Questionnaire “Methods of coping behavior” by Lazarus

The technique was developed by D. Amirkhan and is intended to diagnose the dominant coping strategies of an individual. Adapted for conducting research in Russian by N.A. Sirota (1994) and V.M. Yaltonsky (1995).

J. Amirkhan, based on factor analysis of various coping responses to stress, developed the “Coping Strategies Indicator”. He identified 3 groups of coping strategies: problem solving, seeking social support and avoidance.

The “Coping Strategies Indicator” can be considered one of the most successful tools for studying basic human behavior strategies. The idea of ​​this questionnaire is that all behavioral strategies that a person develops during his life can be divided into three large groups:

A problem-solving strategy is an active behavioral strategy in which a person tries to use all his available personal resources to find possible ways to effectively resolve a problem.

The strategy of seeking social support is an active behavioral strategy in which a person, in order to effectively resolve a problem, seeks help and support from his environment: family, friends, significant others.

An avoidance strategy is a behavioral strategy in which a person tries to avoid contact with the reality around him and avoid solving problems.

A person can use passive methods of avoidance, for example, going into illness or using alcohol or drugs, or he can completely “get away from solving problems” by using an active method of avoidance - suicide.

The avoidance strategy is one of the leading behavioral strategies in the formation of maladaptive, pseudo-coping behavior. It aims to overcome or reduce distress by a person who is at a lower level of development. The use of this strategy is due to the lack of development of personal-environmental coping resources and active problem-solving skills. However, it can be adequate or inadequate depending on the specific stressful situation, age and state of the individual’s resource system.

The most effective is to use all three behavioral strategies, depending on the situation. In some cases, a person can cope with the difficulties that arise on his own, in others he needs the support of others, and thirdly, he can simply avoid facing a problematic situation by thinking in advance about its negative consequences.

The subject's answers are compared with the key. To obtain an overall score for a given strategy, the sum of the scores for all 11 items related to that strategy is calculated. The minimum score for each scale is 11 points, the maximum is 33 points.

Method scales:

• Problem solving scale.
• “Seeking Social Support” scale.
• Problem avoidance scale.

Content

• 1 Description of the technique
• 2 Theoretical foundations
• 3 History of creation and validation
• 4 Internal structure 4.1 Confrontation
• 4.2 Distancing
• 4.3 Self-monitoring
• 4.4 Finding social support
• 4.5 Acceptance of responsibility
• 4.6 Flight-avoidance
• 4.7 Planning to solve a problem
• 4.8 Positive revaluation

Strategies for dealing with stress

A person's changing thoughts and actions in difficult situations that exceed his ability to solve the problem represent a way of coping with difficulties.

Resolution of a difficult situation occurs through the following actions:

• overcoming difficulties;
• reducing negative consequences;
• avoiding the problem;
• living through difficulties, the ability to endure them.

Coping with stress occurs through conscious strategies. The choice of behavioral reactions is determined by the nature of the individual and the situation. The individual either changes what is happening or adapts to events.

It cannot be said that one coping strategy is better or worse than another. The effectiveness of certain actions in different situations will vary from person to person. However, there are individuals who are better able to adapt to difficulties. Adaptability also depends on the society in which the individual is located and on social support.

The Lazarus coping strategies method takes into account 8 types of reactions to stress:

• confrontation;
• distancing;
• self-control;
• seeking social support;
• accepting responsibility;
• avoidance;
• problem solving planning;
• positive revaluation.

Confrontation. Resolving difficulties in this case is somewhat aggressive. The individual acts without relying on the final goal, negative emotional reactions are clearly manifested. It is difficult for such a person to plan behavior and predict the outcome of the situation. Anger and excessive stubbornness may also appear, and conflict may be created. The key element of this behavior is not solving the problem, but relieving psycho-emotional stress.

Confrontation helps you act, move the situation from a dead point, express your position and defend it. However, the downside of such a reaction is unreasonableness and thoughtlessness of actions. Where there is no awareness, it is difficult to come to an effective solution to the problem.

Distancing. Solving a mentally difficult task can be done by reducing its importance. The distancing strategy consists of a person’s attempts to switch off from the feeling of a problem, as if to devalue it. In this case, the person thinks about the situation and tries to clarify it. Also noted is a shift of attention from a problem point to something else, playfulness. The problem seems to not exist or it is not as significant as it seemed at first.

Distancing helps not to burn out psychologically and eases the emotional state. However, suppressing emotions regarding the significance of what is happening can lead to a lack of solution to the problem as such.

Self-control. This strategy involves suppressing emotions. A person tries to control his condition, choose an impartial model of behavior, and does not allow feelings and emotions to be inflated. When choosing a self-control strategy, an individual tends to hide his feelings about difficulties from other people. There is exaggerated control over one's actions and closedness.

Self-control helps to solve the problem in the most detached way, without unnecessary worries. At the same time, with this approach, needs and desires are hidden, which negatively affects satisfaction from solving the problem.

