INFORMATION TO U SER S

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations

and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted.

Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy.

Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white

photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600

UMI*

ADOLESCENT APPRAISALS AND COPING STRATEGIES
DURING A STRESSFUL EXAM

by

CAROLINE CARRAGHER NEILL

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
M ASTER OF EDUCATION
in
EDUCATIONAL COUNSELLING
THE FACULTY OF ARTS, SOCIAL, AND HEALTH SCIENCES

© Caroline Carragher Neill, 1998.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
March, 1998.

1^1

National Library
of C anada

Bibliothèque nationale
du C anada

Acquisitions and
Bibliographic Services

Acquisitions et
services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada

395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada
Your file Votre référence
OurSle Noire référence

The author has granted a non­
exclusive hcence allowing the
National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell
copies of this thesis in microform,
paper or electronic formats.

L’auteur a accordé une hcence non
exclusive permettant à la
Bibhothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
la forme de microfiche/fUm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.

The author retains ownership of the
copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author’s
permission.

L’auteur conserve la propriété du
droit d’auteur qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.

0-612-62487-0

CanadaE

APPROVAL
Name:

Caroline Carragher Neill

Degree:

Master o f Education

Thesis Title:

ADOLESCENT APPRAISALS AND COPING STRATEGIES
DURING A STRESSFUL EXAM

Examining Committee:

ChauTExamining Committee, and Dean's Representative
Department o f Political Science: Dr. AiexMichalos

Supervisor: Dr. Colleen Haney
Department of Education

Advisor: Dr. Brian Hartman
Department o f Education

Advisor: Dr. Bruno Zumbo
Department o f Psychology

'

Date Approved:

EXternal'^aininer: 'Dr. Anita Hubley^
Department of Psychology

u

Abstract
One hundred male and female, grade 8, 9, and 10 students, aged 13 to 16, participated in a study
to investigate how adolescents appraise and cope during a stressful mathematics exam. Prior to
the exam, questionnaires assessing tension, appraisals o f control and self-efficacy, and
perceptions o f state anxiety were administered to the students. Following the exam, a coping
questionnaire and a demographic questionnaire was administered, and the state-anxiety inventory
was readministered. Test grades from the exam were collected from the teachers. The data were
analyzed by Pearson product moment correlations, an independent measures t-test, an analysis o f
variance, and by a multiple regression analysis. The results indicated that tliere were no
significant relationships between control and total problem-focused coping or between control
and total emotion-focused coping. However, the relationships between control and the subscales
o f problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies were significant. As expected, there
were significant relationships between self-efficacy and control and between self-efficacy and
total problem-focused coping strategies. Further analysis indicated that s e lf efficacy was
positively related to math grade point average and test score. Stepwise multiple regression
demonstrated that s e lf efficacy predicted problem-focused coping and test score more than any
other variable. The results were discussed in relation to Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) theory o f
stress and coping.

Ill

Table o f Contents
A BSTRACT

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

LIST OF TABLES

v

ACKNOW LEDGM ENT

vi

INTRODUCTION

1

LITERATURE REVIEW
Stress
Cognitive Appraisal
Coping Theory and Adolescence
Age Differences and Coping

7
7
14
22
29

M ETHOD
Participants
Procedure
M easures
The Tension Thermometer
The Appraisal Questionnaire
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
Ways o f Coping Questionnaire
Demographic Questionnaire
Grades
Analysis o f Data

31
31
31
32
32
32
33
35
36
36
36

RESULTS
37
Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variables
37
Hypotheses
37
Table 1; Subject Characteristics for all Participants
38
Table 2: Means o f Outcome Measures o f Dependent Variables for Males and Females 39
Age Relationships on Selected Variables
43
Stepwise M ultiple Regression
44
D ISCUSSION
Age Differences on Dependent Variables
Coping and Performance - Gender Differences
Lim itations
Implications for Counselling

45
51
53
54
54

REFERENCES

56

IV

APPENDIX A
Letter to Principal
Letter to Teacher
Parental Consent Form

64
65
66
67

APPENDIX B
Tension Thermometer
Primary and Secondary Appraisal Questionnaire
Self-Evaluation Questionnaire: State-Anxiety Scale
Items on the Modified Version o f the Ways o f Coping Questionnaire
M odified Version o f the Ways o f Coping Questionnaire
Demographic Questionnaire

68
69
70
71
72
74
76

APPENDIX C
Table 3: Correlations o f all Dependent Variables for Total Group
Table 4: Correlations o f all Dependent Variables for Males
Table 5: Correlations o f all Dependent Variables for Females

77
78
79
80

LIST OF TABLES

Table I: Subject Characteristics for all Participants

38

Table 2:

Means o f Outcome Measures o f Dependent Variables for Males and Females

39

Table 3:

Correlations o f all Dependent Variables for Total Group

78

Table 4:

Correlations o f all Dependent Variables for Males

79

Table 5:

