coping styles and threat processing

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Coping styles and threat processing

Pedro Averoa, Kimberly M. Coraceb, Norman S. Endlerb,*, Manuel G. Calvoa

aUniversity of La Laguna, Tenerife, SpainbDepartment of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3

Received 11 April 2002; received in revised form 19 July 2002; accepted 10 September 2002

Abstract

In three different experiments we examined the role of coping styles (task-oriented, emotion-oriented,and avoidance coping) in attention, interpretation, and memory for threat-related information. Attentionalbias was assessed by an emotional Stroop word color-naming task; interpretive bias, by an on-line infer-ence processing task during the reading of sentences; and explicit memory bias, by sensitivity (d 0) andresponse criterion (�) scores in a word recognition test. Multiple regression analyses revealed, first, that, atask-oriented coping style was associated with facilitation in color-naming of threat-related words, whereasan avoidance-oriented coping style was associated with interference, which suggests selective attention tothreatening information. Second, an emotion-oriented coping style was associated with facilitation ofinterpretive inferences related to threatening outcomes of ambiguous situations; in contrast, an avoidancecoping style was associated with facilitation of non-threat inferences. And, third, there were biases in therecognition of presented and non-presented physical-threat information, with an avoidance style beingrelated to a cautious response criterion, and emotion coping being related to a risky response criterion.These results suggest that avoidance coping is involved in initial attention to threat, followed by late inhi-bition of threat elaboration and memory; in contrast, emotion coping is involved in delayed further threatelaboration and also reconstruction of non-presented threat-related information.# 2002 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Coping; Threat; Attentional bias; Interpretive bias; Memory bias

1. Introduction

Coping refers to an individual’s efforts to regulate stressful situations (Lazarus & Folkman,1984). Research suggests that coping styles (e.g. task-oriented, emotion-oriented, and avoidance)

0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0191-8869(02 )00287-8

Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 843–861

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-416-736-2100; fax: +1-416-736-5814.

E-mail address: [email protected] (N.S. Endler).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/paid/a4.3d

mailto:[email protected]

play an important role in the way that individuals respond to stressful situations and negative lifeevents (Endler & Parker, 1990, 1999; Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; McCrae & Costa,1986). Coping styles are often used to mediate between antecedent stressful events and such con-sequences as anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and somatic complaints (Billings & Moos,1981; Coyne, Aldwin, & Lazarus, 1981; Endler & Parker, 1990, 1999; Parker & Endler, 1992).Lazarus and Folkman (1984) developed a process-oriented coping model that differentiated

between two types of coping: (1) problem-focused coping responses and (2) emotion-focusedcoping responses. Problem-focused coping responses involve attempts to alter the person–envir-onment relationship. For example, in some situations one might create a plan to eliminate astressor. Emotion-focused coping responses involve attempts to regulate emotional distress. Onemight engage in cognitive restructuring to redefine his/her situation in order to regulate emotionaldistress. Research has recently identified a third coping style, avoidance coping (Endler & Parker,1990, 1999), which involves ‘‘activities and cognitive changes aimed at avoiding the stressfulsituation’’ (Endler & Parker, 1999, p. 35).The different models of coping could be classified as either intra-individual approaches or

inter-individual approaches (Endler & Parker, 1999; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter,DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). When the intra-individual approach is employed, behaviors andcognitions for the same person are analyzed across a variety of situations. This approach focu-ses on the process of coping by examining how coping styles change in response to specific typesof stressors. In contrast, the inter-individual approach to coping utilizes coping scores of oneindividual to represent a stable index of the individual’s coping styles, and compares that per-son’s responses with those of others (Endler and Parker, 1999; Fleishman, 1984). This approachfocuses on the assessment of inter-individual differences. Therefore, for the present study, it ismore appropriate to use inter-individual coping measure designed to assess an individual’s dis-positional coping styles because of this study’s focus on between individual differences ratherthan within individual differences.

1.1. Coping styles

Research has demonstrated three main coping styles people utilize when encountering a stress-ful situation: (1) Task-oriented, (2) Emotion-oriented, and (3) Avoidance-oriented. These copingstyles can be assessed with the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS; Endler & Parker,1999).If the situation was appraised as being changeable, task-oriented styles would be more adaptive

(reduce depression and anxiety), yet emotion-oriented styles would be more adaptive if thesituation was appraised as unchangeable (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus &Folkman, 1984). Research has demonstrated that high levels of perceived control is related tohigher levels of task-oriented coping and lower levels of state anxiety than low levels of perceivedcontrol (Endler, Macrodimistris, & Kocovski, 2000; Endler, Speer, Johnson, & Flett, 2000).Although emotion-oriented coping is aimed at reducing stress, this response can actually increasestress and produce negative outcomes (increased anxiety and depression) in the long term(Lazarus, 1993; Endler & Parker, 1990). Thus, this coping response is adaptive only as animmediate coping strategy, and for stressors that are appraised as uncontrollable. Avoidancecoping is thought to be maladaptive in the long-term for controllable situations, but adaptive in

844 P. Avero et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 843–861

the short-term for uncontrollable situations. Research suggests that although avoidance copingcan be more adaptive than emotion-focused coping, task-oriented coping is more adaptive thaneither avoidance or emotion-focused coping (Parker & Endler, 1992).

1.2. Coping styles and attention

There is extensive evidence which indicates that most affective disorders (e.g. social phobia,anxiety, and panic) are associated with an attentional bias toward selection of stimuli relatedto the disorder (Wells & Matthews, 1994). For example, social phobia patients have anattentional bias towards socially threatening stimuli (Becker, Rinck, Margraf, & Roth, 2001;Hope, Rapee, Heimberg, & Dombeck, 1990; Mattia, Heimberg, & Hope, 1993). Thus,research demonstrates that anxious participants tend to allocate more attention to threaten-ing than to non-threatening information (Eysenck, 1992). However, coping research demon-strates that only a subset of anxious participants show this tendency to attend to threat-relatedstimuli. When encountering threatening situations, some individuals appear to seek knowledgeabout the stressor (e.g. sensitizers or monitors) while others appear to avoid threat-related stimuli(e.g. avoiders or repressors or blunters). This implies that anxious subjects’ responses to threa-tening situations may depend on dispositional coping styles (De Jongh, Ter Horst, Muris, &Merckerlbach, 1995).Most of the research on attentional biases and coping styles has been investigated with the

emotional Stroop task (Williams, Matthews, & MacLeod, 1996). In this task, participants arerequired to name the ink colors of a list of words which vary in emotional significance, ignoringthe semantic content of the word. When a word has high emotional significance (e.g. ‘‘cancer’’ forphysical threats), it becomes more difficult to suppress the word’s meaning and name the inkcolor, creating increased response times.Recent research has suggested that individuals who possess a repressive coping style (low

