http://top.sagepub.com/Teaching of Psychology

http://top.sagepub.com/content/38/1/36The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0098628310390852

2011 38: 36Teaching of PsychologyJamie S. Hughes, Mary K. Gourley, Laura Madson and Katya Le BlancStress and Coping Activity : Reframing Negative Thoughts

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Society for the Teaching of Psychology

can be found at:Teaching of PsychologyAdditional services and information for     

  http://top.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://top.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Jan 1, 2011Version of Record >>

by guest on April 10, 2012top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Methods and Techniques

Stress and Coping Activity:Reframing Negative Thoughts

Jamie S. Hughes,1 Mary K. Gourley,2 Laura Madson,3 andKatya Le Blanc3

AbstractStress management and coping techniques are not only relevant in many psychology courses but also personally relevant forundergraduate students. In this article, the authors describe an activity designed to provide students with practice evaluatingand challenging negative self-talk. Students responded to scenarios individually, were paired with another student to challengeerroneous and negative thoughts, and then joined with another pair of students to discuss the activity generally. When comparedto students who heard a lecture about reframing and negative self-talk, students who participated in the activity were more likelyto advise negative thinkers to challenge their thoughts and beliefs.

Keywordscollaborative learning, stress management, coping, negative self-talk

In psychology courses, one of the most important and relevant

topics for non–psychology majors is stress and coping.

However, as class time is often limited, students may not learn

valuable coping skills. To help students learn these skills, we

developed a reframing activity.

Negative self-talk is often an automatic reaction to stressful

events. Reframing is a coping technique that assists one in

becoming aware of one’s internal monologue; reframing

widens one’s perspective of particularly challenging situations

(Seaward, 2006). Steps involved in reframing include becoming

aware of one’s thoughts, evaluating content, and challenging

negative perceptions by questioning their validity.

Awareness of self-talk relates to emotional intelligence,

self-awareness, and the regulation of emotions (Depape,

Hakim-Larson, Voelker, Page, & Jackson, 2006). Furthermore,

modification of negative self-talk is important in the process of

learning to regulate feelings. Morin (1995, 2005) suggested

that recognizing self-talk helps people reproduce perspectives

of others in private speech and incorporate multiple perspectives

into social and emotional problem solving. Moreover, self-

awareness, monitoring, and communication of one’s thoughts,

feelings, and behaviors are essential prerequisites for healthy

emotional functioning (Saarni, 1999).

Although others have investigated the value of stress

management courses for the promotion of stress reduction

(Archer, 1986; Deffenbacher & Shepard, 1989; Romano,

1984; Somerville, Allen, Noble, & Sedgwick, 1984), to our

knowledge there is no research examining the effectiveness

of relatively short coping activities. The current activity helps

students recognize self-talk in response to stressors and reframe

their negative thoughts. The reframing activity utilizes the

think, pair, square, and share technique. Students work

individually, then find a partner, and finally join another pair

to complete activities (Lymna, 1981; Millis & Cottell, 1998).

We used an interactive, discussion-based activity because such

activities enhance enjoyment and learning (Smith et al., 2009).

To evaluate the effectiveness of the reframing activity, we

taught the activity and measured learning by asking students

to apply their knowledge to a real-world setting. Students gave

advice to a person with chronic negative thoughts. These open-

ended answers were compared to answers provided by students

who had received a lecture regarding reframing of negative

self-talk. We predicted that students in the activity condition

would provide better advice to a negative thinker than would

students in the lecture condition.

Method

Participants

A total of 143 students (79 female, 61 male, 3 unidentified)

from a midsize southwestern university participated. Students

1 Daemen College, Amherst, NY, USA2 Gaston College, Dallas, NC, USA3 New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jamie S. Hughes, Daemen College, Department of Psychology, 4380 Main

Street, Amherst, NY 14226

Email: jhughes@daemen.edu

Teaching of Psychology38(1) 36-39ª The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0098628310390852http://top.sagepub.com

by guest on April 10, 2012top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

were 19 years of age on average (SD ¼ 1.83). The two classes

were similar in terms of demographics. In all, 63 students

(52% female) were in the activity condition and 80 students

(60% female) were in the lecture condition. The majority of

students reported that they were traditional students (activity

89%, lecture 95%) in their freshman or sophomore year

(activity 87%, lecture 91%).

