A STRUCTURAL MODEL USING MALADJUSTMENT AND ACTIVE COPING TO
PREDICT DISTRESS
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
by
Vincenzo G. Roma
SUMMER
2013
A STRUCTURAL MODEL USING MALADJUSTMENT AND ACTIVE COPING TO
PREDICT DISTRESS
A Thesis
by
Vincenzo G. Roma
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Rebecca P. Cameron, Ph. D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Lawrence S. Meyers, Ph. D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Kelly Cotter, Ph. D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Vincenzo Girolamo Roma
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
A STRUCTURAL MODEL USING MALADJUSTMENT AND ACTIVE COPING TO
PREDICT DISTRESS
by
Vincenzo Girolamo Roma
The present study examined the links between maladjustment (i.e., neuroticism, intolerance
of uncertainty, and avoidant coping), active coping (i.e., individual and social), and distress
(i.e., tense depression, anxious arousal, and perceived stress) in a structural model. Four
hundred forty college students (80.0% female and 34.2% European-American/White) at a
large public university in the Western United States volunteered to participate in exchange
for course credit. Questionnaires were used to measure study variables. Results from the
structural model were partially consistent with previous research suggesting that
maladjustment was linked to greater distress and active coping was related to lower distress.
Unexpectedly, maladjustment was related to higher active coping in the mediated model.
Future research should evaluate alternative coping methods for effectiveness among
maladjusted individuals managing distress.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Rebecca P. Cameron, Ph.D.
___________________________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Rebecca P. Cameron, and my committee
members, Dr. Lawrence S. Meyers and Dr. Kelly Cotter, for their guidance and support
during the course of graduate school and for their expertise in areas of my thesis. I am
also extremely grateful for the support of my parents, Lorenza and Claudio Roma, who
have believed in me from the beginning and have made sure that I never missed out on
anything while in graduate school. Lastly, I am grateful for the understanding from my
fiancée Marissa Sanfilippo who has endured my absence during graduate school.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements………………………………………………….......................... v
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………....……….. ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………..…………………….. 1
2.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE.………………………………………………….. 4
Maladjustment…………………………………………………………....….. 4
Maladjustment Predicts Distress…………………………………………..… 9
Maladjustment Predicts Lower Active Coping………………………..….… 10
The Role of Active Coping in Maladjustment and Distress ............................12
Hypotheses .......................................................................................................14
3. METHOD..... ..........................................................................................................15
Participants .......................................................................................................15
Measures ..........................................................................................................15
Procedure .........................................................................................................19
4. RESULTS…….. .................................................................................................... 20
Overview of Analytic Strategy… ....................................................................20
Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................20
vi
5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 37
Appendix A. Consent Form ....................................................................................... 43
Appendix B. Debriefing Form ................................................................................... 45
Appendix C. Demographic Questionnaire ..................................................................46
References……………………………………………………………………………51
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations for Indicator Variables …22
2.
Total Variance Explained of the SACS Subscales.……………………….…. 23
3.
Structure Matrix of the SACS Subscales with Promax Rotation ...……….….24
4.
Total Variance Explained of the SACS Subscales, Neuroticism, and
Intolerance of Uncertainty …………………………...………………....…… 25
5.
Structure Matrix of the SACS Subscales, Neuroticism, and Intolerance of
Uncertainty with Promax Rotation………………… ……………...………... 26
6.
Total Variance Explained of the MASQ Subscales ……...………….….….... 27
7.
Factor Loadings from the Principle Components Factor Analysis of the
MASQ Items with Promax Rotation
8.
………………………………...….… 28
Summary of Casual Effects of the Hypothesized Model ………...….………..35
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1.
Model 1 for Distress with Errors.....…...…………..............................….31
2.
Respecified Model 1 with Standardized Coefficients and Correlated
Errors…………………………………...………………………….….....33
3.
Unmediated Model with Standardized Coefficients ……………………36
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Although the links among personality, stress, coping, and anxiety have been wellstudied, the links between these variables and intolerance of uncertainty (IU) are not fully
established. The construct of IU has been defined as a “dispositional characteristic that
results from a set of negative beliefs about uncertainty and its implications” (Dugas &
Robichaud, 2007, p. 24). The research that has been conducted suggests that IU may
serve as a potential general vulnerability to symptoms of anxiety and negative mood
(Koerner & Dugas, 2008). Understanding how IU relates to personality, and to what
extent IU plays a role in coping efforts, is important in order to determine whether IU
might be an appropriate target for intervention to increase resilience to anxiety and
distress (or dysphoria). To date, IU has not been studied in relation to coping, and the
links between IU and neuroticism have only been examined in a handful of studies.
The present study was designed to address these gaps in the literature using a
structural path model. Specifically, this study focused on evaluating dispositional
maladjustment (i.e., neuroticism, IU, and avoidant coping style) as a predictor of distress
(i.e., perceived stress, tense depression, and anxious arousal) (see Figure 1). Additionally,
active coping (i.e., social and individual coping) was hypothesized to mediate the
relationship between maladjustment and distress. Whereas some research has examined
2
the relations among IU, neuroticism, coping, anxiety, and stress, researchers have
typically focused on just two or three of these variables within a study. Given that there
is often an interplay of personality, coping, and cognition on anxiety and distress, this
study was designed to examine these relationships together within a single structural
model.
The number of college students with severe psychological problems has increased
on university campuses in the United States, according to directors of university and
college counseling centers (Mistler, Reetz, Krylowicz, & Barr, 2012). Mental disorders
account for almost half of the disease burden for young adults in the U.S., and most
lifetime mental disorders have first onset by the age of 24 (Kessler, Berglund, & Demler,
2005; World Health Organization, 2004). Distress among college students has frequently
been evaluated in terms of anxiety and depressive symptoms. Research from a random
sample of colleges and universities drawn from 26 institutions revealed that 17% of
students screened positive for symptoms of depression and 10% screened positive for
anxiety disorders (e.g., panic or generalized anxiety disorder) (Hunt & Eisenburg, 2010).
Nationwide data from 2011-2012 suggests that the most common psychological problems
college counseling centers address are anxiety (approximately 42%) and depression
(approximately 36%) (Mistler et al., 2012). Distress among college students is likely to
be persistent over time. For example, longitudinal studies have revealed that 60% of
students having a mental health problem in 2005 also had a problem in 2007 (Zivin,
3
Eisenberg, Gollust, & Golberstein, 2009). Additionally, the college career represents a
period of transition to adulthood, and untreated mental disorders may have a significant
impact on academic success, productivity, and social relationships (Kessler, Foster, &
Saunders, 1995; Kessler, Walters, & Forthofer, 1998).
College students’ level of anxiety- and mood-related distress ranges from
subclinical to clinical. Among a sample of college student clients drawn from several
U.S. universities, about 21% were classified as having severe treatment concerns,
including severe mood, post traumatic stress, substance dependence, and psychotic
disorders (Mistler et al., 2012). Forty percent of these college student clients were
classified as having mild treatment concerns, such as adjustment disorder diagnoses or Vcodes (i.e., non-diagnosable treatment foci) (Mistler et al., 2012). Researchers have found
that over one-third of the student population has a mental health problem, suggesting that
understanding factors that increase risk is important (Zivin, et al., 2009).
4
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Maladjustment
Intolerance of Uncertainty
The construct of IU was derived from a cognitive model of Generalized Anxiety
Disorder (GAD) (Dugas, Gagnon, Ladouceur, & Freeston, 1998). The most recent
empirically-derived factor structure of IU based on a large sample (N = 1,230) suggests
two major components (Sexton & Dugas, 2009). The first factor, labeled ‘Uncertainty
Has Negative Behavioral and Self -Referent Implications,’ “encompasses the belief that
being uncertain impairs behavior and reflects badly on an individual’s character” (Sexton
& Dugas, 2009, p. 183). The second factor, ‘Uncertainty Is Unfair and Spoils
Everything,’ “reflects the belief that the future should be predictable and that
unpredictability is unfair and therefore distressing” (Sexton & Dugas, 2009, p. 183).
Understanding the construct of IU as part of maladjustment is important because
results of a number of studies suggest that IU may serve as a general vulnerability to
dysphoria (i.e., depressive symptoms) and anxiety (Ciarrochi, Said, & Deane 2005;
Dugas et al., 1998; Dugas & Ladouceur, 2000; Freeston et al., 1994). IU has been found
to be related to a number of distressing symptoms, particularly worry, as discussed below
(Dugas et al., 2008; Tallis, Davey, & Capusso, 1994; Tallis, Eysenck, & Mathews 1991).
5
In a study examining the influence of IU on the frequency of social comparisons, IU was
a strong predictor of social comparisons, anxiety, and depressive symptoms among
undergraduate students (Butzer & Kuipner, 2006). In clinical studies, research on IU has
primarily focused on the link to anxiety symptoms, demonstrating that IU is linked to
(GAD), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD)
symptoms after accounting for other vulnerabilities (i.e., positive and negative affect and
anxiety sensitivity; Fergus & Wu, 2011; Norton & Mehta, 2007).