trait anxiety, high defensiveness) exhibit an avoidant processing style (Myers & McKenna,1996). Research shows repressors avert their attention from threatening words (duringattention tasks) and are more efficient in inhibiting threatening information. Repressorsmaintain an attentional focus away from information they want to ignore. They avoidprocessing of unwanted information (de Ruiter & Brosschot, 1994; Fox, 1993, 1994;Myers & McKenna, 1996). However, the results using the emotional Stroop task are moreambiguous. That is, in some research repressors have slower latency times when color-nam-ing emotionally laden words as compared to neutral words (Dawkins & Furnham, 1989; deRuiter & Brosschot, 1994; Myers & McKenna, 1996). Other research (Kocovski, 2001) hasshown that instrumental coping (task-oriented coping style) is negatively correlated withwomen’s reaction times on the emotional Stroop task. That is, women high in social eva-luation anxiety who had longer reaction times were found to use instrumental coping stra-tegies to a lesser extent.Thus, one aim of the present study was to investigate the role of dispositional coping styles in

attentional bias towards threat-related information using the emotional Stroop task (see Experi-ment 1). This research sought to uncover the coping styles that are associated with longer color-naming times for threat-related words (compared with neutral words), indicating cognitive inter-ference.

P. Avero et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 843–861 845

1.3. Coping styles and interpretive bias

Interpretive bias, or the tendency to interpret ambiguous information in a threatening manner,has been consistently found among high trait-anxious individuals (not low trait-anxious indivi-duals) with ambiguous words and sentences, particularly in latter stages of cognitive processing(Calvo & Eysenck, 2000). Eysenck (1997) posits that repressors minimize the ‘‘threatfulness’’ ofcues and consistently interpret ambiguous cues in a non-threatening manner (termed oppositeinterpretive bias). Although there is a paucity of research in this area, some studies have shownthat repressors have an opposite interpretive bias (Calvo & Eysenck, 2000; Derakshan &Eysenck, 1997; Eysenck & Derakshan, 1997). In a recent study, Calvo and Eysenck (2000)examined the time course of an interpretive bias toward processing threat-related cues in repres-sive copers. The study’s stimuli included sentences that described potentially threatening situa-tions or non-threatening situations from which the participant could predict either a threat or anon-threat outcome. Thus, the outcome that could be predicted was ambiguous. Results indicatedthat repressors showed highly significant facilitation for threatening inferences with a delay of 550ms, but this bias disappeared when there was a 1050 ms delay. These findings indicated that earlyprocessing of threat was facilitated by repression coping and later processing of threat was inhib-ited by repression coping. That is, repressors have an initial bias towards processing threateninginformation which is followed by an avoidance of processing threatening information.Thus, a second goal of this study was to extend this research domain and examine the role of

coping styles in interpretive bias using an on-line inference task during sentence reading (seeExperiment 2). This study sought to investigate which coping styles facilitate or inhibit theinference processing of threat-related events and which styles facilitate or inhibit non-threatinferences.

1.4. Coping styles and memory bias

The evidence for the relationship between coping and memory bias (selective memory forthreat-related information) is equivocal. Although, Eysenck (1997) purports that repressorswould have an opposite memory bias, research does not consistently demonstrate this. On theone hand, research indicates that repressive copers do not remember negative events as well ascontrols (Davis, 1990; Myers & Brewin, 1995; Newman & Hedberg, 1999). Evidence has beenfound for a memory bias away from negative information for repressors in studies which focus onautobiographical memory and memory for more realistic situations (Boden & Baumeister, 1997;Cutler, Larsen & Bunce, 1996; Krahe, 1999; Myers & Brewin, 1994, 1995; Newman & Hedberg,1999)However, more recent research (Oldenburg, Lundh, & Kivisto, 2002) finds that there is no

opposite memory bias among repressors. Oldenburg et al. (2002) found no association betweenrepressive coping style and explicit or implicit memory bias. Thus, not lending support forEysenck’s (1997) hypothesis of an opposite cognitive bias in repressors. Other research has alsofailed to find support for an association between repressive coping style and memory bias inexperimental studies with threatening words (Brosschot, de Ruiter, & Kindt, 1999a).Thus, the final goal of the present study was to attempt to clarify the relationship between

coping styles and memory bias for threat-related information using a word recognition test fol-


lowing incidental learning (see Experiment 3). This experiment sought to examine whether andwhich coping styles are related to a genuine memory bias or rather to a response bias.

1.5. Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the relative contribution of coping styles to atten-tional, interpretive, and memory biases in threat processing. The research linking attentionalprocesses to coping styles is inconclusive; thus, this study will attempt to clarify this relationship.Furthermore, there is limited research examining the relationship between memory bias or inter-pretive bias with coping; thus, this research seeks to explore and define the relationship betweenmemory bias and coping as well as the relationship between interpretive bias and coping. Finally,since most of the research has focused on the relationship between repressive coping styles andcognitive biases (Brosschot et al., 1999a, 1999b; Calvo & Eysenck, 2000; Dawkins & Furnham,1989; de Ruiter & Brosschot, 1994; Derakshan & Eysenck, 1997; Eysenck & Derakshan, 1997;Myers & McKenna, 1996) there was a need to investigate how other coping styles contribute tothese cognitive biases. Thus, this study addressed this gap in past research.Three experiments (all using the same participants) were conducted to examine the role of

coping styles in each cognitive bias (attention, interpretation and memory). Since the same par-ticipants were involved in all three experiments the relative strength of the three biases a functionof coping styles could be compared. There was a 3-week interval between experiments to avoidcarry-over effects. Experiment 1 examined the role of dispositional coping styles in attentionalbias using the emotional Stroop word color-naming task to assess attentional bias. Experiment 2investigated the role of coping styles in interpretive bias using an on-line inference task duringsentence reading to assess this bias. Finally, Experiment 3 examined the contribution of copingstyles to memory bias which was assessed using a word recognition test following incidentallearning. Bias was determined by either attention, interpretation or memory for the emotionalstimuli (threat-related or positive) in comparison with non-threat stimuli. The three coping styles(task-, emotion-, and avoidance-oriented), as assessed by the CISS (Endler & Parker, 1999), werethe predictor variables; the task performance scores assessing the biases were the dependentvariables.Based on existing research and theory, we made the following predictions:

Experiment 1: Avoidance and task-oriented coping will be associated with faster color-namingtimes on the Stroop task for threat-related words as compared to neutral words. Emotion-orien-ted coping will be associated with slower color-naming times on the Stroop task for threat-relatedwords as compared to neutral words.