Correlations o f all Dependent Variables for Females

80

VI

ACKNOW LEDGM ENT

I would like to thank m y thesis advisor. Dr. Colleen Haney, for spending numerous hours
working w ith me on my thesis. Her guidance, encouragement, and support helped me stay
focused and motivated. Her dedication to her students is limitless and has not gone unnoticed.
Words cannot emphasize how much I appreciate having her as a thesis advisor. With her help 1
was able to complete my M aster's thesis in a timely and efficient manner.
I would also like to thank my thesis committee, including Dr. Bruno Zumbo and Dr.
Bryan Hartman. I am very grateful that they accepted to be on my committee. Their knowledge
and expertise was essential in helping me realize my goal.
I would like to thank my husband, Stuart, for being patient and supportive throughout the
entire process. Though at times it may have seemed puzzling to understand why and to what
extent I would go to realize this goal, I appreciate his sense o f humour, candor, and confidence in
my ability to succeed.
Finally, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my family for always believing that 1
would succeed, even when I had doubts. In their eyes, I was a success before I even started.

Introduction
Stress tends to be a common occurrence in the lives o f most people today. It is an
inescapable condition o f life and relief comes only by coping successfully with it (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). However, most o f the research on stress and coping has come from studying
adult populations (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Forsythe &
Compas, 1987). It is not known if the results o f this research can be adequately applied to
adolescents.
The lives o f adolescents are not only filled with biological, academic and social changes
but on a daily basis adolescents face stressful encounters with peer pressure, conflicts with
parents, appearance and acceptance (Grob, Flammer, & Wearing, 1995; Phelps & Jarvis, 1994).
This is all in addition to the regular demands o f the day that are faced by people o f all ages.
Sometimes ongoing exposure to stress leads adolescents to depression, suicide and substance
abuse (Brown, Stetson, & Beatty, 1989; Wills, 1986). Therefore, this study will investigate the
coping strategies o f adolescents.
This study is based on Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) transactional model o f stress which
is process-oriented, contextual, and made up o f three interdependent components: stress,
appraisal and coping. Psychological stress is defined as "a particular relationship between the
person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her
resources and endangering his or her well-being" (p. 19). Cognitive appraisal is "an evaluative
process that determines why and to what extent a particular transaction or series o f transactions
between the person and the environment is stressful" (p. 19); and, coping is "the process through
which the individual manages the demands o f the person-environment relationship that are

appraised as stressful and the emotions they generate" (p. 19). Cognitive appraisal and coping are
seen as the two critical processes that mediate the person-environment relationship which can
change as the encounter unfolds.
Cognitive appraisal is based on a complex, meaning-related cognitive activity.
According to Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) model, there are two basic forms o f cognitive
appraisal: primary appraisal and secondary appraisal. In general, primary appraisal asks whether
you are in trouble or being benefited and in what way. These appraisals can be irrelevant,
benign-positive, or stressful. Irrelevant and benign appraisals do not threaten one's well-being.
However, when an individual encounters harm or loss, threat or challenge, the experience can
become stressful.
Secondary appraisals come into play when one is faced with a stressful appraisal o f threat
or challenge and something needs to be done to manage the encounter. Beliefs about one's
ability to control the stressful event show the extent to which he or she feels confident in his or
her powers to overcome the event or alternatively feels vulnerable and overwhelmed by it
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Beliefs about personal control over a stressful encounter can be described in light o f
Bandura's (1977) social learning theory on self-efficacy which refers to the belief that one can
have an impact on the environment.

Bandura states that when a person encounters a specific

situation, he or she will make two types o f expectancies: a) an outcome expectancy, which refers
to his or her evaluation that a particular behavior will lead to a certain outcome; and, b) an
efficacy expectation, which refers to his or her belief that he or she can successfully execute the
behavior required to produce the outcome. In keeping with Lazarus and Folkman's (1984)

process-oriented model o f stress, appraisal and coping, Bandura's (1977) theory o f self-efficacy
appears to be an appropriate conception o f personal control since it is based on the context o f a
specific situation.
In Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) model o f stress there are two m ajor forms o f coping:
problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping strategies are
directed at managing or altering the problem causing the distress. This form o f coping is more
likely to occur when conditions are appraised as amenable to change or under one's control.
Emotion focused coping strategies are directed at regulating the emotional response to the
problem. This form o f coping is more likely to occur when it has been appraised that nothing
can be done to modify the harmful, threatening or challenging environmental condition (Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984).
Studies have shown that both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies are
used in all stressful encounters (Compas, Malcame, Fondacaro, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980,
1985). However, when constructive change is possible, greater em phasis tends to be placed on
the use o f problem-focused strategies; and, conversely, when controlling the situation is not
possible, greater emphasis tends to be placed on the use o f emotion-focused strategies (Compas
et al., 1988; Folkman and Lazarus, 1980, 1985; Forsythe & Compas, 1987).
For coping to be most effective, there must be a good match or fit between the cognitive
appraisal o f the stressful event and the coping effort. Psychological symptoms, such as
depression and anxiety, are highest when emotion-focused coping is emphasized with events
appraised as controllable and problem-focused coping is em phasized with uncontrollable events
(Forsythe & Compas, 1987).