A substantial amount of IU research has investigated its role as a specific
cognitive vulnerability to GAD. Some researchers propose that IU intensifies “what if”
questions (i.e., ruminations on uncertainty) about future events that may in turn may lead
to increases in anxiety (Dugas et al., 1998). Additionally, Ciarrochi and colleagues (2005)
suggest that anxiety is likely to follow if individuals’ thinking (e.g., “what if questions”)
is focused on the anticipation of an undesirable event. According to Ladouceur and
colleagues (1995; as cited in Dugas et al., 2008), individuals with GAD showed higher
levels of IU than those with other anxiety disorders (i.e., panic disorder or social phobia).
However, emerging evidence suggests that IU may be a shared element of emotional
disorders, not exclusively related to anxiety (Boswell et al., 2013). That is, “difficulty
tolerating uncertainty is present in various emotional disorders characterized by negative
affect as are cognitive and behavioral attempts to reduce uncertainty and enhance
perceptions of control” (Boswell et al., 2013, p. 2). For example, IU has been linked to
6
symptoms of depression in non-clinical samples (Berenbaum et al., 2008; de Jong-Meyer,
Beck, & Riede, 2009; Liao & Wei, 2011). In clinical samples, IU has been linked to
major depressive disorder (MDD) and depressive symptoms (Brown & Naragon-Gainey,
2013; Norton, Sexton, Walker, & Norton, 2005; Yook, Kim, Suh, & Lee, 2010). A metaanalysis comparing the effect sizes of IU on measures of MDD, GAD, and OCD revealed
that the relationship between IU and MDD had the largest effect size; findings such as
these suggest that IU is a shared element of emotional disorders (Gentes & Ruscio, 2011).
Although IU was derived from and continues to be studied among clinical
samples (Freeston et al., 1994), it has been studied within non-clinical samples as well
(Chen, 2010; Fergus & Wu 2011; Khawaja, 2011; Khawaja, 2011; Konstanelou, 2010;
Lao, 2011; Luhmann, 2011; Nelson, 2011; Rucker, 2010). As noted above, IU has been
found to be related to broader distress variables, including worry (Buhr & Dugas, 2006;
de Jong-Meyer et al., 2009; Dugas et al., 1998).
Neuroticism
Neuroticism, also known as negative affectivity, has been described as a stable
and general trait dimension, which predisposes individuals to “a broad range of negative
moods, cognitions and self appraisal” (Robichau & Dugas, 2005, p. 2). Neuroticism
predicts both non-clinical distress and clinical disorders (e.g., GAD, Major Depressive
Disorder (MDD), and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) (Clark et al., 1994; Clayton, Ernst,
& Angst, 1994; Malouff et al., 2005; Watson et al., 2005). In clinical studies, neuroticism
7
predicts mood disorders more strongly than it predicts externalizing problems such as
substance use disorders and antisocial behavior (Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson,
2010; Malouff et al., 2005; Watson, Gamez, & Sims, 2005). In non-clinical studies,
researchers agree that neuroticism is a significant vulnerability factor for the development
of depression and depressive symptomatology in longitudinal as well as cross-sectional
studies (Clark et al., 1994; Clayton, et al., 1994; Watson et al., 2005).
Neuroticism has also been linked to anxiety symptoms and disorders (Bienvenu &
Stein, 2003; Clark et al., 1994 Mineka et al., 1998; Watson et al., 2005). In addition,
higher levels of neuroticism have been linked to lower overall life satisfaction and
happiness (Pavot et al., 1990; Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008; Yik & Russell, 2001), and
higher stress exposure and threat appraisals (Carver et al., 2010; Grant & Langan-Fox
2006, Vollrath & Torgersen 2000). Additionally, researchers have found that neuroticism
is associated with more avoidant coping (Carver et al., 2010; Conner-Smith et al., 2007).
Given the link between neuroticism and distress, neuroticism appears to be an important
facet of overall maladjustment (Carver et al., 2010; Conner-Smith et al., 2007).
Avoidant Coping
Avoidant coping is a style aimed at escaping a threat or related emotion, whereas
active coping is aimed at dealing with the stressor or related emotion (Carver et al.,
2010). According to Folkman et al. (1986), coping is defined as “cognitive and
behavioral efforts to manage demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the
8
resources of the person.” Coping has been examined as a situational variable (i.e., a
response to a specific stressor), but it has also been looked at as a dispositional variable;
individuals may be seen as having a characteristic coping style (Hobfoll, Dunahoo, BenPorath, & Monnier, 1994). An avoidant coping style is generally linked to worsening
distress rather than improved resilience, whereas an active coping style has generally
been found to be beneficial in reducing distress (Carver & Conner-Smith., 2010). Despite
the goal of escaping distress, avoidant coping is generally ineffective in reducing distress
over the long term (Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010). That is, attempting to escape distress
essentially does nothing to alter the threat’s existence and its impact on well-being.
Carver and Conner-Smith (2010) argue that “for many stresses, the longer one avoids
dealing with the problem, the more intractable it becomes and the less time is available to
deal with it when one finally turns to it” (p. 686). Avoidant coping is linked to intrusive
thoughts about stressors and to negative mood and anxiety (Najmi & Wegner 2008).
According to Lengua et al., (1999), avoidant coping may be reinforced through
short-term distress relief which in turn reduces the motivation to actively deal with the
stressor. As a result, active forms of coping may not be pursued (Lengua et al., 1999).
Avoidant coping also intensifies the link between vulnerability to social stress and
internalizing problems (Conner-Smith & Compass, 2002). Therefore, avoidant coping
styles appear to be maladaptive for reducing distress, and may make the utilization of
more adaptive (i.e., active) coping strategies more difficult or unlikely.
9
Maladjustment Predicts Distress
Maladjustment was conceptualized in the present study as IU, neuroticism, and
avoidant coping, each of which has been associated with distress (Berenbaum et al.,
2008; Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010). For example, De Bruin, Rassin and Muris found
that neuroticism was associated with IU, and both were related to the excessive worry
found among people with GAD (2007). Additionally, IU and neuroticism appear to
contribute to worry in both clinical and non-clinical samples (De Bruin et al., 2007;
McEvoy & Mahoney, 2012; Norton et al., 2005; Sexton, Norton, Walker, & Norton
2003). IU and neuroticism have also been found to be positively linked to other anxiety
symptoms in a clinical sample with primary GAD (van der Heiden et al., 2010).
Researchers have found that IU is strongly linked to anxiety symptoms and serves as a
risk factor for other emotional disorders, including depressive symptomatology (Boswell,
Thompson-Hollands, Farchione, & Barlow, 2013). Additionally, as noted above, Najmi
and Wegner (2008) found that avoidant coping led to an increase in intrusive thoughts
about the stressor and eventually to negative mood and anxiety symptoms. These findings
taken together suggest that neuroticism, IU, and avoidant coping are dispositional factors
that frequently contribute to distress.
Active Coping
Active coping is generally defined as an effort to deal with a stressor or related
emotion (Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010); like avoidant coping, it can be conceptualized
10
as situational or dispositional. Hobfoll and colleagues (1994) conceptualized active
coping as a two-faceted style involving both individual and social coping. Specifically,
active coping can be relatively autonomous and self-focused (individual) or it can involve
the positive use of social resources to aid coping efforts (social) (Hobfoll et al., 1994).
This model of coping expands from the traditional individualistic perspective in that
coping does not just differ based upon the type of individual effort (e.g., active vs.
avoidant). Rather, coping can be interpreted as a phenomenon involving both personal
and social resources and having both personal and social implications (Buchwald, 2003).
According to Monnier and colleagues (1998), the traditional model of coping is limiting
because it emphasizes personal outcomes while downplaying the potential for social
consequences of coping, which in turn have implications for long-term well-being.
Including both individual and social coping strategies may be particularly important for
studies focused on women and diverse groups, for whom relational well-being is
particularly salient (Dunahoo et al., 1998; Monnier et al., 1998).
Maladjustment Predicts Lower Active Coping
Individuals high in maladjustment may be less likely to utilize active coping when
feeling overwhelmed or stressed. Evidence suggests that neuroticism is associated with
less active coping (Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010; Conner-Smith et al., 2007). For
example, neuroticism has been found to predict less problem solving, cognitive
restructuring, and acceptance, but more seeking of emotional support and distraction
11
Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010). Additionally, negative affect is expected to make
positive thinking and cognitive restructuring less likely (Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010).
Neuroticism has also been linked to limited coping strategies across a variety of stressful
situations (Lee-Baggley et al., 2005). These findings suggest that dispositional
maladjustment impedes the selection of effective coping strategies.
The relationship of IU to coping style has not been researched directly. However,
psychological inflexibility may narrow an individual’s range of coping responses
(Priester & Clum, 1993), making it more difficult to effectively cope with stress (Priester
et al., 1993). For example, in a study evaluating category responses to a categorization
task, people with high IU created fewer alternative categories (Neuberg & Newsom,
1993). This finding suggests that individuals with high IU will have a smaller arsenal of
coping strategies to utilize.
Individuals having high IU and worry have been shown to require more
information before arriving at a decision, suggesting that they may have higher standards
for obtaining evidence (Tallis et al., 1991). The need for more information among
individuals intolerant of uncertainty might be a means or coping strategy for avoiding the
ambiguous threat, thus, lowering the level of uncertainty. For example, Rosen et al.