Experiment 2: Avoidance and task-oriented coping will promote inhibitory processing of threat-related inferences and facilitate non-threat inferences. Emotion-oriented coping will facilitate theprocessing of threat-related inferences and inhibit non-threat inferences.

Experiment 3: Avoidance and task-oriented coping will be related to remembering less threatwords on the memory task, whereas emotion-oriented coping will be positively related toremembering more threat words on the memory task.


2. Experiment 1: attentional bias

This experiment investigated the role of dispositional coping styles in attentional bias towardsthreat-related information, using an emotional Stroop task (see Williams et al., 1996). Essentially,words printed in different colors were presented on a computer screen. Participants were asked toignore the words and to pronounce the color in which they were presented. Color-naming timesare assumed to provide an index of the extent to which attentional resources are being allocatedto the word semantic content. The more threat-related information attracts attention, the moreinterference will this produce on the processing of the color of the word, which will be reflected inan increase in the time to pronounce the word color. Evidence for an attentional bias will involvelonger color naming times for emotional words than for non-emotional words.

2.1. Method

2.1.1. ParticipantsEighty-six psychology undergraduates (66 females; 20 males) took part in this experiment

in fulfilment of a course requirement. They were administered the Coping Inventory forStressful Situations (CISS; Endler & Parker, 1999; Spanish translation). This is a 48-itemself-report inventory assessing ways in which people react to difficult, stressful, or upsettingsituations. Respondents are asked to rate on a five-point scale, ranging from ‘‘not at all’’ to‘‘very much’’, the extent to which they typically engage in various strategies representingtask-oriented (solving the problem), emotion-oriented (regulating stressful emotions), andavoidance-oriented coping.

2.1.2. MaterialsA list of 90 Spanish target words were presented, of which 30 were neutral or non-threatening

(e.g. bookshop, fan, track, crew, torch, school, mill, vegetation, etc.); 30 were related to physicalthreats (e.g., cancer, behead, hearse, stroke, torture, drowned, corpse, tragedy, etc.); and another 30were related to ego threats (e.g. failure, criticism, despise, stupid, humiliation, mediocre, inept,loser, etc.). A Oneway ANOVA (neutral vs. physical-threat vs. ego-threat words) revealed nosignificant differences (all Fs<1) in number of letters (7.50 vs. 7.60 vs. 7.33) and frequency of usein written language (22.8 vs. 22.9 vs. 20.3 occurrences per million, respectively; Sebastian-Galles,Martı, Cuetos, & Carreiras, 1996).All participants received all words twice in random order. Accordingly, there were 180 word

trials for each participant. The words were arranged in 12-row�5-column matrices on a computerscreen, with a different block of 60 trials for each word type separately. Six colors were used(green, red, yellow, blue, black, and grey), which were assigned randomly and in the same pro-portion for the three word types.

2.1.3. ProcedureIndividual experimental sessions were conducted for each participant. Each block of trials

started with a fixation box including the word ‘‘READY’’ for 3 s in the center of the computerscreen. This was followed by the stimulus word list of which the participant had to name theprinted colors. Instructions were to name aloud the color moving from top to bottom and from


left to right as fast as possible, while ignoring the word content. The experimenter began timing(by means of a Casio HS-20 stopwatch) when the color of the first word of the block was namedand ended when the color of the last word of the block was named. The experimenter checkedresponse accuracy. To avoid experimenter bias, the experimenter was unaware of the partici-pants’ coping style scores.To make experimental conditions identical for all participants (a requisite for comparisons as a

function of their different coping styles) they were presented with the three types of words in thesame order: non-threat, physical-threat, and ego-threat words.1 The non-threat words were pre-sented first as it has been shown that presenting threatening stimuli prior to neutral stimuli pro-duces a carry-over effect which impairs performance on the neutral stimuli. It is important thatno differences as a function of coping styles emerge for non-threat words—as they are used as acontrol condition—(see Fox, 1993).

2.2. Results

2.2.1. Preliminary analyses and criteria for multiple regressionColor naming times for the physical-threat words (825 ms per word; S.D.=13) and for the ego-

threat words (818 ms; S.D.=14) were slower than naming times for the non-threat words (779ms; S.D.=13), t(85)=5.87, P<0.0001, and t(85)=4.83, P<0.0001, respectively, with no sig-nificant differences between the two types of threat-related words (P=0.22, ns).Multiple linear regression analyses were performed, with all predictors entered simulta-

neously. The four predictors were the three coping styles scores (task-, emotion-, and avoid-ance-oriented), and gender of participants (males coded as 1; females, as 2). Gender wasincluded as a predictor for this and the following experiments because there were significantdifferences between males and females for coping styles (task: males: M=61.6 vs. females:M=57.7, t(84)=1.65, P<0.10; emotion: 38.8 vs. 46.6, t(84)=2.85, P<0.01; and avoidance:39.4 vs. 46.9, t(84)=2.97, P<0.01). The dependent variables were, separately, (a) namingtimes in the emotional Stroop task for the non-threat words, and (b) the increase (in com-parison with non-threat words) in naming times for either (b1) the physical-threat words or(b2) the ego-threat words (thus, for b1- and b2-scores, non-threat scores served as a baselinecontrol).The following statistics are particularly useful for interpreting the multiple regression ana-

lyses (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989): (a) the squared multiple correlation, or R2, which isthe proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is accounted for by the bestlinear combination of all predictors (i.e. the sum of joint and unique contributions); (b) thebeta coefficient, or �, expressing the standardized slope or estimate of the change in thedependent variable with each unit of change in the predictor; and (c) the squared semipartial

1 In order to examine how the characteristics of the participants affect performance on each category of stimuli, we

equated the stimulus presentation conditions for all participants. The blocks of words were presented in the same orderfor each subject so that we could separate the effects of individual differences in coping styles from the differences inunwanted factors associated with the order of presentation of stimuli (e.g. practice effects). Thus, the factors associated

with the order of presentation were constant for all participants to avoid confounding influences. This procedure iscongruent with other research which has investigated individual differences (see Fox, 1993).


correlation, or sr2, which indicates the unique contribution of each predictor to R2 after thecontribution of the other predictors is taken out. Therefore, the difference between R2 and thesum of sr2 represents the common variance in the dependent variable that all the predictorsjointly contribute to.

2.2.2. Relative contributions of coping styles2.2.2.1. Non-threat words. The combined predictors did not account for statistically significantchanges in naming times for non-threat words, R2=0.05, F(4, 81)=1.03, P=0.40, ns. That is, thepredictors did not account for signficant variations in naming times for non-threat words.