Materials

Students read three scenarios describing stressful events they

might encounter. We drew events from a survey completed the

previous semester (see Appendix A). On the following page,

10 questions (see Appendix B) challenged common thinking

mistakes and erroneous cognitions thought to lead to negative

emotions or maladaptive behaviors (Beck, 1976; Ellis, 1994).

Following the questions, we provided space for positive

reframes. Finally, students answered general discussion ques-

tions designed to help them integrate their knowledge. We

administered the learning measure immediately following the

lecture or activity. Each student provided advice to a person

with chronic negative thoughts; students could list up to two

pieces of advice, as we provided two spaces. Students also

completed four items pertaining to their enjoyment and subjec-

tive learning. Students rated the extent to which the activity or

lecture was interesting, fun, and useful and the extent to which

they believed they had learned a coping strategy on 7-point

scales ranging from 1 (very little) to 7 (very much).

Design and Procedure

To evaluate learning outcomes, we compared a reframing

activity to a lecture about reframing. We introduced the activity

and lecture during the stress and psychological disorders sec-

tion of the course schedule. However, students did not receive

any prior information about the topic in either class, and we had

not assigned the stress and health chapter in the textbook. Both

the reframing activity (taught by the first author) and the

lecture (taught by the fourth author) required approximately

40 minutes of class time.

Students responded to each scenario individually by listing

their thoughts and feelings. After this, the instructor provided

a rationale for engaging in the activity, stating that although

individuals may be unable to change a stressor, they are able

to change their reactions to it by learning to recognize, chal-

lenge, and change negative self-talk. Students paired with a

partner to challenge and reframe negative thoughts. As a pair,

they chose one of the scenarios and considered the questions

designed to challenge erroneous beliefs or cognitions. Based

on their answers to the questions, students wrote a positive

reframe for the scenario. Students repeated the activity by chal-

lenging their negative thoughts and writing reframes for an

additional scenario of their choosing. Then, student pairs found

another partner pair (i.e., sat in groups of four) to discuss ques-

tions that would help them to generalize and integrate their

knowledge (see Appendix C). Finally, student groups wrote

their answers to the question, ‘‘Based on this exercise, what

advice would you give a chronic negative thinker?’’ on the

board, and an in-class discussion regarding stress and personality

styles ensued.

Students who attended the lecture received information

regarding the definition of stress, the connection between stress

and health, and common coping strategies. Importantly, we

provided information about negative self-talk. The instructor

taught students how to recognize negative self-talk and com-

mon thinking mistakes. In addition, the instructor provided

examples regarding how to challenge maladaptive cognitions.

Results

We used students’ practical application of the material via the

advice they provided to a negative thinker to assess learning.

We created categories based on a pilot test from the previous

semester. Course instructors analyzed and coded students’

open-ended responses from their classes. The second author,

who was blind to condition, made final decisions regarding the

coding of responses by assessing the extent to which the stu-

dents’ statements matched the given category. Cohen’s kappa

(k¼ .70) showed that there was substantial agreement between

raters. We collapsed categories such as ‘‘think positive’’ and

‘‘increase your self-confidence’’ to create six categories of

advice. The resulting categories included suggestions such as

(a) think positively or increase one’s self-esteem; (b) perform

a distracting activity; (c) be patient, simply get over it, or don’t

worry about it; (d) seek social support from friends or a coun-

selor; (e) challenge erroneous beliefs or negative thoughts or

examine the issue from multiple perspectives; and (f) problem

solve by objectively weighing the plusses and minuses.

The first three categories largely represented platitudes or

avoidant strategies. The last three categories provided specific

information about challenging thoughts, viewing situations

from many perspectives, or directly coping with stressors.

To ensure that there were no systematic differences in per-

ceived stress between students in the lecture versus activity

conditions, students answered the following question approxi-

mately a week before the activity or lecture: ‘‘Compared to the

average person, to what extent are you currently experiencing

stress?’’ Students in the activity (M¼ 0.91, SD¼ 1.49) and lec-

ture conditions (M ¼ 1.20, SD ¼ 1.38) did not differ with

regard to experienced or perceived stress, t(141) ¼ –1.23,

p ¼ .22.

We analyzed students’ advice by activity versus lecture con-

ditions using a chi-square test. We conducted separate analysis

for the two pieces of advice. Students who completed the

activity were more likely to suggest cognitive reframing or

problem-solving strategies, whereas students in the lecture

were more likely to give cliched advice about positive thinking,

w2(5, N ¼ 140) ¼ 25.64, p < .01, V ¼ 0.43 (see Table 1). The

second set of responses also showed a significant association

between condition and the type of advice provided, w2(5,

N ¼ 128) ¼ 15.98, p < .01, V ¼ 0.35, with a greater proportion

of students in the activity condition advising another to challenge

Hughes et al. 37

by guest on April 10, 2012top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

negative thoughts or take other perspectives (see Table 1).