M ost o f what has been said about stress, appraisal and coping has come from studies on
adult populations (Carver & Scheier, 1994; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, 1985; Kanner, Coyne,
Schaefer, and Lazarus, 1981). Among the few studies on adolescents, it remains clear that stress,
appraisal, and coping are still complex and interwoven processes (Cohen, Burt, & Bjorck, 1987;
Compas, Orosan, & Grant, 1993; Seiffge-Krenke, 1995). In an attempt to investigate whether
appraisals o f controllability are determinants o f coping among young adolescents. Compas et al.
(1988) studied ISO children and young adolescents (73 girls and 57 boys), ranging in age from
10 to 14 years (M = 11.89 years). The participants were given the Child Behavior Checklist and
the Youth Self Report where each individual described one particular stressful interpersonal
event and one stressful academic event and then rated the degree o f control they felt they had
over the cause o f the event. The results indicated that both girls and boys reported that they had
more control over the cause o f academic events than social events. Thus, both boys and girls
generated more problem-focused alternatives for academic stressors than for social stressors. No
differences were found for emotion-focused coping.
Compas et al. (1988) also found in their study o f 130 children and young adolescents, that
behavior problems were highest when subjects mismatched their appraisals o f control witli the
coping strategy used. This occurred by either generating few problem-focused alternatives when
they believed they had control over the stressor or by generating many problem-focused
alternatives when they believed they did not have control over the stressor. Conversely, behavior
problems were lower when perceptions of control and coping were matched by subjects either
generating fewer problem-focused alternatives when they believed they did not have control or
by generating more problem-focused alternatives when they believed they had control.

In the past, research has focused on major events (e.g. earthquakes or war) with some
attempt to include daily hassles (e.g. school exam or parent conflict). Yet, research findings have
shown, in regression-based comparisons o f major events and daily hassles, that hassles were far
superior to major events in predicting psychological and somatic symptoms (Kanner et ah, 1981;
Rabkin & Struening, 1976). Compas et al. (1988) showed the influence o f a poor match between
appraisals o f controllability and coping when dealing with the daily stressors o f school and
interpersonal relationships. Thus, it proves beneficial to examine how adolescents appraise and
cope with stress based on a specific situation, where the stressor is daily hassles, not major
events.
Therefore, this study focused on adolescents and examined: (a) whether appraisals o f
stressful situations are influenced by beliefs of controllability, (b) whether appraisals of
controllability determine the greater use of problem-focused coping strategies, (c) whether
appraisals o f uncontrollability determine the greater use o f emotion-focused coping strategies, (d)
whether self-efficacy is related to coping, and (e) whether emotion-focused coping is related to
stress. The hypotheses were:
Hypothesis 1: Control appraisals o f the exam situation will be positively correlated with
problem-focused coping strategies.
Hypothesis 2: Control appraisals o f the exam situation will be negatively correlated with
emotion-focused coping strategies.
Hypothesis 3: Self-efficacy will be positively correlated with problem-focused coping strategies.
Hypothesis 4: Self-efficacy will be positively correlated with appraisals o f control.
Hypothesis 5: Stress will be positively correlated with emotion-focused coping strategies.

This study also looked at age and gender relationships to further explain the findings in
the hypotheses.

Literature Review
Adolescence is a turbulent stage in development which is often characterized by change.
In general, adolescents encounter biological changes, such as puberty, academic changes, such as
the shift from elementary school to secondary school, and social changes, such as those that
define new and more mature relationships. On a daily basis, adolescents face stressful
encounters in terms o f their friendship patterns, conflicts with parents and siblings, acceptance
and appearance (Grob et ah, 1995; Phelps & Jarvis, 1994; Rice, Hennan, & Petersen, 1993). In
the past, the examination o f stress, appraisal and coping focused mostly on adult populations.
This literature review examines stress, appraisal and coping research, as defined by Lazarus and
Folkman (1984), and, examines how stress, appraisal and coping is conceptualized based on
adolescent populations.
Stress
Stress is an extensively discussed concept in the health care fields that has led to a vast
area o f study. O f importance, are the various definitions o f stress now prom inent in m odem
times, the various types o f stressors now identified and the major area o f focus now found in
stress research (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Throughout history, stress has generally been referred to as an agent or as a response.
There are three classic definitional orientations o f stress: stimulus definitions, response
definitions and relational definitions (Aldwin, 1994; Appley & Trumbull, 1986; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984).
According to Stimulus-Response psychology, humans and animals are reactive to
stimulation. Thus, stress is defined as a stimulus which is thought of as an event that impinges