2.2.2.2. Physical-threat words (see Table 1). The combined predictors accounted for a significantportion of variance (22%) in naming times for physical-threat words (in comparison with thosefor neutral words; i.e. b1, see earlier), F(4, 81)=5.80, P<0.0001. Avoidance coping and Taskcoping made statistically reliable unique contributions, with color naming times increasing asAvoidance coping increased (8.9% of variance), t(85)=3.02, P<0.01, and as Task copingdecreased (3.8%), t(85)=1.99, P<0.05. That is, there was a positve relationship between avoid-ance coping scores and naming response times, whereas there was a negative relationship betweentask coping scores and naming response times.

2.2.2.3. Ego-threat words (see Table 1). The combined predictors accounted for significant varia-tions (15%) in naming times for ego-threat words (in comparison with those for neutral words; i.e.b2, see earlier), F(4, 81)=3.64, P<0.01. Avoidance coping made a reliable unique contribution(5.1%), t(85)=2.18, P<0.05, with naming response times increasing as Avoidance copingincreased. Thus, there was a positive relationship between avoidance coping scores and namingresponse times.

Table 1Regression statistics of naming times for physical-threat words (minus non-threat words) and ego-threat words (minus

non-threat words) on coping styles and gender

Beta
r sr2
Physical-threat words: R2=0.22***

Task-oriented coping
�0.20 �0.26 0.04* Emotion-oriented coping 0.06 0.19 0.00 Avoidance-oriented coping 0.31 0.38 0.09***
Gender
0.14 0.29 0.02
Ego-threat words: R2=0.15***

�0.12 �0.18 0.01 Emotion-oriented coping 0.08 0.19 0.01 Avoidance oriented coping 0.24 0.31 0.05* Gender 0.16 0.28 0.02
* P<0.05.*** P<0.01.


2.3. Discussion

Contrary to expectation, avoidance coping was associated with disproportionately long color-naming times for threat related words as compared with neutral words. This suggests that indi-viduals using an avoidance coping style display increased attention towards threat word content,or have difficulty in diverting attention away from such content when it is initially encountered.In contrast, in accord with predictions, task-oriented coping styles lead to focusing on the task athand and serve to prevent cognitive interference. No relationship was found between attentionbias and emotion-oriented coping.The finding for the relationship between avoidance coping and attention bias is similar to past

research which shows that repressors have longer color-naming times for emotional words thanneutral words (Dawkins & Furnham, 1989; de Ruiter & Brosschot, 1994; Myers & McKenna,1996). It has been suggested that this may indicate that their tendency to avoid threat-related cuesdemands additional processing capacity, which slows their performance on color-naming tasks(de Ruiter & Brosschot, 1994). The mechanisms accounting for this additional processing capa-city is unknown, however looking away and distracting thoughts are considered to be possibilities(de Ruiter & Brosschot, 1994).It is also possible that the longer color-naming times for threat-related words in avoidant

copers is a function of the time course of the attention bias. Perhaps, the relationship betweenavoidance coping and attentional bias is similar to the relationship Calvo and Eysenck (2000)found between repression and interpretive bias. That is, it is possible that avoidance copingfacilitates early processing of threat, but inhibits later processing. The attention of avoidantcopers would be initially captured by the threat content of words; the subsequent efforts of theseindividuals to inhibit such threat content would be responsible for the observed delay in colornaming times. This issue will be further addressed in the General Discussion, when we comparethe time course of the effects of coping styles on three cognitive biases.The finding that task-oriented coping is associated with decreased cognitive interference is

consistent with past research which shows that high socially anxious women who had longerresponse latencies on the Stroop task were less likely to use instrumental coping strategies (similarto task-oriented coping styles) when faced with socially anxious situations (Kocovski, 2001). Boththese results are consistent with previous findings that have shown the adaptive nature of task-oriented coping (Endler & Parker, 1999; Parker & Endler, 1992).

3. Experiment 2: interpretive bias

This experiment examined the role of coping styles in interpretive bias, which was measured by theprobability that harmful outcomes were inferred when reading sentences. For this purpose, an on-line processing task was used, which has been demonstrated to detect inferences predictive of threa-tening event outcomes in prior research (e.g. Calvo & Castillo, 2001). Essentially, context sentenceswere presented on a computer screen, describing situations from which either neutral or threateningoutcomes could result (see Materials). Following each context sentence, a target word was presentedas a probe to be named by the participant. This word represented either the outcome to be inferred ora non-predictable outcome. Reduced naming latency for the inferential target word subsequent to


an inducing context—relative to a control context—is assumed to indicate that the reader hasdrawn the inference (Calvo, Castillo, & Estevez, 1999; Klin, Murray, Levine, & Guzman, 1999).In contrast, no difference between the inducing and the control context is expected for the non-predictable target word. Evidence for an interpretive bias will be indicated by greater naminglatency reduction for the inferential words representing threat-related outcomes following theinducing (relative to the control) context, in comparison with the non-threat inferential words.

3.1. Method

3.1.1. ParticipantsOf the 86 undergraduates participating in Experiment 1, six were excluded for Experiment 2

because of failures in the recording of naming latencies by the voice-activated relay. Accordingly,80 participants (62 females; 18 males) were accepted.

3.1.2. MaterialsWe used 40 Spanish passages each of which was composed of (a) one inducing or predicting

context sentence that suggested a likely consequence of an event (e.g. for a threat-related item:With hardly any visibility, the plane quickly approached the dangerous mountain and the passengersbegan to shout in panic. The plane . . .), (b) one control context sentence that was not predictive ofany particular consequence (e.g. When the plane took off, the child’s shouts of panic prevented thepassenger hearing his friend’s comments on the dangerous mountain. The plane . . .), (c) one infer-ential target word (e.g. crashed) that represented the predictable event following the predictingcontext, though this event was unlikely after the control context, and (d) one non-predictabletarget word (e.g. swerved) that represented a plausible, but unlikely event following both contexts.An example of a non-threat item was: (a) predicting context (Early in the morning the gardenertook the hose, connected it to the water tap and started his work. The gardener. . .); (b) controlcontext (With water, the gardener cleaned the hose and the tap that the painters had soiled the daybefore. The gardener. . .); (c) inferential target (watered); (d) non-predictable target (pruned).Half of the passages (20) presented to any given participant were concerned with potentially

dangerous situations (accidents and illness), and the other half (20) with non-threat situations, inrandom order. On each trial, participants were presented with either a predicting or a controlcontext followed by either an inferential or a non predictable target word. Before the experi-ments, we assessed the validity of the materials in a number of ways (see Calvo et al., 1999), suchas control of word-based priming, as well as the degree of contextual predictability for the infer-ential and the non-predictable target words.