(2007) found that experimentally inducing IU led to increased desire for threat-relevant
information as well as more information-seeking intentions. However, although high IU
increased information seeking, higher anxiety followed when faced with a health threat.
12
Rosen et al. (2010) replicated these findings, without experimentally manipulating IU,
among women obtaining human papillomavirus infection prevention information.
Additional work is needed to clarify the relation of IU to active, effective coping
strategies.
The Role of Active Coping in Maladjustment and Distress
A dispositional tendency toward active coping, including both individual and
social forms of coping, tends to decrease anxiety and depression (Conner-Smith &
Compas 2002). Meta-analyses suggest that most active coping, which includes a large
component of problem solving, leads to lower distress in samples coping with stressors
related to traumatic events and social stress (Littleton, Horsely, John, & Nelson, 2007;
Penley et al., 2002). Although an active coping style may be less beneficial when
addressing chronic, uncontrollable stressors, it is considered generally more effective
than passivity or avoidance (Clarke, 2006; Penley et al., 2002).
Individual and social forms of active coping both involve problem-solving.
Problem-focused coping and seeking social support have been found to reduce distress
substantially (Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010; Connor-Smith et al., 2007). Thus, both
individual and social facets of active coping should be effective in reducing distress
(Littleton, Horsely, John, & Nelson, 2007; Penley et al., 2002).
13
Active Coping as a Mediator
The review of literature above has shown that IU, neuroticism, and avoidant
coping as measures of maladjustment predict greater distress. Additionally,
maladjustment appears to be related to less active coping (Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010;
Conner-Smith et al., 2007). Research also suggests that active coping is linked to lower
distress (Littleton, Horsely, John, & Nelson, 2007; Penley et al., 2002). However, could
active coping, which includes both individual and social coping, account for the
relationship between maladjustment and distress?
Based upon the personality and stress literature, the relationship between
neuroticism and distress appears to be mediated by certain coping styles (Bolger &
Zuckerman, 1995; Knoll et al., 2005). That is, personality traits may influence coping,
which in turn may influence psychological distress. Although limited, some research has
focused on the mediating effect of active coping between personality and distress.
Specifically, researchers have found that the use of humor mediated the relationship
between pessimism-optimism and distress (Carver et al., 1993) and that confrontive
coping styles mediated the relationship between neuroticism and depression (Bolger &
Zuckerman, 1995). In addition, researchers have found that dispositional variables are
indicative of positive adjustment, such as personal growth and coping self-efficacy were
linked to anxiety through active coping (Weigold & Robitschek, 2011). These findings
support the hypothesis that maladjustment may affect psychological distress in part
14
through reductions in active coping orientation (Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010).
Hypotheses
The relationship of maladjustment (i.e., neuroticism, IU, and avoidance) to
distress (i.e., anxiety and dysphoria) has been well established (Carver & Conner-Smith,
2010; Gentes et al., 2011). Although facets of maladjustment have been studied in
relation to coping (i.e., the role of avoidance and the relationship of neuroticism to
avoidance; Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010; Conner-Smith et al., 2007), the relationship of
IU to coping is less well-understood. Additionally, research has not yet explored how
neuroticism, avoidant coping and IU as measures of maladjustment predict specific
dispositional styles of coping (e.g., individual and social coping) and how coping may
mediate the relation of maladjustment to distress in a structural path model. The
hypothesized model (See Figure 1) consisted of Maladjustment, Coping and Distress
conceptualized as latent variables. Specifically, this study tested: (1) the direct effects
among maladjustment (e.g., neuroticism, IU, avoidant coping), active coping (e.g.,
individual coping and social coping) and general distress (e.g., tense depression, anxious
arousal and perceived stress) and (2) the mediational effect of active coping on
maladjustment and distress. Hypotheses to be tested are: (A) maladjustment will be
negatively associated with active coping, but positively with distress, (B) coping will be
negatively associated with distress, and (C) active coping will partially mediate the
relationship between maladjustment and distress.
15
Chapter 3
METHOD
Participants
Participants consisted of 440 (80.0% women; 20.0% men) undergraduate
introductory psychology students from a large public university in the Western United
States who volunteered to participate in order to fulfill class requirements. Participants’
ages ranged from 17 to 58 years (Mage = 21.38, SDage = 5.84). The sample consisted of the
following racial/ethnic groups: 34.2% European-American/White, 22.9% AsianAmerican/Pacific Islander, 20.1% Latino/Hispanic, 12.9% Multi-Ethnic/Other, and 10%
African American/Black.
Measures
Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale
The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS; Buhr & Dugas, 2002) is a 27-item
scale using a five-point Likert-type response scale of 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to
5 (very characteristic of me). The IUS assesses emotional, cognitive, and behavioral
reactions to ambiguous situations, implications of being uncertain, and attempts to
control the future. Higher scores indicate greater intolerance of uncertainty. Sample items
include “uncertainty stops me from having a strong opinion” and “uncertainty makes life
intolerable.”
16
Buhr and Dugas (2002) reported adequate test-retest reliability for the IUS (r =
.74) after administering the IUS five weeks from the initial assessment. Internal
consistency was high (α = .94) (Buhr & Dugas, 2002). The IUS appears to be a valid and
reliable measure for assessing intolerance of uncertainty given its utility as reported
across a variety of samples (Boswell et al., 2013).
Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire
The Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire (MASQ; Watson & Clark, 1991)
is a 62-item questionnaire using a five-point Likert-type response scale of 1 (not at all) to
5 (extremely) to measure anxiety symptoms and dysphoria. Items on the four subscales of
the MASQ ask individuals to indicate how frequently they have experienced a variety of
different symptoms during the past week. The anxious arousal subscale consists of 17
items, such as ‘‘heart was racing or pounding’’ and ‘‘hands were shaky.’’ The anhedonic
depression subscale consists of 22 items such as ‘‘felt like nothing was very enjoyable’’
and ‘‘felt really slowed down.’’ The 11-item anxious symptoms subscale consists of
items such as “felt discouraged” and “felt nervous.” The depressive symptoms subscale
consists of 22 items such as “felt sad” and “felt worthless.” Past research has indicated
that the subscales of the MASQ have good convergent and discriminant validity (Reidy
& Keogh, 1997; Watson & Clark, 1991). For the purposes of this study, three subscales
were created based on the results of a factor analysis of scale items (discussed below).
17
The Strategic Approach to Coping Scale
The Strategic Approach to Coping Scale (SACS) developed by Hobfoll and
Dunahoo (1994), was used to measure dispositional coping. The survey contains 52 items
that were designed to measure nine subscales related to the Multiaxial Model of Coping
including individual (e.g., “just work harder; apply yourself”) and social (e.g., “talk to
others to get out your frustrations”) aspects of coping. Participants are instructed to
indicate how much they generally react to a stressful problem in the manner that the
statement indicates using a 5-point Likert-type response scale of 1 (not at all what I
would do) to 5 (very much what I would do). Hobfoll and Dunahoo (1991) reported that
sub-scale reliabilities ranged between .66 to .86. The present study simplified the nine
subscales to three using factor analysis, as discussed below.
The Perceived Stress Scale
The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al., 1983) is a self-report measure
consisting of 14 items designed to assess the degree to which individuals appraise
experiences as difficult to manage and overwhelming. The PSS was validated for use
among community samples. Participants are asked to indicate on a five-point Likert-type
response scale of 0 (never) to 4 (very often) how often they felt or thought a certain way
during the last month. Sample items include: “How often did you feel unable to control
the important things in life?” Total scores for the PSS are calculated by reverse scoring
items as needed so that higher scores reflect higher perceived stress and then averaging
18
the scale items. The PSS has demonstrated good internal consistency from the original
process of scale development (α =.85; Cohen et al., 1983).
The NEO Five Factor Inventory
The NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) assesses five
personality dimensions: (1) neuroticism, the tendency to experience negative emotions
and psychological distress in response to stressors; (2) extraversion, the degree of
sociability, positive emotionality, and general activity; (3) openness to experience,
including levels of curiosity, independent judgment, and conservativeness; (4)
agreeableness, conceptualized as altruistic, sympathetic, and cooperative tendencies; and
(5) conscientiousness, which involves self-control in planning and organization. The
NEO inventories are composed of descriptive statements such as: “I am not a worrier,” “I
really enjoy talking to people”) rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5(strongly agree). The NEO FFI consists of 60 items that are used to calculate five
dimension scores (12 items per domain). However, neuroticism was the only dimension
of interest within the present study. This subscale has been reported to have strong
internal consistency (α =.83; Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Demographic Questionnaire
A demographic questionnaire (see appendix C) was administered to each
participant. Data obtained included age, gender, and race/ethnicity.