Seeking social support. Here, a person’s thoughts and actions are directed towards society. A person strives to receive material, mental and moral support from the outside. Stress manifests itself as an attempt to evoke sympathy from others, to speak out, and to receive recommendations on what to do.

Receiving help from other people helps resolve the problem, and at the same time creates dependence on other people’s assessments and the actions of others.

Taking responsibility. The advantage of this strategy is that the individual recognizes his participation in creating difficulties and understands his role in solving the problem.

Here there is thinking about your actions, searching for personal mistakes, identifying your negative qualities. The downside of the approach is excessive self-criticism, a feeling of hopelessness, dissatisfaction with oneself and what is happening.

Avoidance. Avoidant individuals try to avoid solving the problem: they refuse to acknowledge its existence, they are mistaken, they incorrectly assess what is happening, and they are distracted. Using this strategy, a person does not seem to notice the complexity and gets irritated when it is pointed out to him. Often, stress compensation is included through overeating and drinking alcohol. Psychologists consider avoidance not the most effective strategy, but in case of severe unexpected stress, this position helps reduce internal tension.

The main negative side of avoidance is considered to be its ineffectiveness in the long term. At the moment of stress, a person maintains his condition at the proper level, but the problem itself remains unresolved.

Planning to solve a problem . From the name of the strategy it is clear that the main behavioral mechanism here is the creation of a plan to get out of the situation. A person takes into account his experience, analyzes the possibilities and likely results of his actions. Scientists consider this type of behavior to be the most logical, helping to really sort out problems. The negative side of planning is the inability to instantly make the right decision using intuition. Flexibility and emotions when choosing the right actions fade into the background.

Positive revaluation. A difficult situation in this case is resolved by the individual through a change in attitude towards it. What is characteristic is positive rethinking, the ability to perceive difficulty as the next stage of self-development. The disadvantages of the strategy include a person’s possible inability to see other effective ways out of the current situation.

Description of the technique

The technique is intended to determine coping mechanisms, ways to overcome difficulties in various areas of mental activity, and coping strategies.

This questionnaire is considered the first standard technique in the field of measuring coping.

The technique was developed by R. Lazarus and S. Folkman in 1988, adapted by T.L. Kryukova, E.V. Kuftyak, M.S. Zamyshlyaeva in 2004, additionally standardized at the NIPNI named after. Bekhetereva L.I. Wasserman, B.V. Iovlev, E.R. Isaeva, E.A. Trifonova, O.Yu. Shchelkova, M.Yu. Novozhilova.

Theoretical basis

Coping with life's difficulties, according to the authors of the methodology, is an individual's constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts in order to manage specific external and (or) internal demands that are assessed by him as testing him or exceeding his resources. The task of coping with negative life circumstances is to either overcome difficulties, or reduce their negative consequences, or avoid these difficulties, or endure them. Coping behavior can be defined as purposeful social behavior that allows one to cope with a difficult life situation (or stress) in ways that are adequate to personal characteristics and the situation - through conscious strategies of action. This conscious behavior is aimed at actively changing, transforming a situation that can be controlled, or adapting to it if the situation is not controllable. With this understanding, it is important for the social adaptation of healthy people. His styles and strategies are considered as separate elements of conscious social behavior with the help of which a person copes with life's difficulties.

The effectiveness of a particular strategy depends on the characteristics of the current situation and available personal resources, therefore it is incorrect to talk about the adaptability/maladaptation of individual coping strategies. Strategies that are effective in one situation may be ineffective and even harmful in another. At the same time, a number of psychosocial factors are identified that contribute to adaptation to stressful situations, relatively independently of the characteristics of these situations. These include a complex of adaptive individual-typological (mainly cognitive-style) features (for example, coping competence, optimism, self-esteem, internal locus of control, resilience, etc.), as well as the properties of the social network and the adequacy of social support.

Description of the technique

The technique is intended to determine coping mechanisms, ways to overcome difficulties in various areas of mental activity, and coping strategies. This questionnaire is considered the first standard technique in the field of measuring coping. The technique was developed by R. Lazarus and S. Folkman in 1988, adapted by T.L. Kryukova, E.V. Kuftyak, M.S. Zamyshlyaeva in 2004.

Theoretical basis

Coping with life's difficulties, according to the authors of the methodology, is an individual's constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts in order to manage specific external and (or) internal demands that are assessed by him as testing him or exceeding his resources. The task of coping with negative life circumstances is to either overcome difficulties, or reduce their negative consequences, or avoid these difficulties, or endure them. Coping behavior can be defined as purposeful social behavior that allows one to cope with a difficult life situation (or stress) in ways that are adequate to personal characteristics and the situation - through conscious strategies of action. This conscious behavior is aimed at actively changing, transforming a situation that can be controlled, or adapting to it if the situation is not controllable. With this understanding, it is important for the social adaptation of healthy people. His styles and strategies are considered as separate elements of conscious social behavior with the help of which a person copes with life's difficulties.