8

itself on the subject. Stimulus definitions focused on events in the environment such as natural
disasters, noxious conditions, illness or poverty (Averill, 1973; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;
Rakover & Levita, 1973).
In biology and medicine, stress is most commonly defined as a response. Selye (1980)
defined stress as "the non-specific response o f the body to any demand" (as cited in Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984, p. 15). In general, Selye believed the organism was stressed when it was
overwhelm ed by environmental demands or noxious agents. When stress is defined as a
response, the animal or person is thought o f as being in a state o f stress, reacting with stress,
being under stress, being disrupted or disturbed (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984) the stimulus-response approaches begged the
question o f what was it about the stimulus that produced a particular stress response and what
was it about the response that indicated a particular stressor. Also, stimulus definitions assumed
certain situations were normatively stressful and both stimulus and response definitions did not
allow for individual differences in the evaluation o f events. For example, Lazarus and Eriksen
(1952) argued that when stress was defined as stimulus or response there were large individual
differences in response to the effects of stress on performance. In their study on failure-induced
stress, they found a marked increase in variance instead of an average increase or decrease in
performance effectiveness. Also, some subjects did much better while others did much worse.
As a result o f the limitations for the stimulus and response definitions o f stress, many
researchers began to look at the possible effects o f mediating variables and their interactions.
The definition shifted toward person factors, and the processes intervening between the stressful
demands o f the environment and the short term emotional and performance outcomes. For

example, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) focused on the context o f the situation and the
relationship between the person and the environment in their definition o f stress. They defined
psychological stress as "a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is
appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her
well-being" (p .19).
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) developed a transactional model o f stress that was processoriented and consisted o f three interdependent components: stress, appraisal and coping. From
this model, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) examined two critical processes that they believed
mediated the person-environment relationship: cognitive appraisal and coping. Cognitive
appraisal was defined as "an evaluative process that determines why and to what extent a
particular transaction or series o f transactions between the person and the environment is
stressful" (p. 19). Coping was defined as "the process through which the individual manages the
demands o f the person-environment relationship that are appraised as stressful and the emotions
they generate" (p. 19).
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) referred to the person-environment relationship as a
transactional process where the person and environment are joined together to form a new
relational meaning. It is their relational definition o f stress that is often relied upon to conduct
further studies in the area o f stress. Carver and Scheier (1994) stated "most working in this area
have taken as their conceptual point o f departure the model o f stress and coping developed by
Lazarus and his colleagues" (p. 184). For example. Compas, Davis, Forsythe, and W agner (1987)
relied on Lazarus and Folkman's definition o f stress in their development o f the Adolescent
Perceived Events Scale designed to measure major and daily stressful events during adolescence.

10

while Forsythe and Compas (1987) investigated the interaction o f cognitive appraisals o f
stressful events and coping. Gamble (1994) based her study on the relational definition o f stress
when she investigated the perceptions o f controllability and other stressor events as determinants
o f coping among young adolescents and young adults. Haney and Long (1995) as well based
their study on the relational definition o f stress when they examined coping effectiveness in sport
competitions.
The stimuli or stressful environmental events typically cited in stress research are
commonly known as stressors. There are three kinds o f stressors: m ajor events, often
cataclysmic, affecting large numbers o f people; major events, also cataclysmic, affecting one or a
few people; and, daily hassles. M ajor events or changes in one's life involving cataclysmic
phenomena are usually treated as universally stressful, often viewed as disastrous and outside
anyone's control. Examples include natural disasters and man-made catastrophes such as war,
imprisonment and relocation. These events may be prolonged or over quickly, like an
earthquake or hurricane, however, the physical and psychological afterm ath o f even a brief
encounter o f this nature can be extended over a long period o f time (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Major cataclysmic events that occur to only one person or to relatively few may also be
outside the individual's control. These events aie also known as "life events". Examples include
such things as the unexpected loss o f a loved one, having a terminal illness, poor working
conditions (Wrubel, Benner & Lazarus, 1981; Landy, 1989; Moos & Tsu, 1977). The above
events are mostly negative experiences, however, there are other writers who maintain that any
change, positive or negative, can have a stressful impact on an individual (Holmes & Rahe,

1967).