19
Procedure
The participants for the present study were recruited from introductory
psychology courses at California State University, Sacramento. Participants received one
hour of research credit towards satisfying their research participation requirement. Data
were collected as part of a larger study aimed at examining attitudes towards sexuality
and well-being. Undergraduate students participated in the study by signing up for a
specific time and location for small group data collection sessions through the
Psychology department’s research participation website. Prior to the beginning of data
collection, participants were verbally read the consent form and had the purpose of the
study explained to them by one of a team of research assistants. Students were also
informed that their participation was completely voluntary and anonymous. To maintain
confidentiality, participants were directed to sign and return the consent forms by placing
them face down into a box. Questionnaires were administered in a counterbalanced order
to reduce the potential for bias due to order effects, with the exception that the
demographic form was administered last. Once questionnaires were completed,
participants also placed them into a box face down to ensure anonymity. Questionnaire
data were entered twice and discrepancies were checked and corrected in order to ensure
accurate data entry.
20
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Overview of Analytic Strategy
In the present study, IBM SPSS 20.0 was used to examine data for missing
values, analyze data distribution and skewness, complete correlation analyses for initial
comparisons, and generate first and second order exploratory factor analyses to configure
measured variables within the hypothesized model. Amos 20.0 was then used to create a
structural model to assess the fit of the data to the hypothesized model. To assess whether
the model was a good fit for the data, the following fit indices were used: chi square, root
mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness of fit index (GFI), normed fit
index (NFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI). Values of at least .95 for the GFI, NFI,
and CFI and .08 or below for the RMSEA as indicators of the model being a good fit to
the data were used (Meyers, Gamst, & Gaurino, 2013). While a non-significant chisquare is preferred in assessing model fit to the data, this test is argued too powerful for
most research and does not account for judgment of the model fit (Byrne, 2010).
Descriptive Statistics
The means and standard deviations of the indicator variables for the present
sample (see Table 1) were generally consistent with the means and standard deviations
reported in the literature (Costa et al., 1992; Sexton et al., 2009). Reliability for each
21
scale was evaluated and found to be acceptable after scoring based on standard
instructions or after factor analysis for some scales (see discussion below; see Table 1)
Correlations among scales used in the final structural model were all positive. That is,
measures of maladjustment were positively correlated with measures of coping and
distress. Similarly, coping measures were positively correlated with measures of distress
(see Table 1).
22
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations for Indicator Variables
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
α
Maladjustment
1 Neuroticism
2 Intolerance of
Uncertainty
3 Avoidant Coping
.83
.60
.36
.94
.35
.79
Coping
4 Individual Coping
.11
.28
.24
5 Social Coping
.14
.10
.14
.85
.19
.84
Distress
6 Tense Depression
.70
.56
.31
.14
.03
7 Anxious Arousal
.41
.37
.30
.19
.05
.68
8 Perceived Stress
.71
.55
.30
.05
.03
.66
.39
9 Low Positive Affect
.47
.36
.30
-.10
-.18
.42
.08
.55
M
2.81
2.43
2.46
2.98
3.71
2.23
1.69
2.84
2.65
SD
.74
.77
.79
.56
.52
.81
.62
.55
.73
Note. Correlations greater than .10 are significant, p < .05.
.94
.90
.82
.94
23
Preparing the Structural Model
In preparing to configure a structural model, Maladjustment, Coping, and Distress
were conceptualized as three latent variables prior to planned analyses. The SACS was
scored into the original nine subscales (Hobfoll et al., 1994). The subscales were then
subjected to a second order principal components analysis with promax rotation in an
effort to both identify the essential components of the latent coping variable and maintain
consistency with the theoretical model (Hobfoll et al., 1994). Three factors emerged with
eigenvalues greater than 1.0, cumulatively accounting for 66.54% of the total variance
(See Table 2).
Table 2
Total Variance Explained of the SACS Subscales
Factor
Eigenvalue
% of Variance
Cumulative %
1
2.37
26.37
26.37
2
1.96
21.73
48.10
3
1.66
18.44
66.54
The first second order factor (See Table 3) was composed of higher levels of antisocial action, aggressive action, indirect action, and instinctive action, and was
interpreted as representing individual coping. The second factor, composed of higher
24
levels of social joining, social support, and cautious action, was interpreted as social
coping. Finally, the third factor was composed of higher levels of avoidance and lower
levels of assertive action, which appeared to represent avoidant coping.
Table 3
Structure Matrix of the SACS Subscales with Promax Rotation (N = 457)
Factor
Loading
Subscale
Antisocial
Action
1
.84
2
.08
3
.07
Communality
Aggressive
Action
.85
-.04
-.19
.77
Indirect Action
.67
.09
.32
.55
Instinctive
Action
.62
.17
-.02
.41
Social Joining
.01
.83
.08
.69
Cautious Action
.19
.79
-.06
.66
Social Support
.06
.75
-.04
.57
Assertive
Action
.17
.17
-.88
.83
Avoidance
.22
.14
.86
.80
.72
Note. Boldface indicates highest factor loadings. Factor 1 = Individual Coping;
Factor 2 = Social Coping; Factor 3 = Avoidant Coping.
25
To determine which predictor latent variable (i.e., Maladjustment or Coping) in
the structural model was most appropriately associated with the measured variables,
neuroticism, IU, individual, social, and avoidant coping were subjected to a second order
principal components analysis with promax rotation. A two-component solution was
specified because two latent constructs were of interest in the present study. Both
components yielded eigenvalues in excess of 1.00 and cumulatively accounted for almost
64% of the total variance (See Table 4). Neuroticism, IU, and avoidant coping loaded as a
single factor, suggesting that these measured variables represent Maladjustment.
Individual and social coping loaded onto a second latent variable that was now
conceptualized as Active Coping (See Table 5).
Table 4
Total Variance Explained of the SACS Subscales, Neuroticism, and Intolerance
of Uncertainty
Factor
Eigenvalue
% of Variance
Cumulative %
1
2.09
41.75
41.75
2
1.10
22.05
63.80
26
Table 5
Structure Matrix of the SACS Subscales, Neuroticism, and Intolerance
of Uncertainty with Promax Rotation (N = 457)
Subscale
Neuroticism
Factor Loading
1
2
.18
.85
Intolerance of Uncertainty
.83
.32
.70
Avoidant Coping
.75
.02
.72
Social Coping
.07
.79
.56
Individual Coping
.24
.74
.63
Communality
.58
Note. Boldface indicates highest factor loadings. Factor 1 =
Maladjustment; Factor 2 = Active Coping.
In preparing to configure Distress as a latent variable in the model, factor analysis
using a promax rotated structure was employed to evaluate the factor structure of the
MASQ items. Three factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, cumulatively
accounting for 45.14% of the variance (See Table 6). Additionally, the PSS was scored
by averaging the scale items for inclusion as a measured variable that would serve as an
indicator of Distress.
27
Table 6
Total Variance Explained of the MASQ Subscales
Factor
Eigenvalue
% of Variance
Cumulative %
1
10.26
16.82
16.82
2
9.04
14.81
31.63
3
8.24
13.51
45.14
The promax rotated structure matrix of the MASQ items (See Table 7) suggested
that there were three viable first order factors. The first factor consisted of items
expressing general depressive symptomology such as: feeling afraid, uneasy, unattractive,
and tense. This first factor was termed tense depression because the symptomology
largely consists of general depression, but also a dimension of uneasiness. The second
factor consisted of items expressing low positive affect such as: feeling sad, withdrawn,
fatigued, and uninterested. Given the nature of the items from the second factor, this
factor was termed low positive affect.
Finally, the third factor indicated items related to arousal such as: experiencing
shaky hands, diarrhea, shortness of breath, and cold hands. Therefore, the third factor was
interpreted as anxious arousal. The present exploratory three-factor structure of the
MASQ was not consistent with that of Watson and Clark (1991), whose results suggested
a four-factor structure.