Finally, we collapsed the first and second pieces of advice and

coded the problem solving, social support, and reframing items

with a 1 and coded the advice about positive thinking, patience,

and performing activities with a 2. Responses coded with a 1 rep-

resented concrete and active coping advice. Responses coded

with a 2 represented platitudes or avoidant coping strategies. Stu-

dents in the activity condition were more likely to advise active

coping (63% vs. 37%) and less likely to suggest passive coping

techniques (29% vs. 71%) than those in the lecture condition,

w2(1, N ¼ 268)¼ 30.90, p < .01, V ¼ 0.34.

Finally, we created two scales for the survey items regarding

the extent to which students learned a coping technique and found

the lecture or activity useful, fun, and interesting. We averaged

ratings that were related to learning (coping skills and usefulness;

a ¼ .80) and enjoyment (fun and interesting; a ¼ .87). Our

analysis revealed that the reframing activity students (M ¼5.00, SD ¼ 1.51) were more likely than those in the lecture

(M¼ 4.31, SD¼ 1.31) to report that they learned a useful coping

technique, t(138)¼ 2.85, p < .01, d¼ 0.49. Furthermore, students

in the reframing condition reported more enjoyment of the

activity (M ¼ 4.82, SD ¼ 1.45) than did students in the lecture

condition (M¼ 3.64, SD¼ 1.48), t(138)¼ 4.72, p < .01, d¼ 0.81.

Discussion

When asked to apply their knowledge in a practical setting (i.e.,

provide advice to someone who has chronic negative thoughts),

a greater proportion of students in the reframing activity condi-

tion suggested people try to challenge their beliefs and thoughts

and to examine a stressor from many perspectives to reframe

negative thoughts. Furthermore, compared to students in the

lecture condition, a greater proportion of students in the refram-

ing activity condition suggested active coping techniques.

Finally, students who participated in the reframing activity

reported they learned more and found the activity more enjoy-

able than did those who received a lecture.

Our data provide evidence that active, discussion-based

learning techniques can be more effective for student learning

outcomes than traditional lecture-based techniques. However,

researchers should investigate boundary conditions. For exam-

ple, discussion-based techniques may be effective only with

certain types of students (i.e., traditional students) or may assist

students only when they are learning a new skill. In the future,

researchers could design experiments to examine these ques-

tions or investigate the possibility that active learning increases

both short- and long-term retention of course material.

There are a few limitations of the current study. Most impor-

tant, random assignment between conditions was not possible.

Differences may exist between students who chose to sign up

for the two sections of the course. However, both classes were

on campus, used the same textbook, and were non–night

classes, so it is unlikely that there were systematic differences

in coping skills between the two. Furthermore, perceptions of

stress did not differ between the two groups of students. Other

limitations include demand effects and potential bias in the

coding of students’ open-ended responses. For example, it is

possible that the instructors unwittingly provoked demand

effects, as both were aware of the hypotheses and independent

variables.

The reframing activity educates students about controlling

their own stress and negative self-talk. However, instructors

should not use it in lieu of a lesson on stress and its conse-

quences because general information about stress and health

may increase the subjective value of coping techniques.

Instructors should highlight that reframing is a coping mechan-

ism; some individuals who are suffering from depressive and

anxiety symptoms should seek the advice of a professional

counselor or psychologist.

We recommend the reframing activity to instructors who

would like to use an engaging teaching tool to discuss stress and

coping. Instructors can use this activity in a variety of courses

such as introductory psychology, health psychology, abnormal

psychology, and others in which stress is a relevant topic. The

reframing activity, like other active learning techniques, can

increase comprehension and retention of course material (Bern-

stein, 1999) and can be conducive to lively discussions regard-

ing self-awareness, pessimism, cognitive restructuring

techniques, and other forms of active coping, such as problem

solving and time management. The activity can be time-

consuming in large classrooms. Instructors wishing to shorten

the activity could ask student pairs to respond to only one sce-

nario of their choice instead of two. Alternatively, instructors

could provide their own examples of negative self-talk and ask

students to challenge erroneous beliefs (using self-created ques-

tions or those provided in the appendixes).