11

Daily hassles are often referred to as the far less dramatic stressful experiences that arise
in our daily lives from our roles in living. Daily hassles are mostly the little things that irritate
and distress people, such as the continual barking o f the neighbour's dog, getting pulled over by
the Police after running a red light, feeling lonely or writing an exam (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Although daily hassles are far less dramatic than major life changes such as divorce or
bereavement, some authors have found that they may have more o f an impact on adaptation and
health than m ajor life events (DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1982; Kanner,
Coyne, Schaefer & Lazarus, 1981; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Stressors can also be differentiated by their duration. For example, acute, time-limited
stressors (e.g., parachute jum ping); a series o f events that occur over an extended period o f time
(e.g., losing one's job, divorce or bereavement); clironic intermittent stressors which may occur
once a day, week or month (e.g., conflict-filled visits to in-laws); and, chronic stressors, such as
having a permanent disability, which persists continuously for a long period o f time (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984).
In general, research has focused on major life events. For example, the death o f a loved
one (W rubel et al., 1981); life-threatening or incapacitating illnesses (Moos & Tsu, 1977); being
laid o ff work (Landy, 1989); getting divorced (e.g., Gove, 1973); giving birth (e.g., Austin,
1975); and, taking an important examination (Mechanic, 1962). Focusing on life events allowed
researchers to examine stress more closely in order to create a greater understanding o f the
concept. As a result, many life events measures were developed and these life events measures
became a popular way o f measuring the effects of stress on somatic and mental health (Holmes
& Rahe, 1967).

12

However, some writers argued that focusing on major life events as the sole metric o f
stress was inadequate (DeLongis et ah, 1982; Kanner et ah, 1981). For example, the life events
approach to stress measurement made three major assumptions: life events alone were stressful,
life events had to be major and have profound adaptational consequences or losses in order to
create stress o f sufficient magnitude, and psychological stress was a major factor in illness
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
The first assumption, that life events alone were stressful was challenged by Neugarten
(1977) who argued that change alone did not necessarily generate stress and sometimes stress
occurred even in the absence o f change. This point was based on his research on aging.
Neugarten claimed that life events such as menopause, the empty nest, and retirement did not
necessarily pose serious problems for most people when they occurred on schedule, as expected,
and the effects o f role losses later in life depended more on how they were interpreted and coped
with. In general, it was not change itself, or its absence, that was stressful but rather the personal
significance o f change or no change which, in turn, depended on the person's history, stage o f life
and overall present circumstances (Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983; Neugarten, 1977).
The second assumption was that life events had to be major and have profound
adaptational consequences or losses in order to create stress o f sufficient magnitude to impair
health. Hinkle (1977) argued that although this statement seemed reasonable, it was incomplete
because simply knowing that life events had occurred ignored their individual meanings.
The third assumption, that psychological stress was a major factor in illness was disputed
by Lazarus and Folkman (1984). They argued, illness was produced by a large number o f factors
that did not fall under the rubric o f psychological stress, including one's genetic constitution and

13

the environmental conditions. It was possible under extreme conditions o f extended
psychological harassment but even then the maximum contribution o f psychological stress to
illness was m odest (Hinkle. 1977; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Rabkin & Struening, 1976).
In contrast to focusing on major life events in stress research, many researchers
developed an approach to stress measurement that was based on the ordinary daily hassles o f
living (DeLongis et ah, 1982; Kanner et ah, 1981; Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983). Research
findings showed, in regression-based comparisons o f life events and daily hassles, that hassles
were far superior to life events in predicting psychological and somatic symptoms. Researchers
also found that hassles accounted for almost all the outcome variance attributable to life events,
whereas life events had little or no impact on health outcomes independent o f daily hassles
(Kanner et al., 1981; Rabkin & Struening, 1976).
The extent to which daily hassles could result in damaged morale, impaired social and
work functioning, psychological symptoms and somatic illness centers on the appraised meaning
and salience o f hassles and the quality o f the coping processes inherent in their management. It
is the person who determines whether an incident is a hassle or not. To endorse a hassle reflects
how the person appraised the encounter and also reflects the personalized meaning that makes
the event salient, noticeable and memorable. Some people may react to a traffic jam as
expectable and find it only minimally distressing, whereas another person may become deeply
aroused w ith frustration or fury.
Findings from the research suggest that the basic conditions o f the person's life will
influence which o f the many transactions are going to be viewed and endorsed as hassles and
which ones will be endorsed as "uplifts", that are referred to as positive or satisfying experiences.

14
often conceived o f as the opposite o f hassles (Kanner & Feldman, 1990). Thus, hassles are not
only a reflection o f what actually happened but also depend on the baseline conditions o f life and
how the experiences are appraised (DeLongis et ah, 1982; Kanner et ah, 1981; Lazarus &
DeLongis, 1983). One limitation in the life event research and to some extent, daily hassles, is
the focus on adult populations.
Cognitive Appraisal
Initially, cognitive appraisal was seen as a mental activity which involved judgm ents and
discrimination (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Eventually, the concept was used more
systematically. Arnold (1968) attempted to treat appraisal more systematically when she defined
it as determ ining em otion which could be immediate, especially in response to strong auditory or
visual stimuli, or even in response to more subtle or abstract cues, such as facial expressions.
More recently, cognitive appraisal has been based on a more complex, meaning-related
cognitive activity that goes way beyond immediate and cognitive-affective responses. Cognitive
appraisal has been defined as "an evaluative process that determines why and to what extent a
particular transaction or series o f transactions between the person and the environment is
stressful" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 19). It is assumed that appraisal takes place
continuously during waking life but not always (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Two basic forms o f cognitive appraisal are primary appraisal and secondary appraisal.
Primary appraisal asks whether you are in trouble or being benefited, now or in the future, and in
what way. Secondary appraisal asks what can be done about it. It is suggested that these terms,
primary and secondary, not be understood as one being more important than the other or that one
precedes the other in time (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