28
Table 7
Factor Loadings from the Principle Components Factor Analysis of the MASQ items with Promax
Rotation (N = 457)
Factor
Loading
Item
Communality
1
2
3
34 Was disappointed in myself
.77
.24
.14
.67
36 Felt hopeless
.72
.23
.23
.63
23 Blamed myself for a lot of things
.72
.21
.21
.60
21 Felt like a failure
.70
.21
.19
.57
9 Felt worthless
.70
.27
.15
.58
12 Felt depressed
.68
.35
.20
.62
45 Felt pessimistic about the future
.65
.11
.22
.49
5 Felt discouraged
.64
.23
.17
.49
1 Felt sad
.64
.28
.08
.49
31 Felt like crying
.63
.13
.19
.45
32 Was unable to relax
.63
.22
.33
.55
14 Felt uneasy
.61
.19
.40
.57
26 Felt keyed up, “on edge”
.61
.01
.33
.48
25 Felt withdrawn from other people
.58
.24
.28
.46
18 Felt unattractive
.55
.19
.24
.40
29 Felt inferior to others
.55
.11
.28
.39
51 Felt like nothing was very enjoyable
.55
.26
.35
.49
33 Felt really slowed down
.53
.21
.35
.45
38 Felt sluggish or tired
.52
.13
.32
.39
4 Felt afraid
.52
.04
.25
.33
29
Factor
Loading
Item
Communality
1
2
3
11 Felt nervous
.51
.04
.28
.34
55 Felt tense or “high-strung”
.46
.08
.38
.36
50 Felt like it took extra effort to get started
.41
.02
.28
.25
2 Startled easily
.41
-.02
.38
.31
57 Felt like there wasn’t anything interesting or
.38
.30
.31
.33
41 Felt really good
-.16
-.817
-.06
.69
60 Felt really good about myself
.29
.78
.02
.69
43 Looked forward to things with enjoyment
.15
.77
.01
.63
10 Felt really happy
.12
.77
.03
.58
22 Felt like I was having a lot of fun
.06
.77
.04
.60
39 Felt really “up” or lively
.01
.76
-.01
.58
47 Felt like I had a lot of interesting things to do
.11
.74
-.05
.56
27 Felt like I had a lot of energy
.09
.73
-.01
.55
3 Felt cheerful
.17
.70
.03
.52
53 Felt like I had a lot to look forward to
.23
.70
-.07
.55
15 Felt faint
.22
.68
-.01
.51
49 Felt like I had accomplished a lot
.16
.66
-.04
.46
7 Felt optimistic
.09
.64
.04
.42
56 Felt hopeful about the future
.25
.64
-.07
.48
58 Seemed to move quickly and easily
.15
.64
.01
.44
28 Was trembling or shaking
.20
.01
.67
.49
37 Felt dizzy or lightheaded
.23
.12
.65
.49
fun to do
30
1
Factor
Loading
2
3
Communality
54 Felt numbness or tingling in my body
.13
.02
.64
.44
17 Felt faint
.16
.06
.63
.42
35 Felt nauseous
.21
.12
.62
.45
40 Had pain in my chest
.18
.01
.60
.39
13 Was short of breath
.28
-.03
.59
.44
44 Muscles twitched or trembled
.14
-.03
.59
.37
30 Had trouble swallowing
.19
-.01
.56
.35
19 Had hot or cold spells
.13
.01
.55
.32
6 Hands were shaky
.23
.10
.52
.34
52 Heart was racing or pounding
.23
-.05
.52
.33
24 Hands were cold or sweaty
.20
.09
.52
.32
20 Had an upset stomach
.31
-.03
.51
.36
42 Felt like I was choking
.09
-.03
.50
.26
46 Had a very dry mouth
.23
.11
.48
.30
8 Had diarrhea
.20
-.06
.45
.21
61 Had to urinate frequently
.20
-.09
.44
.25
59 Muscles were tense and sore
.13
-.04
.44
.21
16 Had a lump in my throat
.34
-.08
.41
.29
Item
48 Was afraid I was going to die
.28
-.10
.36
.22
Note. Boldface indicates highest factor loadings. Factor 1 = Tense Depression; Factor 2 = Low
Positive Affect; Factor 3 = Anxious Arousal.
31
Configuring the Structural Model
The configured structural model is presented in Figure 1. Based upon a second
order principle components analysis, neuroticism, IU, and avoidant coping were specified
as indicators of Maladjustment; and individual and social coping were specified as
indicators of Coping. On a theoretical basis, perceived stress, tense depression, anxious
arousal, and low positive affect were specified as indicators of Distress.
Figure 1. Model 1 for distress with errors. Latent constructs are shown in ellipses, and
observed variables are shown in rectangles.
32
Evaluating the Structural Model
The initial analysis suggested that the model as configured was not a good fit, chi
square (24, N = 445) = 287.57, p < .001, GFI = .87, NFI = .82, CFI = .83, RMSEA = .15.
However, the error terms for the indicator variables in the initial model were treated as
uncorrelated, which is considered an unrealistic presumption (Brown & Moore, 2012;
Kline, 2011). The modification indexes provided by Amos 20.0 were used to identify
correlations between error terms to be added to improve model fit because it is difficult to
determine these correlations in advance of the initial model. Adding correlations between
error terms was limited to terms within the same latent construct. However, model fit
could not be adequately improved after correlating the appropriate error terms.
To improve model fit, an effort was made to locate possible sources that were
adversely affecting the quality of the measurement model. The intent was to find the most
adverse source and remove it before making any other changes. Based on this approach,
the low positive affect indicator from the latent variable represented as Distress was
removed from the model in that it had the lowest factor loading.
Evaluating the Modified Structural Model
The respecified model with path coefficients is shown in Figure 2. Model fit was
improved by specifying correlations between the errors (See Figure 2) associated with
PSS and the latent construct, Distress. After correlating appropriate error terms, chi
square was still statistically significant (15, N = 445) = 58, p < .05, but other indexes
33
were also used to assess model fit since the chi square test is sensitive to sample size. The
values of other model fit indexes all indicated good model fit with the data and 90%
confidence interval of .06 to .10, (GFI = .97, NFI = .96, CFI =. 97, RMSEA = .08).
Figure 2. Respecified Model 1 with standardized coefficients and correlated errors.
Latent constructs are shown in ellipses, and observed variables are shown in rectangles.
A good model fit was achieved only after some modifications were made to the
initial model, which adds an exploratory component to testing the hypothesized model.
However, four significant results were obtained. The path coefficients are displayed in
Figure 2 and are summarized in Table 6 under Direct Effects. All path coefficients (See
Figure 2) were statistically significant between latent constructs (i.e., Maladjustment,
34
Active Coping, and Distress). That is, Maladjustment positively predicted Active Coping
and Distress, which was partially consistent with the first hypothesis. Additionally,
Active Coping negatively predicted Distress. As can be seen in Table 6, the model was
able to account for 58% of the variance of the amount of distress reported by students.
Almost all of the variance accounted for in the model was due to the direct effect of
maladjustment on distress. The model was also able to explain 14% of the variance in
Active Coping.
Testing the Mediated Structural Model
Based upon visual inspection of the results, it appears that the direct effect of
Maladjustment on Distress was partially mediated through Active Coping (See Table 8).
Interestingly, the direct regression coefficient from Maladjustment to Distress was higher
in the mediated model (See Figure 3) compared to the unmediated model (See Figure 2).
This finding constitutes a suppressor variable effect in that the inclusion of Active
Coping as the mediator increased the predictive effect of Maladjustment on Distress.
35
Table 8
Summary of Casual Effects of the Hypothesized Model
Causal Effects
Outcome
Determinant
Coping
Maladjustment*
Direct
Indirect
Total
.38
.38
Distress*
-.19
-.19
Maladjustment*
.81
Coping*
-.19
(R2 = .14)
Coping
Distress
-.07
.74
(R2 = .58)
Distress
* p < .02.
-.19
36
Figure 3. Unmediated model with standardized coefficients. Latent constructs are shown
in ellipses, and observed variables are shown in rectangles.
To test the statistical significance of the mediated effect, the relative strengths of
the two coefficients (i.e., unmediated versus mediated model) were compared using the
Sobel test and Freedman-Schatzkin test (Freedman & Schatzkin, 1992; Sobel, 1982). The
results of the Sobel test indicated that the mediation effect was statistically significant, z
= -1.96, p = .05. Moreover, the results of the Freedman-Schatzkin test also indicated that
the effect of Maladjustment on Distress was significantly increased when Active Coping
was included as a mediator, t(443) =-22.41, p = .001, suggesting that a suppressor effect
was observed.
In summary, it appears that Maladjustment positively predicted a direct effect on
Active Coping and Distress. Active Coping also predicted a negative direct effect on
Distress. Active Coping suppressed the effect of Maladjustment on Distress.
37
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between
maladjustment, including, active coping, and distress in a structural model.
Understanding the role of IU in relation to coping and evaluating whether IU is an
appropriate target for intervention to increase resilience to anxiety and dysphoria may
provide insight for clinical application.
The finding that maladjustment positively predicted distress (See Figure 2) is
consistent with the literature on the deleterious mental health consequences of
neuroticism and avoidant coping, and adds to the growing literature on IU as a risk factor
for dysphoria, anxiety symptoms, and stress (Boelen, 2010; Boswell et al., 2013; Butzer
et al., 2006; Ciarrochi et al., 2005; Dugas & Ladouceur, 2000; Dugas et al., 1998;
Freeston et al., 1994; Norton & Mehta, 2007; Rucker et al., 2009). These findings are
consistent with the developing perspective on IU as a general vulnerability factor for
disorders involving negative affect (Boswell et al., 2013), rather than the original
conceptualization of IU as a specific risk factor for GAD (Norton & Mehta, 2007). This
finding is also consistent with research demonstrating that neuroticism is a general
vulnerability factor for distress (Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010; Grant & Langan-Fox
2006, Vollrath & Torgersen, 2000). Namely, neuroticism has been linked to greater risk
38
for clinical and non-clinical mood and anxiety symptoms (Brezo et al., 2006; Malouff et
al., 2005).
Given that neuroticism is accepted as a general vulnerability to distress and
related to more avoidance, maladjustment was hypothesized to be negatively related to
active coping (Carver & Conner-Smith, 2010). Neuroticism has been linked to limited
coping selection strategies across a variety of stressful situations (Lee-Baggley et al.,
2005). However, maladjustment in the present study was positively related to active
coping. Perhaps, this finding might be explained by participants’ particular coping
efforts. That is, individuals high in maladjustment may devote greater effort to active
coping due to an increased tendency to feel overwhelmed or stressed. However, Carver
and Conner-Smith (2010) also speculate that those individuals do not persist long enough
in using active coping, which results in a smaller impact. This finding is inconsistent with
the notion that personality vulnerabilities that engender distress impede the selection of
active coping strategies. Instead, the present findings suggest that individuals who are
intolerant of uncertainty, characteristically avoidant, and more neurotic endorse a range
of active coping strategies that include both individual and social strategies. The finding
that maladjustment, which includes IU, is linked to active as well as avoidant coping
represents an addition to the sparse literature on IU and coping style. Previous researchers
have speculated that IU would lead to fewer coping responses due to its conceptual
relationship to inflexibility (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993; Priester & Clum, 1993).