Procedure

The subject is offered 50 statements regarding behavior in a difficult life situation. The subject must evaluate how often these behaviors occur in him.

Processing the results

1. count the points, summing up for each subscale:

• never – 0 points;
• rarely – 1 point;
• sometimes – 2 points;
• often – 3 points

2. calculate using the formula: X = sum of points / max point*100

The questionnaire numbers (in order, but different) work on different scales, for example, in the “confrontational coping” scale questions are 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37, etc. The maximum value on the question that the subject can score is 3, and for all questions of the subscale the maximum is 18 points, the subject scored 8 points: 8/18*100=44.4% - this is the level of tension of confrontational coping.

3. It can be determined more simply by the total score:

• 0-6 – low level of tension, indicates an adaptive version of coping;
• 7-12 – average, adaptive potential of a person in a borderline state;
• 13-18 – high intensity of coping, indicates pronounced maladjustment.

Key

• Confrontational coping – points: 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37.
• Distancing – points: 8, 9, 11, 16, 32, 35.
• Self-control – points: 6, 10, 27, 34, 44, 49, 50.
• Seeking social support – points: 4, 14, 17, 24, 33, 36.
• Taking responsibility – points: 5, 19, 22, 42.
• Escape-avoidance – points: 7, 12, 25, 31, 38, 41, 46, 47.
• Planning to solve a problem - points: 1, 20, 30, 39, 40, 43.
• Positive revaluation – points: 15, 18, 23, 28, 29, 45, 48.

Interpretation of results

Description of subscales

1. Confrontation. Resolving a problem through not always targeted behavioral activity or the implementation of specific actions. Often the strategy of confrontation is considered as non-adaptive, but when used in moderation, it ensures the individual’s ability to resist difficulties, energy and enterprise in resolving problem situations, and the ability to defend one’s own interests;
2. Distancing. Overcoming negative experiences in connection with a problem by subjectively reducing its significance and the degree of emotional involvement in it. Characteristic is the use of intellectual techniques of rationalization, switching attention, detachment, humor, devaluation, etc.;
3. Self-control. Overcoming negative experiences in connection with the problem through targeted suppression and containment of emotions, minimizing their influence on the perception of the situation and the choice of behavioral strategy, high control of behavior, the desire for self-control;
4. Seeking social support. Resolving the problem by attracting external (social) resources, searching for informational, emotional and effective support. Characterized by a focus on interaction with other people, expectation of support, attention, advice, sympathy, specific effective help;
5. Taking responsibility. Recognition by the subject of his role in the emergence of the problem and responsibility for its solution, in some cases with a distinct component of self-criticism and self-accusation. The expression of this strategy in behavior can lead to unjustified self-criticism and self-flagellation, feelings of guilt and chronic dissatisfaction with oneself;
6. Escape-avoidance. An individual’s overcoming of negative experiences due to difficulties through an evasion-type response: denial of the problem, fantasizing, unjustified expectations, distraction, etc. With a clear preference for the avoidance strategy, infantile forms of behavior in stressful situations may be observed;
7. Planning to solve a problem. Overcoming a problem through a targeted analysis of the situation and possible behavior options, developing a strategy for resolving the problem, planning one’s own actions taking into account objective conditions, past experience and available resources;
8. Positive revaluation. Overcoming negative experiences in connection with a problem by reframing it positively, viewing it as a stimulus for personal growth. It is characterized by a focus on transpersonal, philosophical understanding of the problem situation, its inclusion in the broader context of the individual’s work on self-development.

Coping test answer sheet

Kryukova T.L., Kuftyak E.V. Questionnaire of ways of coping (adaptation of the WCQ technique) / Journal of a practical psychologist. M.: 2007. No. 3 P. 93-112.

History of creation and validation

The questionnaire was created on the basis of the first methodological development of Folkman & Lazarus (1980) - the Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC) questionnaire, which consisted of 68 statement items formulated on the basis of conceptual developments and the results of empirical research. Subsequently, the content and structure of the questionnaire were revised and re-evaluated. As amended in 1998, the questionnaire contains 66 statements combined into 8 scales.

In 2004, the technique was slightly reduced to 50 points and validated on the Russian population.

At NIPNI named after. The Beheterva technique has been restandardized. The already validated version of 50 questions was subjected to reformulation of the questions, and validated on a sample of 1600 subjects - both mentally healthy and sick.

Internal structure

The questionnaire consists of 50 statements grouped into 8 scales. The questionnaire numbers (in order, but different) work on different scales, for example, in the “confrontational coping” scale questions are 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37, etc.