Table 1. Percentage of Students Listing a Type of Advice by Condition

Advice Category Advice 1 Advice 2

Lecture (%) Activity (%) Lecture (%) Activity (%)

A. Think positively or increase your self-esteem 47.4 25.8 26.0 21.8B. Perform an activity to distract yourself from the stressor 12.8 0.0 17.8 7.3C. Be patient, get over it, or don’t worry about it 16.7 12.9 21.9 7.3D. Seek social support from friends or a counselor 6.4 12.9 8.2 14.5E. Challenge erroneous beliefs or examine the issue from multiple perspectives 12.8 40.0 15.0 40.0F. Problem solve by objectively weighing the plusses and minuses 3.8 8.1 11.0 9.1

N ¼ 143.

38 Teaching of Psychology 38(1)

by guest on April 10, 2012top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Appendix A

Stressful Event Scenarios

Students read the following scenarios. We drew events from a pilottest. Each scenario includes an example of a positive reframe. Thepercentage of students listing the item is included in parentheses.

1. You just bombed an exam. You really needed a good grade.(25.7%)a. Reframe example: One good thing about this experience is that I

have learned that I need to study more for this type of exam.2. You have to pay an unexpected bill and it causes an avalanche of

financial strain. (17.4%)a. Reframe example: This is not the end of the world. The worst

thing that could happen is that I have to borrow money; in afew months everything will be fine. From now on I’ll try savinga little money for unexpected bills.

3. You just had a terrible argument with your best friend or signifi-cant other. It ended badly and you will not be able to talk to theperson until tomorrow. (26.3%)a. I cannot read her mind so I will not jump to conclusions about

what she is thinking. A little time away from the situation maybe good.

Appendix B

Questions Used to Challenge Negative Thoughts

1. Are these thoughts really true?2. Are the negative aspects of this situation overemphasized?3. What is the worst thing that could really happen?4. Is there anything that might be positive about this situation?5. Was a negative outcome assumed?6. How do you know the situation will turn out badly?7. Is there another way to look at this situation?8. What difference will this make next week? In a month? In a year?9. If you had one month to live, how important would this be?

10. Are you setting unrealistic standards for yourself? Would you bethis harsh if the event had happened to a friend?

Appendix C

Application Questions Used in the Final Portion of the Activity

1. Based on this exercise what advice would you give a chronicnegative thinker?

2. How could one more readily recognize when one was engaging innegative thinking? And how could one put a stop to the process ofnegative thinking?

3. How will each of you use this exercise to challenge negativethoughts in the future?

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect

to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or

authorship of this article.

References

Archer, J. (1986). Stress management: Evaluating a preventive

approach for college students. Journal of American College

Health, 34, 157-160.

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders.

New York, NY: International University Press.

Bernstein, D. A. (1999). Tell and show: The merits of classroom

demonstrations. In B. Perlman, L. I. McCann, & S.

H. McFadden (Eds.), Lessons learned: Practical advice for the

teaching of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 105-108). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Society.

Deffenbacher, J. L., & Shepard, J. M. (1989). Evaluating a seminar on

stress management. Teaching of Psychology, 16, 79-81.

Depape, A. R., Hakim-Larson, J., Voelker, S., Page, S., & Jackson, D. L.

(2006). Self-talk and emotional intelligence in university students.

Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 38, 250-260.

Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy: Revised and

updated. Secaucus, NJ: Carol.

Lymna, F. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion. In

A. S. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming digest (pp. 109-113). College

Park: University of Maryland, College of Education.

Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher

education faculty (American Council on Education, Series on

Higher Education). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.

Morin, A. (1995). Preliminary data on a relation between self-talk and

complexity of the self-concept. Psychological Reports, 76,

267-272.

Morin, A. (2005). Possible links between self-awareness and inner

speech: Theoretical background, underlying mechanisms, and

empirical evidence. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12, 115-134.

Romano, J. L. (1984). Stress management and wellness: Reaching

beyond the counselor’s office. Personnel and Guidance Journal,

62, 533-537.

Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New

York, NY: Guilford.

Seaward, B. L. (2006). Stress management: Principles and strategies for

health and well-being (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Weiman, C., Knight, J. K.,

Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student

performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122-124.

Somerville, A. W., Allen, A. R., Nobel, B. A., & Sedgwick, D. L.

(1984). Effect of a stress management class: One year later. Teach-

ing of Psychology, 11, 82-85.

Hughes et al. 39

by guest on April 10, 2012top.sagepub.comDownloaded from