15

There are three kinds o f primary appraisal: irrelevant, benign-positive, and stressful. An
event is appraised as irrelevant when an encounter with the environment does not threaten one's
well-being. Nothing will be lost or gained in the transaction, thus, rarely will the event be
attended to. Benign-positive appraisals occur if the outcome o f an encounter with the
environment is perceived as positive, seen as preserving or enhancing the well-being o f the
person. Although, these appraisals are characterized by pleasurable emotions like joy, love, and
happiness, these appraisals still contain a small degree o f apprehension. Stress appraisals involve
harm or loss, threat and challenge. Stress appraisals that involve harm or loss include some
damage to the person, such as an incapacitating injury or illness, damage to self-esteem, or loss
o f a loved one (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Stress appraisals that imply threat involve harm or loss that has not yet occurred but is
anticipated. However, even when harm or loss has occurred there is still some element o f threat
involved because every loss has negative implications for the future. For example, an individual
who has lost a limb faces threats about future functioning. The adaptational significance
between threat and harm or loss is that the idea o f threat permits anticipatory coping which in
turn allows the person to plan for it and work through some o f the difficulties in advance
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Stress appraisals that involve a challenge focus on the potential for gain or growth and are
characterized by pleasurable emotions such as eagerness, excitement and exhilaration. Like
threat appraisals, challenge appraisals require the mobilization o f coping efforts. However,
unlike threat appraisals, challenge appraisals can have valuable implications for adaptation. For
example, people who feel challenged probably have advantages over those who are easily

16
threatened, in terms o f quality o f functioning and somatic health. Challenged people are more
likely to feel better because to be challenged means feeling positive about demand encounters,
even though stress and anxiety may be high. Challenge appraisals are more likely to occur when
the person has a sense o f control over the troubled person-environment relationship (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984).
Threat and challenge appraisals are not entirely exclusive. For example, a job promotion
could be appraised as having the potential for gains in responsibility and financial rewards and at
the sam e time entail the risk o f being swamped by new demands and not performing as well as
expected. Thus, the promotion is appraised as both a challenge and a threat which can occur
sim ultaneously (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
The relationship between threat and challenge appraisals can shift as the encounter
unfolds. For example, an encounter may initially be threatening but then become a challenge
because o f cognitive coping efforts that enabled the person to view the episode more favorably or
perhaps because o f changes in the environment which occurred that altered the troubled personenvironment relationship for the better (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Secondary' appraisal comes into play when we are faced with a threat or a challenge and
something needs to be done to manage the situation. Secondary appraisal is crucial in every
stressful encounter because the outcome depends on what is at stake and what can be done about
it. Secondary appraisal is a complex evaluative process that takes into account which coping
options are available, the likelihood that a given coping option will accomplish what it is
supposed to and the likelihood that one can apply a particular strategy or set o f strategies
effectively (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

17

Appraisals are influenced by both person factors and situation factors. These variables
influence appraisal by determining what is salient for one's well being in a particular encounter.
They shape the person's understanding o f the event and provide a basis for evaluating the
outcomes. The person characteristic that primarily determines appraisal is beliefs. (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984).
Beliefs are personally formed or culturally shared cognitive configurations. There are
two major belief categories: beliefs that have to do with the personal control one believes he or
she has over events and beliefs that have to do with existential concerns such as God, fate and
justice (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Beliefs that have to do with personal control show the extent to w hich people feel
confident in their powers o f mastery over the environment or alternatively feel vulnerable to
harm in a world conceived o f as dangerous and hostile. Beliefs about personal control affect
w hether an encounter will produce threat or challenge appraisals (Averill, 1973; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Beliefs about personal control can also be conceptualized according to Albert
Bandura's (1977) social learning theory o f self-efficacy.
Bandura's (1977) social learning theory examines the interactions between internal
events, the environment, and behavior. Bandura's concept o f self-efficacy is a form o f appraisal
that refers to the belief that one can have an impact on his or her environment. Bandura argues
that when people evaluate specific situations they make two types o f expectancies: a) outcome
expectancies, which refer to the person's evaluation that a particular behavior will lead to a
certain outcome; and, b) efficacy expectancies, which refer to the person's conviction that he or
she can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcome (Bandura, 1977).