3.1.3. ProcedureAt the beginning of the individual sessions, participants were told that the purpose of the

experiment was to measure reading comprehension. Stimulus presentation on a screen andresponse collection were controlled by PCs. Sentences were shown one word at a time: Each wordwas exposed for 300 ms plus 25 ms per letter; there was a 50-ms interval between words. Theestimated mean word exposure across an average sentence was 418 ms. The pretarget word wasalways presented for 450 ms, followed by a 1050-ms blank interval between the offset of this wordand the onset of the target word to be named (see rationale in Calvo et al., 1999). A trial included


one context sentence and one target word. Each trial began when the participant pressed thespace-bar. Five-hundred ms later, the words of the context appeared on the center of the screen,one at a time, according to the temporal parameters mentioned earlier. Then the target wordappeared flanked by asterisks (e.g. ** crashed **). Participants had been told to pronounce thetarget words correctly and as quickly as possible. A microphone connected to a voice-activatedrelay and interfaced with the computer recorded naming latencies. Then a comprehension ques-tion was presented to ensure that the participants were understanding the explicit content of thesentences (mean correct responses: 89%).

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Preliminary analyses to determine inferential activityA 2 (threat vs. non-threat)�2 (predicting vs. control context)�2 (inferential vs. non-predictable

target) ANOVA on naming latency scores yielded a context by target interaction, F(1, 79)=5.22,P<0.025. The inferential target words were named 34 ms faster following the predicting context(M=633; S.D.=160) than following the control context (M=667; S.D.=135), F(1, 79)=5.80,P<0.025. This facilitation effect indicates that inferences about predictable outcomes were madeboth for threat and non-threat related events (there was no three-way interaction: F<1). In con-trast, there was no significant difference (11 ms) for the non-predictable words (predicting:M=686; S.D.=155; control:M=697; S.D.=149), F <1.

3.2.2. Relative contributions of coping stylesActivation scores revealing inferential activity were computed by subtracting naming latencies

in the predicting condition from those in the control condition (see Calvo, 2000). Then, multiplelinear regression analyses were performed on activation scores for the inferential threat-relatedtarget words and the inferential non-threat target words, as dependent variables. As in Experi-ment 1, the predictors were the three coping modes scores (task-, emotion-, and avoidance-oriented) and gender.

3.2.2.1. Non-threat inferences. The combined predictors accounted for significant variations(12%) in activation of non-threat concepts, F(4, 75)=2.55, P<0.05. Avoidance coping made asignificant unique contribution to increases in activation scores for non-threat inferences (8.4%),t(79)=2.68, P<0.01.

3.2.2.2. Threat-related inferences (see Table 2). The combined predictors accounted for a sig-nificant portion of variance (13%) in the activation of threat-related concepts, F(4, 75)=2.87,P<0.025, with Emotion coping (7.5%) making a significant unique contribution (t(79)=2.55,P<0.025) and Avoidance coping (4.2%) making a nearly significant unique contribution(t(79)=1.90, P=0.061). However, whereas Emotion coping was related to increased activation,there was a trend that avoidance coping was related to reduced activation.Given the opposite effect of Avoidance coping on non-threat and on threat inferences, a relative

activation score was computed (i.e. threat minus non-threat) on which multiple regression ana-lyses were performed (see Table 2). This analysis using relative activation scores is more sensitiveto the effects of avoidance coping than the separate anslyses for threat and non-threat inferences


(see earlier). The combined predictors accounted for a significant portion of variance (12%), F(4,75)=2.64, P<0.05. Avoidance coping made a significant unique contribution (10.4%),t(79)=2.99, P<0.01, with avoidance being related to reduced relative activation of threat infer-ences in comparison with non-threat inferences.

3.3. Discussion

As hypothesized, emotion-oriented coping facilitated inference processing of threat-relatedevents, whereas avoidance coping appeared to have promoted inhibitory processing of threat-related inferences, while facilitating non-threat inferences. Contrary to predictions, no relation-ship was found between task-oriented coping and threat-related or non-threat related inferences.The findings for avoidance-oriented coping styles support past research which suggests that

repressors have an opposite interpretive bias (Calvo & Eysenck, 2000; Derakshan & Eysenck, 1997;Eysenck &Derakshan, 1997). That is, avoidant copers tend to minimize the threat-related content ofstimuli and interpret ambiguous stimuli in a non-threatening manner. Thus, there seems to be anassociation between repressive coping and avoidance coping as both coping styles are predictive of acognitive bias characterized by the avoidance and minimization of ‘‘threatful’’ cues.The expected result that emotion-oriented coping facilitates the interpretive bias of threat-rela-

ted events supports past research which indicates that emotion-oriented coping involves focusingon the emotional aspects of the stressful situation and, thus, increases stress, anxiety and depres-sion (Endler & Parker, 1994, 1999). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that emotion-oriented personswould be more likely to focus on threat-relevant stimuli than persons high on avoidance coping.

Table 2Regression statistics of inference activation scores for threat-related words (predicting minus control condition) and on

relative activation (threat minus non-threat) on coping styles and gender

Beta
r sr2
Activation of threat: R2 =0.13*
Task-oriented coping �0.08 �0.11 0.01 Emotion-oriented coping 0.30 0.24 0.07** Avoidance-oriented coping �0.22 �0.20 0.04#
Gender
�0.11 �0.07 0.01
Relative activation of threat vs. non-threat: R2 =0.12*

0.05 0.06 0.00 Emotion-oriented coping 0.03 �0.05 0.00 Avoidance oriented coping �0.34 �0.35 0.10***
Gender
�0.02 �0.13 0.00
Positive relationships indicate that the predictor at issue was associated with increases in activation of threat-relatedinferences (i.e. shorter naming latencies for threat words following the predicting context than following the controlcontext). Negative scores indicate reductions in activation of threat inferences.