39
However, individuals higher in IU may also develop active coping strategies in an effort
to better accomplish the goal of increased information-seeking, and this may be reflected
in the endorsement of active coping strategies (Rosen et al., 2010; Tallis et al., 1991).
The hypothesis that active coping (i.e., individual and social coping) would
negatively predict distress was supported. This finding is consistent with the literature;
for example, greater action oriented coping (e.g., problem-focused) has led to more
positive mental health outcomes across individuals coping with a variety of stressors
(Clarke, 2006; Duangdao et al., 2008; Penley et al., 2002; Roesch et al., 2005). Similarly,
researchers have generally found that less problem-focused orientations predict poorer
emotional and physical outcomes such as rumination, self-blame, and venting (e.g.,
Austenfeld & Stanton, 2004; Moskowitz et al., 2009). The present finding demonstrates
benefits of both individual and social aspects of active coping.
Contrary to hypothesized relationships, active coping suppressed the effect of
maladjustment on distress. This finding is inconsistent with research that has found
coping as a partial mediator between personality and distress (Bolger & Zuckerman,
1995; Chung et al., 2005; Knoll et al., 2005). In the present study, maladjustment
predicted distress more strongly with active coping as a mediator compared to active
coping absent from the structural model.
Interestingly, active coping was positively associated with distress on the
bivariate level, suggesting that individuals who are endorsing greater utilization of active
40
coping strategies may still be vulnerable to higher distress. However, coping was related
to less distress in the structural model. The difference in the coping to distress
relationship between analyses is perhaps explained by the variance accounted for in the
structural model. For example, after maladjustment accounts for some portion of the
variance in distress, the remaining variance in distress (i.e., unrelated to maladjustment)
was predicted by active coping. That is, people who endorse more coping efforts may
experience more distress related to maladjustment (i.e., neuroticism, IU, and avoidance);
in other words, maladjustment leads to greater investment in coping, but doesn’t reduce
the distress that arises from maladjustment. Instead, those coping efforts may pay off in
the form of less distress related to “real world” or external stressors.
Study limitations included the reliance on introductory psychology students, with
women heavily overrepresented. Men and women have been found to cope using
different strategies (Monnier et al., 1998; Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002), and
vulnerability to dysphoria and anxiety varies by gender (Eisenberg, Gollust, Golberstein,
& Hefner, 2007; Eisenberg, Hunt, & Speer, 2013). However, potential gender differences
in coping within the hypothesized model were not examined because of inadequate
sample size for men. Future research should examine these phenomena in community
samples with broader socioeconomic, educational, and age representation. In addition, the
possibility of gender differences in the links among maladjustment, including IU, coping,
and distress should be evaluated. The sample was racially and ethnically diverse, with
41
about a third of the sample identified as European American/White. Given that
researchers often rely on majority White samples, this diversity is a strength that suggests
greater generalizability of findings. However, cultural differences in stress appraisal,
coping resources, and frequency of coping use have been found (Conner-Smith &
Calvete, 2004; Wadsworth, Rieckmann, Benson, & Compas, 2004). Future research
would benefit from sample sizes that are large enough to test cultural/ethnic differences
in these phenomena.
A further limitation has to do with multicollinearity within the structural model,
particularly among some of the outcome measures (e.g., tense depression and perceived
stress). Given the fact that maladjustment variables are highly related to distress
measures, issues with multicollinearity were expected. However, despite some
multicollinearity, the measurement model indices indicated that there was a good fit
between the model and the data.
The present study measured coping dispositionally as a way to understand
individual coping preferences as they might mediate the effects of maladjustment on
distress. Future research may want to evaluate situational coping rather than, or in
addition to, dispositional coping in order to better understand which strategies are
effective in specific contexts. Coping strategies that focus on changing and tolerating
mood may be another appropriate focus for research on the links among personality,
coping, and distress; these strategies include emotion regulation skills such as
42
mindfulness and acceptance (Desteno, Kubzansky, & Gross, 2013). These strategies may
be more specifically targeted to and effective in reducing maladjustment-related distress
than the more general set of coping strategies examined in this study. For instance, a
review on mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) has found that dysphoria can be
substantially reduced, as well as rates of relapse (Galante, Iribarren, & Pearce, 2012).
Additionally, acceptance based treatments have also been found to be effective for
decreasing negative affect (Kohl, Rief, & Golmbiewski, 2012). Research also suggests
that emotion regulation strategies can improve health outcomes by avoiding cumulative
stress of inhibition (Desteno et al., 2013).
Overall, this study adds to the literature on the link between dispositional
maladjustment, including IU, and mental health. The present study also demonstrates
that maladjustment also predicts greater utilization of dispositional coping styles that
include both individual and social strategies. Including both personal and social resources
in models of well-being may contribute to broader conceptualizations of distress that take
place in the context of social relationships as well as individual strengths and
vulnerabilities.
43
APPENDIX A
Consent to Participate as a Research Subject
I hereby agree to participate in a research project, entitled Sexuality, Personality,
and Well-Being, which will be conducted by Rebecca Cameron, Ph.D., Associate
Professor in the Psychology Department of California State University, Sacramento, and
which will involve the following procedures:
Completing a questionnaire assessing demographics, sexual orientation,
religiosity, attitudes toward sexual minority individuals, mood, coping, and personality
variables.
The research will take place in Amador Hall on the CSUS campus and will
require approximately 1 hour of my time.
The purpose of this research project is to better understand the connections among
attitudes about sexuality, personality variables, and well-being.
I understand that the research procedures and the nature of the questionnaire
topics could involve a risk of psychological discomfort for some individuals. Although
the researcher may need to avoid a complete description of the purpose of the study at
this time, I will receive a full explanation after the research. If I experience any
psychological discomfort during the research, I may stop my participation. If I want help
at that time or after completing the research, I may contact Counseling and Psychological
Services at (916) 278-6416 for assistance. Other than tracking my participation in the
study to provide me with research participation credit and to avoid duplicate
participation, my participation in the study is confidential. In addition, my questionnaire
is anonymous and will not be linked to my name. Reports of results will be in the form of
group data, and will not include identifying information.
I understand that this research may have the following benefits: benefit to the
community/society in the form of an increased understanding of factors that affect wellbeing and factors that affect attitudes about sexuality.
This information was explained to me by
___________________________________. I understand that he/she will answer any
questions I may have now or later about this research (contact Dr. Cameron and/or her
research assistants at 916-278-6892). I understand that my participation in this research is
entirely voluntary. I may decline to participate now, or I may discontinue my
44
participation at any time in the future without penalty other than loss of research credit. I
understand that the investigator may terminate my participation at any time. I understand
that I will not receive any compensation other than research credit for participating in this
study.
Signature: ________________________________ Date: ____________________
Print name: ________________________________________
45
APPENDIX B
Debriefing
Please do not discuss the purpose of this study with your peers who may
participate in the project in the future.
Numerous studies have linked personality factors (e.g., open-mindedness) to
personal well-being as well as to attitudes toward sexual minority individuals. However,
societal attitudes have been changing rapidly and sexual minority issues have been a
focus of a great deal of political and media attention. The goal of this study is to
understand personality factors that affect personal well-being and that predict attitudes
toward sexual minority individuals. This study expands on previous literature by
including attitudes toward bisexuality and attitudes toward transgendered individuals.
I understand that Dr. Cameron will answer any questions I may have now or later
about this research (contact Dr. Cameron and/or her research assistants at 916-278-6892).
If I want help at that time or after completing the research, I may contact
Counseling and Psychological Services at (916) 278-6416 for assistance.
46
APPENDIX C
Demographics
Instructions: Please respond to the following questions as accurately as possible. If it
would be helpful to clarify a particular answer, feel free to make a note in the
margin. Please write legibly.
1. Age: __________
2. Gender:
(1) _____ male
(2) _____ female
(3) _____ other gender identification
3. Year in school (check one):
(1) _____ freshman
(2) _____ sophomore
(3) _____ junior
(4) _____ senior
(5) _____ unclassified
4. Major: __________________________________________________
47
5. Ethnicity (please check one):
(1) _____ African American/Black
(2) _____ American Indian/Native American
(3) _____ Asian American/Pacific Islander
(4) _____ European American/Caucasian/White
(5) _____ Latino/Hispanic American
(6) _____ Multiethnic (please list ethnic groups): _________________________
(7) _____ Other ethnicity (please describe): _________________________
(8) _____ Foreign national (please list country of origin):
_________________________
6. The following generation best applies to me (check only one):
(1) _____ 1st generation = I was born in a country other than the USA.
(2) _____ 2nd generation = I was born in USA; either parent born in a country
other than USA.