Confrontation

The confrontation strategy involves attempts to resolve the problem through not always targeted behavioral activity, the implementation of specific actions aimed either at changing the situation or at responding to negative emotions in connection with the difficulties that have arisen. With a pronounced preference for this strategy, impulsivity in behavior (sometimes with elements of hostility and conflict), hostility, difficulties in planning actions, predicting their results, correcting behavioral strategies, and unjustified perseverance can be observed. In this case, coping actions lose their purposefulness and become primarily the result of a release of emotional tension. Often the confrontation strategy is considered maladaptive, but when used in moderation, it ensures the individual’s ability to resist difficulties, energy and initiative in resolving problem situations, the ability to defend one’s own interests, and cope with anxiety in stressful conditions.

Positive aspects: the ability to actively confront difficulties and stressful effects. Negative aspects: lack of focus and rational validity of behavior in a problem situation.

Distancing

The distancing strategy involves attempts to overcome negative experiences in connection with a problem by subjectively reducing its significance and the degree of emotional involvement in it. The use of intellectual techniques of rationalization, switching attention, detachment, humor, devaluation, etc. is typical.

Positive aspects: the ability to reduce the subjective significance of intractable situations and prevent intense emotional reactions to frustration. Negative aspects: the likelihood of devaluing one’s own experiences, underestimating the significance and possibilities of effectively overcoming problematic situations.

Self-control

The self-control strategy involves attempts to overcome negative experiences in connection with a problem by purposefully suppressing and restraining emotions, minimizing their influence on the assessment of the situation and the choice of behavior strategy, high behavioral control, and the desire for self-control. With a clear preference for the self-control strategy, an individual may experience a desire to hide from others his feelings and motives in connection with a problematic situation. Often this behavior indicates a fear of self-disclosure, excessive demands on oneself, leading to over-control of behavior.

Positive aspects: the ability to avoid emotional, impulsive actions, the predominance of a rational approach to problem situations. Negative aspects: difficulties in expressing experiences, needs and motivations in connection with a problematic situation, overcontrol of behavior.

Finding social support

The strategy of seeking social support involves attempts to resolve the problem by attracting external (social) resources, searching for informational, emotional and effective support. Characterized by a focus on interaction with other people, an expectation of attention, advice, and sympathy. The search for primarily informational support involves seeking recommendations from experts and acquaintances who, from the respondent’s point of view, have the necessary knowledge. The need primarily for emotional support is manifested by the desire to be listened to, to receive an empathic response, and to share one’s experiences with someone. When searching for predominantly effective support, the leading factor is the need for help with specific actions.

Positive aspects: the ability to use external resources to resolve a problem situation. Negative aspects: the possibility of developing a dependent position and/or excessive expectations in relation to others.

Taking responsibility

The strategy of accepting responsibility involves the subject recognizing his role in the emergence of the problem and responsibility for its solution, in some cases with a distinct component of self-criticism and self-blame. When used moderately, this strategy reflects the individual’s desire to understand the relationship between one’s own actions and their consequences, the willingness to analyze one’s behavior, and look for the causes of current difficulties in personal shortcomings and mistakes. At the same time, the expression of this strategy in behavior can lead to unjustified self-criticism, feelings of guilt and dissatisfaction with oneself. These features are known to be a risk factor for the development of depressive conditions.

Positive aspects: the ability to understand the personal role in the emergence of current difficulties. Negative aspects: the possibility of unfounded self-criticism and taking on excessive responsibility.

Escape-avoidance

The escape-avoidance strategy involves an individual’s attempts to overcome negative experiences due to difficulties by reacting in an evasive manner: denying the problem, fantasizing, unjustified expectations, distraction, etc. With a clear preference for an avoidance strategy, unconstructive forms of behavior can be observed in stressful situations: denial or complete ignoring of the problem, avoidance of responsibility and actions to resolve difficulties, passivity, impatience, outbursts of irritation, immersion in fantasies, overeating, drinking alcohol, etc. , in order to reduce painful emotional stress. Most researchers consider this strategy as non-adaptive, but this circumstance does not exclude its usefulness in certain situations, especially in the short term and in acute stressful situations.

Positive aspects: the ability to quickly reduce emotional tension in a stressful situation. Negative aspects: the impossibility of resolving the problem, the likelihood of accumulation of difficulties, the short-term effect of actions taken to reduce emotional discomfort.

Planning to solve a problem

The strategy for planning a solution to a problem involves attempts to overcome the problem through a targeted analysis of the situation and possible behavior options, developing a strategy for resolving the problem, planning one’s own actions taking into account objective conditions, past experience and available resources. The strategy is considered by most researchers as adaptive, contributing to constructive resolution of difficulties.

Positive aspects: the ability to purposefully and systematically resolve a problem situation. Negative aspects: the likelihood of excessive rationality, insufficient emotionality, intuitiveness and spontaneity in behavior.

Positive revaluation

The strategy of positive reappraisal involves attempts to overcome negative experiences in connection with a problem by reframing it positively, viewing it as a stimulus for personal growth. It is characterized by a focus on transpersonal, philosophical understanding of the problem situation, its inclusion in the broader context of the individual’s work on self-development.