# P=0.06.* P<0.05.** P<0.025.*** P<0.01.


4. Experiment 3: memory bias

The aim of this experiment was to explore the role of coping styles in selective memory forthreat-related information. We used a procedure that has been demonstrated to detect this bias(Russo, Fox, Bellinger, & Nguyen-van-Tam, 2001). Essentially, at an initial learning phase, par-ticipants were presented with a list of words (including non-threat, positive, physical-threat, andego-threat words), in an incidental orienting task. This task (counting the number of syllables ofeach word of a list) is assumed to promote minimal semantic analysis. If, instead of focusing onlyon syllabic encoding, participants are diverted to dwell on the threat-related features of words,this would facilitate semantic processing of these words, which would lead to store and recallthreat-related words better than non-threat words. After this incidental learning phase, there wasan unexpected recognition test, in which we collected measures of hits and false alarms, and thensensitivity (d 0) and response criterion (�) scores were computed. The sensitivity and response criter-ion scores are essential indices to assess accurate memory and memory biases because they allow usto separate general memory from response biases. If there is a memory bias for threat-related words,then there will be increased hits and sensitivity for these words, in comparison with non-threat words.In contrast, a tendency to report threat-related words regardless of prior presentation (i.e. a less-stringent response criterion), would reveal a response bias rather than a genuine memory bias.

4.1. Method

4.1.1. ParticipantsOf the 86 undergraduates participating in Experiment 1, six did not attend Experiment 3 and

two more were excluded for not complying with the requirements of the syllable-coding task atthe learning phase. Accordingly, 78 participants (58 females; 20 males) were definitely accepted.

4.1.2. MaterialsA list of 64 target Spanish words (and six neutral fillers that were used to control for primacy

and recency effects) were presented to all participants, including 16 non-threat words (e.g. sock,avenue, compass, entrance, sea, wind, etc.), 16 positive words (e.g. admiration, fortune, affection,success, prize, excellent, etc.), 16 physical-threat words (e.g. murder, stab-wound, strangle, suicide,blood, rape, etc.), and 16 ego-threat words (e.g. mocking, error, incapacity, rejection, reproach,clumsy, etc.). These words were randomly mixed in two different orders for presentation at thelearning phase. A Oneway ANOVA (neutral vs. positive vs. physical-threat vs. ego-threat words)revealed no significant differences in frequency of use in written language, F <1, between the fourword types. The respective lexical frequency means were 25.7 vs. 25.4 vs. 25.4 vs. 24.2 occurrencesper million (Sebastian-Galles et al., 1996).

4.1.3. ProcedureAt the incidental learning phase, participants were told that they would be presented with a list

of words, one at a time, and asked to write on a scoring sheet the number of syllables of eachword as it was presented. Each word was displayed for four seconds on a wide screen, by meansof a computer connected to a projector. After all the words had been presented, they were pre-sented a second time in a different order. No mention was made that there would be a memory


test. At the end of the learning phase, there was a 5-min interval in which the experimenter talkedabout the relationship of phonological processing and the syllable-counting task.Then, at the memory phase, each participant was presented with 64 words on a sheet for a

recognition test. Of these words, eight of each type had previously been presented at the inci-dental learning phase, whereas another eight words of each type were lexical associates or syno-nyms of the remaining words, and therefore had not been actually presented (e.g. shoe for sock;street for avenue; north for compass; praise for admiration; luck for fortune; triumph for success;crime for murder; suffocate for strangle; insult for mocking; mistake for error; ineptitude for inca-pacity, etc.). Participants were asked to use a 4-point scale on which 1=completely sure it wasNOT presented, 2=fairly sure it was NOT presented, 3=fairly sure it WAS presented, and 4=verysure it WAS presented. Correct recognition or probability of hits was obtained from ‘‘Yes’’responses (i.e. 3+4) to the actually presented words; incorrect recognition or false alarm prob-ability was obtained from ‘‘Yes’’ responses (i.e. 3+4) to lexical associates of the presented words.These scores were then used to compute sensitivity (d 0) and response criterion (�), according tosignal-detection theory (MacMillan & Creelman, 1991).

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Preliminary analysesA 4 (word type)�2 (recognition measure) ANOVA was conducted on the probability of correct

and incorrect recognition scores for the non-threat words (hits:M=0.66, S.D.=0.23; false alarms:M=0.15, S.D.=0.16), positive words (M=0.74; S.D.=0.19;M=0.25, S.D.=0.22), physical-threatwords (M =0.77; S.D.=0.18; M=0.24, S.D.=.18) and ego-threat words (M=0.74; S.D.=0.21;M=0.23, S.D.=0.23). There were main effects of word type, F(3, 75)=11.95, P<0.001, andrecognition measure, F(1, 77)=586.61, P<0.0001, with no interaction, F <1. Hits and false alarmswere lower for non-threat words than for positive words, t(77)=3.30, P<0.001, t(77)=4.22,P<0.001, physical-threat words, t(77)=4.05, P<0.001, t(77)=3.52, P<0.001, and ego-threatwords, t(77)=3.37, P<0.001, t(77)=2.93, P<0.01, respectively. There were no significant dif-ferences between the three types of emotional words in either hits or false alarms (all ts<1).Sensitivity or discrimination scores (d 0=Z false alarms �Z hits) and response criterion scores

(b=Y hits / Y false alarms) were used as dependent variables in multiple linear regression ana-lyses for (a) non-threat words, and also for the differences (b) between positive and non-threatwords, (c) between physical-threat and non-threat words, and (d) between ego-threat and non-threat words (thus, non-threat words served as a baseline control). In signal-detection theory d 0

scores are assumed to indicate how much a stimulus is discriminated when it has been previouslypresented as compared with when it has not been presented. That is, d 0 is an index of accuraterecognition memory for presented information after controlling for false alarms. D0 varies fromzero to infinity, with larger values indicating greater sensitivity for discriminating old from newitems. � Scores are an index of response criterion which indicate the tendency to report words aspresented, regardless of prior presentation. � scores can vary around zero, with larger positivevalues indicating a conservative criterion and larger negative values indicating a liberal criterion(e.g. a response bias). For example, a high response criterion score indicates a cautious responsestyle, whereas a low score reveals a risky style. As in Experiments 1 and 2, the predictors were thethree coping modes and gender.


4.2.2. Relative contributions of coping styles4.2.2.1. Sensitivity. The combined predictors did not account for statistically significant changesin d0 scores for non-threat words, R2=0.04, F<1, nor for positive words, R2=0.05, F<1, physi-cal-threat words, R2=0.03, F<1, and ego-threat words, R2=0.03, F <1.

4.2.2.2. Response criterion. The combined predictors did not account for statistically significantchanges in �0scores for non-threat words, R2=0.06, F<1, positive words, R2=0.05, F <1, andego-threat words, R2=0.07, F(4, 72)=1.25, ns. For physical-threat words (see Table 3), the com-bined predictors accounted for a significant portion of the variance (13%), F(4, 72)=2.70,P<0.05. Emotion-oriented coping (6%) and Avoidance coping (6%) were the predictors makingsignificant unique contributions, t(76)=2.34, P<0.025, t(76)=2.39, P<0.025, respectively.However, their relationships with response criterion scores were in opposite directions: increasesin Emotion coping were associated with a lower criterion (i.e. a bias towards saying ‘‘Yes’’ to non-presented physical-threat words), whereas increases in Avoidance coping predicted lower criter-ion scores (i.e. a tendency to say ‘‘No’’ to non-presented physical-threat words).