(3) _____ 3rd generation = I was born in USA; both parents born in USA and all
grandparents born in a country other than USA.
(4) _____ 4th generation = I and my parents born in USA and at least one
grandparent born in a country other than USA with remainder born in
USA.
(5) _____ 5th generation = I and my parents born in the USA and all grandparents
born in the USA.
(6) _____ I do not know what generation I am.
7. Parental education:
(1) Mother - highest schooling completed: _________________________
(2) Father – highest schooling completed: _________________________
(3) Other parental figure – highest schooling completed:
_________________________ indicate relationship:
_________________________
8. Sexual orientation:
(1) _____ heterosexual
(2) _____ gay or lesbian
(3) _____ bisexual
(4) _____ other sexual orientation
48
9. Current employment status (please check one):
(1) _____ not employed
(2) _____ employed 20 hours per week or fewer
(3) _____ employed 21-39 hours per week
(4) _____ employed 40 or more hours per week
10. Housing (please check one):
(1) _____ dorm
(2) _____ off-campus
11. Relationship status (please check one):
(1) _____ single
(2) _____ single, in a committed relationship
(3) _____ married, living together
(4) _____ separated
(5) _____ divorced
(6) _____ other (please describe): _________________________
12. Number of religious services you attend:
(1) _____ none
(2) _____ one a year
(3) _____ a few times a year
(4) _____ one a month
(5) _____ one a week
(6) _____ more than one a week
49
13. How much meaningful contact have you had with gay men or lesbians:
(1) _____ I have never had any contact with gay men or lesbians.
(2) _____ I have been in the same room with someone I knew was openly gay or
lesbian, but otherwise have had no contact with gay people.
(3) _____ I have met a gay or lesbian person, but we did not really have a
meaningful conversation.
(4) _____ I have an acquaintance who disclosed to me that he or she is gay or
lesbian, but we’re not really close.
(5) _____ I have a relative who is gay or lesbian, but I hardly ever see him/her.
(6) _____ I have a friend who is gay or lesbian; we talk or see each other every
once in a while.
(7) _____ I have a close friend or immediate family member who is gay or
lesbian; we spend a good deal of time together.
14. How much meaningful contact have you had with bisexual people:
(1) _____ I have never had any contact with bisexual people.
(2) _____ I have been in the same room with someone I knew was openly
bisexual, but otherwise have had no contact with bisexual people.
(3) _____ I have met a bisexual person, but we did not really have a meaningful
conversation.
(4) _____ I have an acquaintance who disclosed to me that he or she is bisexual,
but we’re not really close.
(5) _____ I have a relative who is bisexual, but I hardly ever see him/her.
(6) _____ I have a friend who is bisexual; we talk or see each other every once in a
while.
(7) _____ I have a close friend or immediate family member who is bisexual; we
spend a good deal of time together.
50
15. How much meaningful contact have you had with transgendered people:
(1) _____ I have never had any contact with transgendered people.
(2) _____ I have been in the same room with someone I knew was openly
transgendered, but otherwise have had no contact with transgendered
people.
(3) _____ I have met a transgendered person, but we did not really have a
meaningful conversation.
(4) _____ I have an acquaintance who disclosed to me that he or she is
transgendered, but we’re not really close.
(5) _____ I have a relative who is transgendered, but I hardly ever see him/her.
(6) _____ I have a friend who is transgendered; we talk or see each other every
once in a while.
(7) _____ I have a close friend or immediate family member who is
transgendered; we spend a good deal of time together.
16. Please rate your political orientation on the following scale (circle the appropriate
number):
1
--- 2 --- 3 --4
--- 5 --- 6 --7
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
17. What is your religious affiliation: _________________________
51
References
Austenfeld, J. L., & Stanton A. L. (2004). Coping through emotional approach: A new
look at emotion, coping, and health-related outcomes. Journal of Personality, 72,
1335-63.
Berenbaum, H., Bredemeier, K., & Thompson, R. J. (2008). Intolerance of uncertainty:
Exploring its dimensionality and associations with need for cognitive closure,
psychopathology, and personality. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 117-125.
Bienvenu, O. J., & Stein, M. B. (2003). Personality and anxiety disorders: A review.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 139–151.
Boelen, P. (2010). Intolerance of uncertainty and emotional distress following the death
of a loved one. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 23(4), 471-478.
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902.
Boswell, J. F., Thompson-Hollands, J., Farchione, T. J., & Barlow, D. H. (2013).
Intolerance of uncertainty: A common factor in treatment of emotional disorders.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(6), 630-645.
Brezo, J., Paris, J., & Turecki, G. (2006). Personality traits as correlates of suicidal
ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide completions: A systematic review. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 113, 180-206.
52
Brown, T. A., & Naragon-Gainey, K. (2013). Evaluation of the unique and specific
contributions of dimensions of the triple vulnerability model to the prediction of
DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders constructs. Behavior Therapy, 44, 277-292.
Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle
(Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 361-379). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Buchwald, P. (2003). The relationship of individual and communal state-trait coping and
interpersonal resources as trust, empathy, and responsibility. Anxiety, Stress, and
Coping, 16(3), 307-320.
Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2002). The intolerance of uncertainty scale: Psychometric
properties of the English version. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 931-945.
Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2006). Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of
uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry. Anxiety Disorders, 20,
222–236.
Butzer, B., & Kuiper, N. A. (2006). Relationships between the frequency of social
comparisons and self-concept clarity, intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety, and
depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 167–176.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basis concepts,
applications and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
53
Carver, C. S., & Conner-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of
Psychology, 61, 679-704.
Carver, C. S., [Clark]. (1993). How coping mediates the effect of optimism on distress: A
study of women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65(2), 375-390.
Chen, C. Y., & Hong, R. Y. (2010). Intolerance of uncertainty moderates the relation
between negative life events and anxiety. Personality and Individual
Differences, 49(1), 49-53.
Chung, M. C., Dennis, I., Easthope, Y., Werrett, J., & Farmer S. (2005). A multipleindicator multiple-cause model for posttraumatic stress reactions: Personality,
coping, and maladjustment. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 251-59.
Ciarrochi, J., Said, T., & Deane, F. P. (2005). When simplifying life is not so bad: The
link between rigidity, stressful life events, and mental health in an undergraduate
population. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 33, 185-197.
Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood
and anxiety disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 103-116.
Clarke, A. T. (2006). Coping with interpersonal stress and psychosocial health among
children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 35, 1124.
54
Clayton, P. J., Ernst, C., & Angst, J. (1994). Premorbid personality traits of men who
develop unipolar or bipolar disorders. European Archives of Psychiatry and
Clinical Neuroscience, 24(3), 340-346.
Cohen, S. Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measures of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Calvete, E. (2004). Cross-cultural equivalence of coping and
involuntary responses to stress in Spain and the United States. Anxiety, Stress, and
Coping, 17, 163-185.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Compas, B. E. (2002). Vulnerability to social stress: Coping as a
mediator or moderator of sociotropy and symptoms of anxiety and depression.
Cognitive Therapy, 26, 39-55.
Conner-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 10801107.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992a). Revised NEO Personaliry Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
de Bruin, G. O., Rassin, E., & Muris, P. (2007). The prediction of worry in non-clinical
individuals: The role of intolerance of uncertainty, meta-worry and neuroticism.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 93-100.
55
de Jong-Meyer, R., Beck, B., & Riede, K. (2009). Relationships between rummination,
worry, intolerance of uncertainty, and metacognitive beliefs. Personality and
Individual Differences, 46, 547-551.
DeSteno, D., Kubzansky, L., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Affective science and health: The
importance of emotion and emotion regulation. Health Psychology, 32(5), 474486.
Duangdao, K. M., & Roesch, S. C. (2008). Coping with diabetes in adulthood: A metaanalysis. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 291-300.
Dugas, M. J., & Ladouceur, R. (2000). Treatment of GAD: Targeting intolerance of
uncertainty in two types of worry. Behavior Modification, 24, 635-657.
Dugas, M. J., & Robichaud, M. (2007). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for generalized
anxiety disorder. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Dugas, M. J., Gagnon, F., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H. (1998). Generalized anxiety
disorder: A preliminary test of a conceptual model. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 36, 215-226.
Dunahoo, C. L., Hobfoll, S. E., Monnier, J., Hulsizer, M. R., & Johnson, R. (1998).
There’s more than rugged individualism in coping. Part 1: Even the Lone Ranger
had Tonto. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 11(2), 137-165.
56
Eisenberg, D., Gollust, S. E., Golberstein, E., & Hefner, J. L. (2007). Prevalence and
correlates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among university students.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 534-542.
Eisenberg, D., Hunt, J., & Speer, N. (2013). Mental health in american colleges and
universities. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 201(1), 60-67.
Fergus, T. A., & Wu, K. D. (2011). Searching for specificity between cognitive
vulnerabilities and mood and anxiety symptoms. Journal of Psychopathological
Behavior Assessment, 33, 446-458.
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, 571-579.
Freedman, L. S., & Schatzkin, A. (1992). Sample size for studying intermediate
endpoints within intervention trials of observational studies. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 136, 1148-1159.