Positive aspects: the opportunity to positively rethink a problematic situation. Negative aspects: the likelihood of an individual underestimating the possibilities of effectively resolving a problem situation.

Coping behavior: analytical review of foreign studies

The problem of individual coping behavior in stressful situations began to be developed in psychology from the beginning of the 20th century. A large number of theoretical and empirical studies have been devoted to this topic, during which the following were identified: the basics of methodology, the problem of definitions, the essence of the phenomenon, the specifics of action and influence on adaptation, as well as age, gender and cultural characteristics.

At the present stage of development of psychology, there are several approaches to studying the concept of coping behavior. In Western literature, coping behavior implies two phenomena: psychological defense and coping behavior. The concept of “psychological defense” (defensive behavior) was formed in the psychoanalytic views of S. Freud, and was first mentioned in his work “Defensive neuropsychoses” (1894). This concept was then examined in more detail by Anna Freud and presented in her work “The Psychology of the Self and Defense Mechanisms” (1993). According to the psychoanalytic approach, psychological defense is a mechanism aimed at reducing tension and anxiety in a situation of intrapsychic conflict in order to preserve the integrity and adaptation of the individual. And it is characterized by two main criteria: unconsciousness and involuntariness.

Later in 1962, the term “coping” appeared in the psychological literature. L. Murphy used it when studying ways to overcome developmental crises in children [. The concept of “coping” comes from the English word “cope” and is translated as “to cope”, “to cope”. L. Murphy identified the relationship between coping behavior and individual typological characteristics of the individual, and past experience of coping with stress; and also identified two components of coping - cognitive and behavioral.

Further development of the problem of coping and the development of its main provisions are associated with the cognitive model of R. Lazarus (1966). He wrote the book “Psychological Stress and the Process of Coping with It,” in which the author presented a description of conscious strategies for coping with stress, situations of tension and anxiety [7]. According to R. Lazarus, the basis for regulating the interaction of the individual with the external environment is the continuously changing process of cognitive assessment, coping and emotional processing [12]. Cognitive assessment of a situation involves “primary” and “secondary” perception. Initially, the individual defines the problematic event as unstable and dangerous, then, taking into account the degree of impact and properties of the stress factor, his personal characteristics, he selects coping options. The above processes lead to the formation of certain forms of coping behavior. R. Lazarus defined coping as “the desire to solve problems that an individual exhibits in a situation (associated with danger or great success), which has conditions for activating adaptive capabilities, in order to maintain physical, personal and social well-being” [11]. Based on this definition, a three-factor model of coping mechanisms was presented, including coping strategies, coping resources and coping behavior [6, 11]. Coping strategies serve as the basis of this model and are defined as an individual’s reaction to an emerging danger in order to overcome it. Coping resources refer to relatively stable personality characteristics, serve as support for the individual’s internal state in the process of coping with stress and contribute to expanding the repertoire of coping strategies. Coping behavior is behavior determined by the presence of external and internal resources in combination with the use of coping strategies. This three-factor model of coping mechanisms by R. Lazarus is the starting point for all subsequent research in this area.

N. Haan (1977) distinguished between the concepts of coping and psychological defense mechanisms [9]. Coping is understood as a process characterized by purposefulness, flexibility and relevance in the choice of actions to cope with stress. Psychological defense, in turn, represents passive and rigid forms that distort or repress reality. That is, we can talk about a psychological defense mechanism focused on leveling intrapsychic experiences, and about coping focused on consciously changing the situation.

With each decade, attention to the problem of coping behavior increased, the number of theoretical developments and practical research increased [5,6,9,10]. R. Lazarus and S. Folkman identified two areas of coping strategies. These are problem-focused strategies, including planning to solve a problem and seeking social support. They imply a rational approach, analysis of the situation, search for additional information, selection of ways out of a problem situation. And emotionally-focused strategies focused on emotional response in situations of stress. Among them are confrontation, self-control, distancing, positive reappraisal, taking responsibility, escape - avoidance.

R. Moos and J. Schaefer (1986) identified three types of coping:

1) Appraisal-focused coping, which includes logical analysis, cognitive reappraisal or determination of the significance of an event, mental forms of planning, as well as cognitive avoidance or denial;

2) Problem-focused coping involves searching for additional information and support, taking actions to resolve the problem and, in connection with this, predicting outcome options;

3) Emotionally focused coping includes effective management of one’s own emotions and feelings, emotional unloading and submissive acceptance [13]. Thus, the authors identified cognitive, behavioral and emotional coping, and said that to successfully cope with a stressful situation, an equal proportion of each of them is necessary.