4.3. Discussion

As predicted, participants high in emotion-oriented coping were more likely to make falsealarms for physical-threat words that had not been presented at the learning phase (i.e. a lessconservative response criterion); in contrast, participants high in avoidance coping showed atendency to report threat related words at the time of test only if they had in fact appeared at thelearning phase (i.e. a more conservative response criterion). Nevertheless, the fact that response

Table 3Regression statistics of response criterion (�) scores for physical- and ego-threat words (difference physical- or ego-threat minus non-threat) on coping styles and gender

Beta
r sr2
Physical-threat words: R2=0.13*
Task-oriented coping �0.03 �0.03 0.00 Emotion-oriented coping �0.27 �0.19 0.06** Avoidance-oriented coping 0.28 0.25 0.06**
Gender
0.07 0.08 0.00
Ego-threat words: R2=0.07

�0.15 �0.15 0.02 Emotion-oriented coping �0.10 �0.05 0.01 Avoidance oriented coping 0.20 0.19 0.04#
Gender
�0.04 0.03 0.00
Negative relationships indicate that the predictor at issue was associated with decrements in response criterion (i.e. aless conservative, or more risky, response style). Positive relationships indicate a more cautious response style.

# P=0.09.

* P<0.05.** P<0.025.


criterion, rather than sensitivity, was affected suggests that there is a response bias rather than abias affecting genuine memory processes, as a function of coping styles. In other words, it is atendency to report or to not report threat-related information that is affected, rather than a ten-dency to store and retrieve actually presented threat-related information.These findings clarify past research that shows equivocal results for the relationship between

coping and memory bias. In accord with past research on repressive coping (Davis, 1990; Myers& Brewin, 1995; Newman & Hedberg, 1999), avoidant copers do not have a tendency to remem-ber fewer threat-related events than other types of coping styles. Thus, refuting the existence ofavoidant copers possessing an opposite memory bias. Instead, as compared to other styles ofcoping, avoidant copers are less likely to make false alarms for physical threat words not pre-sented in the learning phase. That is, avoidant copers do no appear to be overwhelmed by threat-relevant material, and, therefore, can discriminate between presented and non-presented threatwords.Again, given that past research indicates that emotion-oriented coping involves focusing on

emotional content (Endler & Parker, 1994, 1999), it is not surprising that increases in emotioncoping was associated with an increased incidence of making false alarms for physical threatwords. Thus, as in Experiment 2, emotion-oriented coping is associated with an increased like-lihood to attend to threat-relevant stimuli.

5. General discussion

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the role of dispositional coping styles inattentional, interpretive, and memory biases in threat processing in three separate experiments. Insummary, task-oriented coping styles appeared to facilitate color-naming of threat-related words,whereas, avoidance coping styles were associated with a slower color-naming of threat relatedwords, suggesting increased attention to threatening stimuli. In addition, emotion-oriented copingstyles were associated with the facilitation of inference processing of threat-related events, whereasavoidance coping was related to the facilitation of non-threat inferences. Finally, there was aresponse bias in the recognition of presented and non-presented physical threat inferences whereinemotion-oriented coping was positively related to increased incidence of making false alarms forphysical threat. However, avoidance coping was negatively associated with reporting false alarms.Accordingly, avoidance coping appears to be involved in the initial attention to threat, as well

as the subsequent inhibition of threat elaboration and memory. On the other hand, emotion-oriented coping promotes additional processing of threat-relevant material, once threat has beendetected, including the facilitation of interpretive bias and memory bias for threat-related infor-mation. This interpretation regarding the time course of the influence of coping styles on cogni-tive biases is based on the assumption that the three different experimental tasks that we haveused are sensitive to different, sequential processing stages. Thus, the emotional Stroop taskwould assess automatic initial attention to threat meaning, as soon as the words were encoun-tered; the inference task measured activation of threat concepts 1050 ms after the presentation ofthe last word in the inducing context, and is thus thought to assess late elaborative processes; andthe recognition memory task, which took place even later in time (> 5 min), would assessretrieval and reconstruction of previously processed information.


This study broadened the scope of the literature on the relationship between cognitive biasesand coping styles by going beyond the focus on repression and investigating how other copingstyles contribute to these cognitive biases. The results of this study also demonstrate a similaritybetween the concepts of repression coping styles and avoidance coping styles as the findings fromthis study for avoidance are similar to the findings from past research on repression (Calvo &Eysenck, 2000; Davis, 1990; Derakshan & Eysenck, 1997; Eysenck & Derakshan, 1997; Myers &Brewin, 1995; Newman & Hedberg, 1999). Future research is needed to confirm this associationbetween repression and avoidance coping styles as well as to establish a connection betweenrepression and the other coping styles discussed in this paper (task and emotion).As discussed earlier (see discussion for Experiment 1), it is possible that the opposite attention

bias (e.g. faster color-naming times on the Stroop task for threat-related words as compared toneutral words) might not have been found because of the time course of the attention bias. Thatis, perhaps avoidance coping facilitates early processing of threat, but inhibits later processing(see Calvo & Eysenck, 2000). Initially, the attention of avoidant copers is captured by the threa-tening content of words; however, their subsequent efforts to inhibit this threatening contentresults in their delay in color naming times. This limitation of this study (e.g. the time course ofthe attention bias) should be addressed in future research.Finally, since this study has revealed a relationship between coping styles (task, emotion,

and avoidance) and cognitive biases, future research should address how these coping stylesmediate the known relationship between psychological distress (e.g. anxiety and depression)and cognitive biases. Attentional bias has been consistently found in high anxiety, and to alesser extent in depression; interpretive bias occurs in both emotional disorders; and evidencefor memory bias is more consistent for depression than for anxiety (for further discussion,see a recent integrative article by Hertel, 2002). These differential patterns in cognitive biasreflect main characteristics of anxiety as future-oriented worry (anticipating potential threat)and of depression as past-oriented rumination (dwelling on actual harm). In the present study,we have shown that coping styles are also differently related to cognitive biases, albeit not in thesame manner as depression and anxiety. Thus, whereas avoidance coping is directly related toattentional bias and inversely related to interpretive and memory bias, emotion coping is posi-tively related to interpretive and memory biases, but unrelated to attentional bias. This suggeststhat the contribution of these coping styles to cognitive biases does not overlap with that ofanxiety and depression. Accordingly, an issue for further research is to examine the relative roleof coping styles, as behavioural ways of responding to stressful events, and cognitive biases, asmental processes characterising vulnerability to anxiety and depression. In other words, futureresearch should address how coping styles interact with the processing styles involved in psycho-pathology.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grant BSO2001–3753 from the DGI, Spanish Ministry ofScience and Technology. The research in this article was also supported by a Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) doctoral fellowship awarded to the secondauthor, and by the SSHRC grant No. 410–2002–1417 awarded to the third author. We are


grateful to Angeles Sanchez-Elvira for providing us with the Spanish translated version of theCoping Inventory for Stressful Situations.