Freeston, M. H., Rheaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do
people worry? Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 791-802.
Galante, J., Iribarren, S. J., & Pearce, P. F. (2012). Effectiveness of mindfulness-based
cognitive therapy on mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of
ranomised controlled trials. Journal of Research in Nursing, 18(2), 133-155.
57
Gentes, E. L., & Ruscio, A. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of the relation of intolerance of
uncertainty to symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive
disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 31,
923-933.
Grant, S., & Langan-Fox, J. (2006). Occupational stress, coping, and strain: The
combined interactive effect of the Big Five traits. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41, 719-32.
Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., Ben-Porath, Y., & Monnier, J. (1994). Gender and
coping: The dual-axis model of coping. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 22, 49-82.
Hunt, J., & Eisenberg, D. (2010). Mental health problems and help-seeking behavior
among college students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(1), 3-10.
Kessler, R. C., Foster, C. L., & Saunders, W. B. (1995). Social consequences of
psychiatric disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1026-1032.
Kessler, R. C., Walters, E. E., & Forthofer, M. S. (1998). The social consequences
of psychiatric disorders, III: Probability of marital stability. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 155, 1092-1096.
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., & Demler, O. et al. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and
age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the national comorbidity
survey replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 593-602.
58
Khawaja, N. G., & McMahon, J. (2011). The relationship of meta-worry and intolerance
of uncertainty with pathological worry, anxiety and depression. Australian
Academic Press, 28(4), 165-180.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Knoll, N., Rieckmann, N., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Coping as a mediator between
personality and stress outcomes: A longitudinal study with cataract surgery
patients. European Journal of Personality, 19, 229-47.
Koerner, N., & Dugas, M. J. (2008). An investigation of appraisals in individuals
vulnerable to excessive worry: The role of intolerance of uncertainty. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 32, 619-638.
Kohl, A., Rief, W., & Glombiewiski, J. A. (2012). How effective are acceptance
strategies? A meta-analytic review of experimental results. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 43, 988-1001.
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality
traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 136, 768-821.
59
Ladouceur, R., Freeston, M. H., Dugas, M. J., Rheaume, J., Gagnon, F., Thibodeau, N., et
al. (1995). Specific association between generalized anxiety disorder and
intolerance of uncertainty among anxiety disorder patients. Paper presented at the
Annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy,
Washington, D.C.
Lee-Baggley, D., Preece, M., & DeLongis, A. (2005). Coping with interpersonal stress:
Role of Big Five traits. Journal of Personality, 73, 1141-80.
Lengua, L. J., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G., Wolchik, S. A., & Curran, P. J. (1999).
Emotionality and self-regulation, threat appraisal, and coping in children of
divorce. Developmental Psychopathology, 11, 15-37.
Liao, K. Y., & Wei, M. (2011). Intolerance of uncertainty, depression, and anxiety: The
moderating and mediating roles of rumination. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
67(12), 1220-1239.
Littleton, H., Horsley, S., John, S., & Nelson, D. V. (2007). Trauma coping strategies and
psychological distress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 977-88.
Luhmann, C. C., Ishida, K., & Hajcak, G. (2011). Intolerance of Uncertainty and
Decisions About Delayed, Probabilistic Rewards. Behavior Therapy, 42(3), 378386.
60
Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Schutte, N.S. (2005). The relationship between
the five-factor model of personality and symptoms of clinical disorders: A metaanalysis. Journal of Psychopathology Behavior Assessment, 27, 101-14.
McEvoy, P. M., & Mahoney, A. E. J. (2012). To be sure, to be sure: Intolerance of
uncertainty mediates symptoms of various anxiety disorders and depression.
Behavior Therapy, 43, 533-545.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied multivariate research.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Mineka, S., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1998). Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar
mood disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 377-412.
Mistler, M. J., Reetz, R. D., Krylowicz, B., & Barr, V. (2012). The association for
university and college counseling directors annual survey. Retrieved from
Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors website:
http://aucccd.orh.support/aucccddirectorssurvery monograph2012public.pdf
Monnier, J., Stone, B., Hobfoll, S., & Johnson, R. (1998). How anti-social and pro-social
coping influence the support process among men and women in the U.S.
Postal service. Sex Roles, 39(1/2), 1-20.
Moskowitz, J. T., Hult, J. R., Bussolari, C., & Acree, M. (2009). What works in coping
with HIV? A meta-analysis with implications for coping with serious illness.
Psychological Bulletin, 135, 121-41.
61
Najmi, S., & Wegner, D. M. (2008). Thought suppression and psychopathology. In
handbook of approach and avoidance motivation, ed. A Elliott, p. 447-59.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. In Carver, C. S., & Conner-Smith, J. (2010). Personality
and coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 679-704.
Nelson, B. D., & Shankman, S. A. (2011). Does intolerance of uncertainty predict
anticipatory startle responses to uncertain threat? International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 81(2), 107-115.
Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual
differences in the desire for simpler structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65(1), 113-131.
Norton, P. J., & Mehta, P. D. (2007). Hierarchical model of vulnerabilities for emotional
disorders. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 36, 240–254.
Norton, P. J., Sexton, K. A., Walker, J. R., & Norton, G. R. (2005). Hierarchical model of
vulnerabilities for anxiety: Replication and extension with a clinical sample.
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 34, 50-63.
Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1990). Extroversion and happiness. Personality and
Individual Differences, 11, 1299-1306.
Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the Big Five, emotional
responses, and coping with acute stress. Personality and Individual Differences,
32, 1215-28.
62
Priester, M. J., & Clum, G. A. (1993). The problem-solving diathesis in depression,
hopelessness, and suicide ideation: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 15(3), 239-254.
Reidy, J., & Keogh, E. (1997). Testing the discriminant and convergent validity of the
Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire using a British sample. Personality
and Individual Differences, 23(2), 337-344.
Robichaud, M., & Dugas, M. J. (2005). Negative problem orientation (Part II): Construct
validity and specificity to worry. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 403-412.
Roesch, S. C., Adams, L., Hines, A., Palmores, A., Vyas, P., et al. (2005). Coping with
prostate cancer: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 28,
281-93.
Rosen, N. O., Knauper, B., Pasqualina D. D., Morrison, E., Tabing, R., Feldstain, A.,
Amsel, R., Mayrand, M., Franco, E. L., & Rosberger, Z. (2010). The impact of
intolerance of uncertainty on anxiety after receiving an informational interview
about HPV: A randomised controlled study. Psychology and Health, 25, 651-668.
Rosen, N.O., Knauper, B., & Sammut, J. (2007). Do individual differences in intolerance
of uncertainty affect health monitoring? Psychology and Health, 22, 413-430.
Rucker, L. S., West, L. M., & Roemer, L. (2010). Relationships among perceived racial
stress, intolerance of uncertainty, and worry in a Black sample. Behavior Therapy,
41(2), 245-253.
63
Sexton, K. A., & Dugas, M. J. (2009). Defining distinct negative beliefs about
uncertainty: Validating the factor structure of the intolerance of uncertainty scale.
Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 176-186.
Sexton, K. A., Norton, P. J., Walker, J. R., & Norton, G. R. (2003). Hierarchical model of
generalized and specific vulnerabilities in anxiety. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy,
32, 82-94.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (p. 290-312). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). The relationship between personality
subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138-161.
Tallis, F., & Eysenck, M. W. (1994). Worry: mechanisms and modulating influences.
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 22, 37-56.
Tallis, F., Eysenck, M., & Mathews, A. (1991). Elevated evidence requirements in worry.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 21-27.
Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior:
A meta-analytic review and examination of relative coping. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 2-30.
64
van der Heiden, C., Melchior, K., Muris, P., Bouwmeester, S., Bos, A. E. R., & van der
Molen, H. T. (2010). A hierarchical model for the relationships between general
and specific vulnerability factors and symptom levels of generalized anxiety
disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24, 284-289.
Vollrath, M., & Torgersen, S. (2000). Personality types and coping. Personality and
Individual Differences, 29, 367-78.
Wadsworth, M. E., Rieckmann, T., Benson, M. A., & Compas, B. E. (2004). Copig and
responses to stress in Navajo adolescents: Psychometric properties of the response
to stress questionnaire. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 391-411.
Watson, D. B., & Clark, L.A. (1991). Mood and anxiety symptom questionnaire
(MASQ) 62-item short form scoring key. Unpublished Manuscript.
Watson, D., Gamez, W., & Simms, L. J. (2005). Basic dimensions of temperament and
their relation to anxiety and depression: A symptom- based perspective. Journal
of Research in Personality, 39, 46-66.
World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease. (2008). 2004 Update
Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization.
Yik, M. S. M., & Russell, J. A. (2001). Predicting the Big Two of affect from the Big
Five of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 247-277.
65
Yook, K., Kim, K. H., Suh, S. Y., & Lee, K. S. (2010). Intolerance of uncertainty, worry,
and rumination in major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24, 623-628.
Zivin, K., Eisenberg, D., Gollust, S. E., & Golberstein, E. (2009). Persistence of
mental health problems and needs in a college student population. Journal of
Affective Disorders, 117(3), 180-185.