In a number of works, coping strategies are distinguished taking into account the degree of adaptive capabilities. Thus, R. Moos and A. Billings (1984) [3,4] presented adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies. The authors classified problem solving and seeking social support as adaptive strategies, and self-blame and avoidance as low-adaptive strategies. E. Heim (1988) [10] identified adaptive, partially adaptive and non-adaptive strategies in each of the areas of implementation of coping strategies (cognitive, behavioral, emotional). J. Amirham (1999) believed that the type and strength of the stress factor does not affect an individual’s choice of a specific coping strategy and defined these strategies as stable characteristics, dividing them into adaptive and maladaptive strategies [2]. In turn, S. Maddi (1999) chose intensity as a classification criterion and divided all coping strategies into active (resilient coping) and passive using non-constructive strategies [14]. The basis of the classification by E. Frydenberg (2004) is defined through a measure of effectiveness or ineffectiveness and assumes the following types: productive coping - cognitive analysis and preservation of the optimistic component; unproductive coping strategy - avoidance; and “turning to others” stands apart, as it is an ambiguous strategy [8].

Particular attention in foreign psychology is paid to the systematization of coping strategies proposed by E. Skinner (2006) and called the “coping family.” It includes twelve sections, including problem resolution, information seeking, helplessness, avoidance, self-confidence, support seeking, delegation, social isolation, accommodation, negotiation, submission, resistance. Each section has its own strategies, similar in focus and function. For example, “problem solving” as a higher-order category includes not only generating a solution to a problem situation, but also other coping methods designed to coordinate actions to obtain the desired result and prevent negative consequences, such as planning, decision-making, choice of tools, effort and correction. In addition, some of the families have complementary adaptive functions. Thus, the search for support in combination with self-confidence allows the individual to manage coping strategies at the stage of their development; and negotiation with adaptation leads to agreement on goals and available capabilities. The study of higher-order families helps to clarify the complex structure of coping and identify its adaptive functions.

A different view on the problem of coping behavior was proposed by J. Vaillant (2011). According to the author, if the reaction to stress can be considered from two points of view - pathological processes or coping, then coping behavior under stress can be divided into three main categories. The first coping category involves voluntarily receiving help and support from another, for example, by mobilizing social support. The second coping category involves such voluntary strategies as collecting information, the ability to anticipate danger and rehearse responses to it. This category corresponds to the cognitive strategies of the theory of R. Lazarus and S. Folkman. The third coping category is involuntary and entails the deployment of unconscious stable mechanisms (altruism, humor, sublimation, etc.), leading to a reduction in the disturbing or traumatic effects of sudden stress. Thus, according to J. Vaillant, an individual’s resilience and adaptation can be defined as the ability to recover from stress through adaptive healthy strategies.

The review of foreign studies on coping behavior made it possible to perform a comparative analysis of existing views on the problem of adaptation and overcoming stressful situations by an individual, to present a plurality of classifications of coping strategies, and also to consider the measure of their effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Thus, the analytical review makes it possible to create an opportunity for a comprehensive and more complete understanding of coping mechanisms, with the aim of developments focused on solving applied problems.

Literature:

1. Nikolskaya I. M., Granovskaya R. M. Psychological protection in children. - St. Petersburg: Rech, 2000.

2. Amirkhan JH Seeking person-related predictors of coping: Exploratory analyzes // European Journal of Personality. 1999.

3. Billings, A.G., & Moos, R.H. The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the impact of stressful life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1981.

4. Billings, A.G., & Moos, R.H. Coping, stress, and social resources among audits with unipolar depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984.

5. Folkman S., Lazarus, R.S. // J. Hlth Soc. Behav/ - 1980. - Vol. 21.

6. Folkman S., // J. Person. Soc. Psychol. - 1984. - Vol. 46, N 5.

7. Frydenberg E. Beyond Coping. Meeting goals, visions and challenges. — Oxford University Press, 2002.

8. Frydenberg E. Coping competencies // Theory into Practice. 2004.

9. Haan N. // Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects / Eds L. Goldberger, S. Breznitz. — New York, 1982.

10. Heim E/ // Psychother. Psychosom. Med. Psychol. — 1988.

11. Lazarus, RS // Models for Clinical Psychopathology. - Ney York, 1981.

12. Lazarus, R. S., Folkman, S., Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer, 1984.

13. Moos RH, Schaefer JA // Life Transitions and Crises: A Conceptual Overview / Eds. Coping with life crises: An integrated approach (3-28). — 1986.

14. Maddi SR The personality construct of hardiness: Effects on experiencing, coping, and strain // Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 1999.

Processing and interpretation of results

Raw Points Key

• Confrontational coping
  - points: 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37.
• Distancing
  - points: 8, 9, 11, 16, 32, 35.
• Self-control
  - points: 6, 10, 27, 34, 44, 49, 50.
• Seeking social support
  - points: 4, 14, 17, 24, 33, 36.
• Taking responsibility
  - points: 5, 19, 22, 42.
• Flight-avoidance
  - points: 7, 12, 25, 31, 38, 41, 46, 47.
• Planning to solve a problem
  - points: 1, 20, 30, 39, 40, 43.
• Positive revaluation
  - points: 15, 18, 23, 28, 29, 45, 48.