References

Becker, E. S., Rinck, M., Margraf, J., & Roth, W. T. (2001). The emotional Stroop effect in anxiety disorders: generalemotionality or disorder specificity? Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 15, 147–159.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the stress of life

events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139–157.Boden, J. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Repressive coping: distraction using pleasant thoughts and memories.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 45–46.

Brosschot, J. F., de Ruiter, C., & Kindt. (1999a). Recall and recognition of threatening, pleasant, and neutral words inrepressors. European Journal of Personality, 13, 1–14.

Brosschot, J. F., de Ruiter, C. & Kindt. (1999b). Processing bias in anxious subjects and repressors, measured byemotional Stroop interference and attentional allocation. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 777–793.

Calvo, M. G. (2000). The time course of predictive inferences depends on contextual constraints. Language and Cog-nitive Processes, 15, 293–319.

Calvo, M. G., & Castillo, M. D. (2001). Selective interpretation in anxiety: uncertainty for threatening events. Cogni-

tion and Emotion, 15, 299–320.Calvo, M. G., Castillo, M. D., & Estevez, A. (1999). On-line predictive inferences in reading: processing time during vs.after the priming context. Memory and Cognition, 27, 834–843.

Calvo, M. G., & Eysenck, M. W. (2000). Early vigilance and late avoidance of threat processing: repressive copingversus low/high anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 763–787.

Coyne, J. C., Aldwin, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Depression and coping in stressful episodes. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 90, 429–447.Cutler, S. E., Larsen, R. J., & Bunce, S. C. (1996). Repressive coping style and the experience and recall of emotion: anaturalistic study of daily affect. Journal of Personality, 64, 379–405.

Davis, P. J. (1990). Repression and the inaccessibility of emotional memories. In J. L. Singer (Ed.), Repression and

dissociation (pp. 387–403). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Dawkins, K., & Furnham, A. (1989). The colour naming of emotional words. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 383–389.

De Jongh, A., Ter Horst, G., Muris, P., & Merckerlbach, H. (1995). Looking at threat-relevant stimuli: the role ofanxiety and coping style. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 8, 37–45.

de Ruiter, C., & Brosschot, J. F. (1994). The emotional Stroop interference effect in anxiety: attentional bias or cog-

nitive avoidance? Behavior Research and Therapy, 32, 315–319.Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (1997). Interpretive biases for one’s own behaviour and physiology in high traitanxious individuals and repressors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 816–825.

Endler, N. S., Macrodimitris, S. D. & Kocovski, N. L. (2000). Controllability in cognitive and interpersonal tasks: is

control good for you? Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 951–962.Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: a critical evaluation. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 58, 844–854.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: task, emotion, and avoidance stra-tegies. Psychological Assessment, 6, 50–60.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1999). Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS): manual (2nd ed.). Toronto:

Multi-Health Systems.Endler, N. S., Speer, R. L., Johnson, J. M., & Flett, G. F. (2000). Controllability, coping, efficacy, and distress. Eur-opean Journal of Personality, 14, 245–264.

Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety: the cognitive perspective. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.Eysenck, M. W. (1997). Anxiety and cognition: a unified theory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.


Eysenck, M. W., & Derakshan, N. (1997). Cognitive biases for future negative events as a function of trait anxiety and

social desirability. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 597–605.Fleishman, J. A. (1984). Personality characteristics and coping patterns. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 229–244.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Healthand Social Behavior, 21, 219–239.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful

encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,992–1003.

Fox, E. (1993). Attentional bias in anxiety: selective or not? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 487–493.Fox, E. (1994). Attentional bias in anxiety: a defective inhibition process. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 165–195.

Hertel, P. T. (2002). Cognitive biases in anxiety and depression: introduction to the special issue. Cognition and Emo-tion, 16, 321–330.

Hope, D. A., Rapee, R. M., Heimberg, R. G., & Dombeck, M. J. (1990). Representations of the self in social phobia:

Vulnerability to social threat. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 177–189.Klin, C. M., Murray, J. D., Levine, W. H., & Guzman, A. E. (1999). Forward inferences: from activation to long-termmemory. Discourse Processes, 27, 241–260.

Kocovski, N. L. (2001). Attentional biases and coping with social anxiety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, YorkUniversity, Toronto, Canada.

Krahe, B. (1999). Repression and coping with the threat of rape. European Journal of Personality, 13, 15–26.

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: past, present, and future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 234–247.Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company,Inc.

MacMillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: a user’s guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Mattia, J. I., Heimberg, R. G., & Hope, D. A. (1993). The revised Stroop color-naming task in social phobics. Behavior

Research and Therapy, 31, 305–313.McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. jr. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal ofPersonality, 54, 385–405.

Myers, L. B., & Brewin, C. R. (1994). Recall of early experience and the repressing coping style. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 103, 288–292.

Myers, L. B., & Brewin, C. R. (1995). Repressive coping and the recall of emotional material. Cognition and Emotion,

9, 637–642.Myers, L. B., & McKenna, F. P. (1996). The colour naming of socially threatening words. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 20, 203–801.

Newman, L. S., & Hedberg, D. A. (1999). Repressive coping and the inaccessibility of negative autobiographical

memories: converging evidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 45–53.Oldenburg, C., Lundh, L. G., & Kivisto, P. (2002). Explicit and implicit memory, trait anxiety, and repressive copingstyle. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 107–119.

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

Russo, R., Fox, E., Bellinger, L., & Nguyen-van-Tam, D. P. (2001). Mood congruent free recall bias in anxiety. Cog-

nition and Emotion, 15, 419–433.Sebastian-Galles, N., Martı, M. A., Cuetos, F., & Carreiras, M. (1996). LEXESP: una base de datos informatizada delespanol [LEXESP: a computerized database of Spanish]. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat de Barcelona.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper.

Wells, A., & Matthews, A. (1994). Attention and emotion: a clinical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Williams, J. M., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996). The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology. PsychologicalBulletin, 120, 3–24.


coping styles and threat processing

Documents