the perception of threat. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 15, 467–470.

Muris, P., & Schouten, E. (1994). Monitoring and blunting: A factor analysis of the Miller Behavioural StyleScale. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 285–287.

Muris, P., Van Zuuren, F. J., De Jong, P. J., De Beurs, E., & Hanewald, G. (1994). Monitoring and bluntingcoping styles: The Miller Behavioural Style Scale and its correlates, and the development of an alternativequestionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 9–19.

Muris, P., Van Zuuren, F. J., & De Vries, S. (1994). Monitoring, blunting and situational anxiety: A labora-tory study on coping with a quasi-medical stressor. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 365–372.

Parker, J. D. A., & Endler, N. S. (1992). Coping with coping assessment: A critical review. European Journal ofPersonality, 6, 321–344.

Phipps, S., Fairclough, D., & Mulhern, R. K. (1995). Avoidant coping in children with cancer. Journal of Pedi-atric Psychology, 20, 217–232.

Russell, M., & Davey, G. C. L. (1993). The relationship between life events measures and anxiety and its cog-nitive correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 317–322.

Ryan-Wenger, N. M. (1992). A taxonomy of children’s coping strategies: A step toward theory development,American Journal of Orthospychiatry , 62, 256–263.

Schwarzer, R., & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical survey of coping instruments. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler(Eds.), Handbook of coping (pp. 107–132). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Steketee, G., Bransfield, S., Miller, S. M., & Foa, E. B. (1989). The effect of information and coping style onthe reduction of phobic anxiety during exposure. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 3, 69–85.

Steptoe, A. (1989). An abbreviated version of the Miller Behavioral Style Scale. British Journal of Clinical Psy-chology, 28, 183–184.

Steptoe, A., & O’Sullivan, J. (1986). Monitoring and blunting coping styles in women prior to surgery. Brit-ish Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 143–144.

Van Zuuren, F. J. (1992). Het meten van monitoring en blunting in een medische setting. (The measurementof monitoring and blunting in a medical setting). Unpublished report, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,The Netherlands.

Van Zuuren, F. J., De Groot, K. I., Mulder, N. L., & Muris, P. (1996). Coping with medical threat: An evalua-tion of the Threatening Medical Situations Inventory (TMSI). Personality and Individual Differences, 21,21–31.

Van Zuuren, F. J., De Jongh, A., Beekers, C., & Swinkels, P. (1999). Coping with dental treatment: Correlatesof dispositional and domain specific monitoring and blunting. Psychology and Health, 14, 323–337.

Van Zuuren, F. J., & Dooper R. (1999). Coping style and self-reported health promotion and disease detec-tion behaviour. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 81–89.

Van Zuuren, F. J., & Hanewald, G. J. F. P. (1993). Cognitieve toenadering en vermijding in medischbedreigende situaties: de ontwikkeling van een vragenlijst. [Cognitive approach and avoidance in threat-ening medical situations: The development of a questionnaire]. Gedragstherapie, 26, 33–48.

Van Zuuren, F. J., & Muris, P. (1993). Coping under experimental threat: Observable and cognitive corre-lates of dispositional monitoring and blunting. European Journal of Personality, 7, 245–253.

Van Zuuren, F. J., & Wolfs, H. M. (1991). Styles of information seeking under threat: Personal and situa-tional aspects of monitoring and blunting. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 141–149.

Documents

Assessment of Cognitive Coping Styles. a Closer Look at Situation-response Inventories