Adapted by Kryukova et al.

1.

We calculate points by summing up for each subscale:

• never – 0 points;
• rarely – 1 point;
• sometimes – 2 points;
• often - 3 points

2.

calculated using the formula:
X = sum of points / max score * 100
The maximum value for a question that a subject can score is 3, and for all questions of the subscale a maximum of 18 points.

For example, if the subject scored 8 points:

- this is the level of tension of confrontational coping.

3.

It can be determined more simply by the total score:

• 0-6 – low level of tension, indicates an adaptive version of coping;
• 7-12 – average, adaptive potential of a person in a borderline state;
• 13-18 – high intensity of coping, indicates pronounced maladjustment.

Adapted by Wasserman et al.

After calculating the “raw” indicators on the scales, it is necessary to convert them into standard T-scores using the developed tables. Tables for converting “raw” indicators into standard T-scores were compiled based on a statistical analysis of the results of a survey of a representative sample of 1,627 people.

The degree of preference for the subject’s strategy for coping with stress is determined based on the following conditional rule:

• score less than 40 points – rare use of the appropriate strategy;
• 40 points ≤ score ≤ 60 points – moderate use of the appropriate strategy;
• a score of more than 60 points indicates a strong preference for the corresponding strategy.

Table for converting raw grades to standard scores

Lazarus coping test. Assessment of behavior in difficult life situations

Lazarus Coping Test

Instructions

You are offered 50 statements regarding behavior in difficult life situations. In the line with the statement, circle the option that most often manifests itself in your behavior.

Test

Thanks for answers!

The key to the coping test for assessing behavior in a difficult life situation of Lazarus

Description

The Lazurus test is designed to determine coping mechanisms, ways to overcome difficulties in various areas of mental activity, and coping strategies. This test is considered the first standard technique in the field of measuring coping. The technique was developed by R. Lazarus and S. Folkman in 1988, adapted by T.L. Kryukova, E.V. Kuftyak, M.S. Zamyshlyaeva in 2004.

Coping with life's challenges is an individual's constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are assessed by him as testing or exceeding his resources. The task of coping with negative life circumstances is to either overcome difficulties, or reduce their negative consequences, or avoid these difficulties, or endure them.

Coping behavior can be defined as purposeful social behavior that allows one to cope with a difficult life situation (or stress) in ways that are adequate to personal characteristics and the situation - through conscious strategies of action. This conscious behavior is aimed at actively changing, transforming a situation that can be controlled, or adapting to it if the situation is not under control. With this understanding, it is important for the social adaptation of healthy people. His styles and strategies are considered as separate elements of conscious social behavior with the help of which a person copes with life's difficulties.

The subject is offered 50 statements regarding behavior in a difficult life situation. The subject must evaluate how often these behaviors occur in him.

Key to the test

• Confrontational coping – points: 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37.
• Distancing – points: 8, 9, 11, 16, 32, 35.
• Self-control – points: 6, 10, 27, 34, 44, 49, 50.
• Seeking social support – points: 4, 14, 17, 24, 33, 36.
• Taking responsibility – points: 5, 19, 22, 42.
• Escape-avoidance – points: 7, 12, 25, 31, 38, 41, 46, 47.
• Planning to solve a problem - points: 1, 20, 30, 39, 40, 43.
• Positive revaluation – points: 15, 18, 23, 28, 29, 45, 48.

Processing the results

1. Calculate points by summing for each subscale:

• never – 0 points;
• rarely – 1 point;
• sometimes – 2 points;
• often – 3 points.

2. Calculate using the formula: X = total points / max point × 100.

The questionnaire numbers (in order, but different) work on different scales, for example, in the “confrontational coping” scale questions are 2, 3, 13, 21, 26, 37, etc. The maximum value for a question that a subject can score is – 3, and for all questions of the subscale – a maximum of 18 points, the subject scored 8 points:

– this is the level of tension of confrontational coping.

3. It can be determined more simply by the total score:

• 0–6 – low level of tension, indicates an adaptive version of coping;
• 7–12 – average, adaptive potential of a person in a borderline state;
• 13–18 – high intensity of coping, indicating pronounced maladjustment.

Interpretation of the result

Confrontational coping. Aggressive efforts to change the situation. Involves a certain degree of hostility and risk-taking.

Distancing. Cognitive efforts to disassociate from a situation and reduce its significance.

Self-control. Efforts to regulate one's feelings and actions.

Seeking social support. Efforts to find informational, effective and emotional support.

Taking responsibility. Recognizing your role in the problem with the accompanying theme of trying to solve it.

Escape-avoidance. Mental drive and behavioral efforts aimed at escaping or avoiding a problem.