18
Thus, the expectancies made will vary according to the demands o f that specific situation.
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) consider beliefs about control and self-efficacy to be
similar, however, there are others who would disagree (Haney & Long, 1995; Litt, 1988).
Bandura (1986) argues that self-efficacy is a mediator between control appraisals and coping
strategies; and, Litt (1988) argues that although both are appraisals, they are independent
constructs which interact to determine an effective coping strategy. Therefore, it would be
expected that students with a high level o f self-efficacy appraise stressful relationships as
controllable and would then cope by making attempts to change it rather than accept it.
Situational control appraisals and self-efficacy are products o f the individual's evaluations
o f the demands o f the specific situation as well as his or her coping resources, options and ability
to implement the needed coping strategies. Bandura and his colleagues found that among people
with phobias, the level o f fear arousal varied with perceived coping efficacy. Changes in fear
level indicated that there were changes in the way the person was appraising his or her
relationship with the environment. As efficacy expectancies increased and the person judged his
or her resources more adequately for satisfying task demands the relationship was appraised as
holding the potential for more control and therefore less threatening (Bandura, 1977; Bandura &
Wood, 1989).
Kanner and Feldman (1991) examined 140 sixth graders (54% girls and 46% boys) to
determine the role o f perceived control over uplifts and hassles. The participants completed
the Children's Hassles Scale, the Hassles Control Scale, the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory
and the Child Depression Inventory. They then completed the Uplifts Scale and the Uplifts
Control Scale.

19

The results indicated that sixth graders perceived significantly greater control over
uplifts than over hassles. The relationship between the intensity o f each uplift and the amount
o f perceived control over that event was examined with correlation coefficients. There was a
significant positive correlation for 15 o f the 25 items which suggests that the more control
adolescents felt they had over an event, the better they reported feeling. Interestingly, if an uplift
was perceived as uncontrollable, the adolescents reported more depression and less restraint, a
pattern sim ilar to those found for hassles.
The study is limited in the sense that although the authors refer to these students as
adolescents, caution should be applied to the conclusions drawn about adolescents in general
because this sample is made up o f sixth graders who are ju st approaching adolescence.
Similarly, Forsythe and Compas (1987) studied 82 college students (32 male and 52
female) to assess whether psychological distress varied as a function o f the goodness o f fit
between cognitive appraisal and coping with a variety o f life stressors. The students were asked
to identify the most distressing major event occurring in the past six months and the most
distressing daily event during the past two weeks to assess cognitive appraisals. Then they rated
each event as either internal (caused by something about me) or external (caused by something
outside myself) to further clarify the nature of the controllability appraisals. Next, the students
filled out the Ways o f Coping Checklist, which contains a broad range o f cognitive and
behavioral strategies people use to manage stressful demands, subdivided into eight coping
scales. Finally, the students indicated on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist any emotional,
behavioral, and somatic problems experienced during the previous week.
The results indicated that the proportion o f problem- to emotion-focused coping varied as

20

a function o f appraisals o f controllability for major life events with a higher proportion o f
problem- to emotion-focused coping used for controllable events. N either problem-focused or
em otion-focused nor the proportion o f problem- to emotion-focused coping differed as a function
o f appraisals o f control for daily events. A 2 x2 analysis o f variance was conducted to assess the
relationships o f appraisals and coping with symptomatology. There was a significant interaction
between appraisal and coping, where lower symptom scores were associated with the use o f more
problem-focused coping with events perceived as controllable. More emotion-focused coping
was used with events perceived as less controllable, which supports the goodness o f fit
hypothesis, that an accurate match between the appraisal o f controllability and coping option
reduces the degree o f distress experienced by a stressful situation.
One limitation to this study is that although the participants are students, they are old
enough to be considered young adults which makes generalizing to adolescents difficult.
Therefore, in my study I would like to examine adolescents, aged 13 to 16.
The second m ajor influence on appraisals are situation factors. Situation factors involve
novelty, predictability, event uncertainty and situational ambiguity, or temporal factors like
imminence, duration, tem poral uncertainty and the timing o f the stressful event. McGrath (1970)
has argued that time may be one o f the most important parameters o f stressful situations. For
example, a temporal factor such as imminence can greatly influence threat and challenge
appraisals (Folkins, 1970; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Mechanic, 1962; Rakover & Levita, 1973).
Imminence refers to how much time there is before an event occurs. It is the interval during
which an event is anticipated (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Folkins (1970) found that longer time intervals before an event was associated with less

21
stress reactions. Folkins argued that an increase in anticipation time provided a greater
opportunity for the person to "think through" or reappraise the situation and consider a variety o f
coping mechanisms by which the threat can be reduced or mastered. Thus, initially there would
be a high degree o f stress but as the interval increases the event would be associated with
lesser rather than greater stress reactions.
From a different perspective, Rakover and Levita (1973) showed that longer time
intervals before an event lead to challenge appraisals, rather than threat appraisals, when they
used rewarding tasks instead o f aversive stimuli like those used by others like Folkins (1970).
It has been speculated that by setting up a task where subjects would be rewarded rather than
punished, it is possible to have created a challenging situation. Lazarus and Folkman (1984)
suggested that the resulting linear relationship between time and arousal represented a
physiological display o f a vigilant coping strategy that would typically occur in challenge
appraisals. Whereas, threat appraisals would elicit more coping complexity involving both
avoidant and vigilant strategies, as shown in the curvilinear relationship between time and
arousal that was found in Folkin's (1970) study. In my study, I would like to have a small
interval o f time between a stressful event and reaction in order to examine the adolescents'
spontaneous reactions to stress.
In summary, the longer the anticipation time, the more potential there is for complexity in
appraisal because o f mediating coping processes. Given time, people can reflect, suffer, grieve,
or avoid the problem, think about it, take actions or make efforts to gain self-control. Each o f
these intervening coping processes will affect subsequent appraisals and their accompanying
emotions. By implication, some researchers have found that the coping processes involved in