Planning to solve a problem. Voluntary problem-focused efforts to change the situation, including an analytical approach to the problem.

Positive revaluation. Efforts to create positive meaning with a focus on personal growth. Also includes a religious dimension.

Practical significance

The technique can be used to study behavioral characteristics in problematic and difficult situations for the individual, and to identify characteristic ways of overcoming stress in different groups of subjects. The questionnaire can be effective in solving problems of professional selection (especially for work in stressful conditions), identifying risk factors for mental maladjustment under stressful conditions. The questionnaire, in combination with other methods, can be used to assess the effectiveness of psychocorrectional measures and psychotherapy. Indications for the use of the questionnaire are also mass screening studies within the framework of psychohygienic and psychoprophylactic programs.

Relative contraindications to the use of the SSP questionnaire include the age of the subject under 14 and over 60 years. The use of the technique in these age groups of subjects reduces the level of validity of the test results obtained.

Identifying results and interpreting them

Counting and summing the scores completes the Lazarus coping test. Interpretation involves identifying the number of points for each strategy and analyzing the result. The more points a specific behavior style scores, the more often the test taker uses it when difficulties arise.

According to Kryukova, the result is calculated differently:

1. Scoring for each behavior strategy.
2. Identification of the level of importance of the strategy using the formula: number of points scored / maximum score (equal to 18) * 100. Let's say the test taker scored 9 points, then the calculation looks like this: 9/18 * 100 = 50. The number 50 reflects the level of use of the strategy.
3. It is also possible to determine the overall level of tension based on the total score for the test:

• 0-6 – low tension, a person acts effectively under stress;
• 7-12 – average tension;
• 13-18 – high level of tension, a person has difficulty adapting to stress.

The methodology form can be downloaded here -

Experimental results

Group of patients with endogenous psychoses

The technique has shown its effectiveness as a component of complex psychodiagnostics in the clinic. So, at NIPNI im. Bekhterev proposed a comprehensive psychodiagnostic technique for patients with endogenous psychoses, including examination using the life style index, TOBOL and Lazarus coping test questionnaires. The results obtained from this study are presented below and on the corresponding methods pages.

The examination was carried out on a sample of 410 patients: schizotypal disorder (82 people), paranoid schizophrenia (93 people), schizoaffective disorder (26 people) and bipolar disorder (73 people), who were treated in the department of community psychiatry of the NIPNI clinic named after. Bekhterev.

Bold

The values ​​for which significant differences were obtained are highlighted.

A group of military personnel who experienced traumatic events

For the purpose of experimental psychological assessment of stress-coping behavior strategies of individuals whose professional activities take place in stressful conditions, 168 military personnel were examined. The first group consisted of military personnel from among the submarine crews (61 people in total, average age 32.96 + 0.8 years, average length of service in officer positions 13.19 + 0.8 years.) The military personnel were examined at the Northern naval base fleet of the Russian Navy, located in the city of Severomorsk, Murmansk region. The second group is first-year students at the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia (70 people in total) who agreed to participate in the study. The average age of the subjects was 18.78+0.13 years. The third group included military personnel with a clinically verified diagnosis of adaptation disorder (F 43.2 according to ICD-10).

The study was conducted on the basis of psychiatric clinics in the city of St. Petersburg - Military District Hospital No. 442 named after. Z.P. Solovyov, Psychiatry Clinic of the Military Medical Academy named after. CM. Kirov. All studied patients (a total of 37 people aged 24–51 years, average age 32.2±1.83 years) were in hospital treatment at the time of the examination. Among the reasons that determined the formation of adaptation disorders, problems in interpersonal (most often family) relationships, as well as problems in the professional and labor sphere, prevailed. Data on the predominant forms of stress-coping behavior in subgroups are presented in the table.

Bold

The values ​​for which significant differences between the group and the group of military personnel with adaptation disorder were obtained were highlighted.

The text of the questionnaire for diagnosing coping strategies by D. Amirkhan, adapted by N.A. Orphans and V.M. Yaltonsky

Instructions : The question form presents several possible ways to overcome problems and troubles. After reading the statements, you will be able to determine which of the proposed options you usually use.

Try to think of one of the serious problems that you faced over the past year that made you quite worried. Describe this problem in a few words.

Now, as you read the statements below, choose one of the three most appropriate answers for each statement.

I completely agree.

Agree.

I don't agree.

Literature

1. Kryukova T.L., Kuftyak E.V. Questionnaire of ways of coping (adaptation of the WCQ technique) / Journal of a practical psychologist. - M.: 2007. No. 3. - P. 93-112.
2. Methods of psychological diagnosis of patients with endogenous disorders. Advanced medical technology. SPb NIPNI im. Bekhetereva, St. Petersburg, 2007
3. A technique for psychological diagnostics of ways to cope with stressful and personally problematic situations. A manual for doctors and medical psychologists of the NIPNI named after. Bekhetereva, St. Petersburg, 2009