22
any anticipated stressful encounter involve different types of coping as the encounter unfolds
(Folkm an et ai., 1986; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Mechanic, 1962). Thus, the processes
involved in appraisals and coping are interactive and interdependent.
A nother important factor when discussing primary and secondary appraisal is the concept
o f reappraisal which is a changed appraisal on the basis o f new information from the
environment. Reappraisal is a type o f feedback. It is an appraisal that follows an earlier
appraisal to the same encounter and modifies it. For example, upon further information a threat
can be reappraised as unwarranted, or conversely, a benign appraisal may turn into one o f threat.
As has been shown in the above studies, reappraisals have the power to create a change o f
emotions toward the situation and towards one's approach to coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Coping Theory and Adolescence
According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984) there are four major limitations to the
traditional approaches to coping. First, by treating coping as a trait or style, it is presumed that
coping is a stable disposition and operates in a particular way over the life course. Although
there is some degree o f stability in coping or preferred modes of coping with sim ilar sources of
stress over time, in general, trait conceptualizations and measures are underestimating the
complexity and variability o f actual coping efforts (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Second, the traditional approaches do not distinguish between coping and automatic
adaptive behavior, specifically, between automatic and effortful responses. The skills that people
need m ust be learned through experience. The more quickly people can apply these skills
automatically, the more effectively they can manage their relationships with the environment.
According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984) these automatic acts should not be called coping. If

ZJ

they were then coping would consist o f almost everything we do. They argued that when there is
a nonroutine occurrence, such as a road closed for repairs that requires a decision to take an
alternate route, or a flat tire that needs changing, effort is required. In these circumstances
coping "efforts" are clearly distinguishable from the automatic adaptive behaviors that occur in
routine driving situations. Thus, when a situation is novel, responses are not likely to be
automatic, but if that situation should be encountered over and over again, it is likely that the
responses will become increasingly automatized through learning (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Third, the traditional approaches to coping confound coping with outcome or m ore
specifically, with adaptational success. For example, to say a person coped with the dem ands of
a situation suggests that the demands were successfully overcome; to say a person did not cope
suggests ineffectiveness or inadequacy. When efficacy is implied by coping and inefficacy by
defense, there is an inevitable confounding between the process of coping and the outcom e o f
coping. Thus, the study o f process and outcome should be independent in order to determ ine the
effectiveness o f coping and defense processes (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Finally, the traditional approaches to coping equate coping with mastery over the
environment. This assumption implies that coping is that which changes the person-environm ent
relationship for the better. Coping is then viewed as solving problems by eliminating them. The
problem with this assumption is that not all sources o f stress in living are amenable to m astery or
elimination (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) provide an alternative definition and conceptualization o f
coping. Coping is defined as "constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage
specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the

24
resources o f the person" (p. 141).
Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) definition o f coping addresses the limitations that were
found among the traditional approaches to coping. First, their definition is process-oriented
rather than trait-oriented, which is reflected in the words "constantly changing" and "specific"
demands and conflicts, found in the definition. Second, this definition implies a distinction
between coping and automatic adaptive behavior by limiting coping to demands that are
appraised as taxing or exceeding a person's resources. This excludes automatic behaviors and
thoughts that do not require effort. Third, the problem o f confounding coping with outcome is
addressed by defining coping as "efforts" to manage which allows coping to include anything the
person does or thinks, regardless o f how well or badly it works. Finally, by using the word
"manage", Lazarus and Folkman avoid equating coping with mastery. M anaging can then
include minimizing, avoiding, tolerating and accepting the stressful conditions as well as
attempting to master the environment. Therefore, Lazarus and Folkman's approach to coping is
concerned with what the person actually thinks or does, within a specific context which can
change as the stressful encounter unfolds.
Many studies have been conducted to illustrate the process o f coping, such as coping with
bereavement (Wrubel, Benner & Lazarus, 1981), a sport competition (Haney & Long, 1995),
examinations (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), physical illness (Moos & Tsu, 1977); stress
management interventions (Haney, 1995; Long & Haney, 1988), and, breast cancer (Carver et al.,
1993). However, most o f these focus on adult populations.
Folkman and Lazarus (1985) assessed the process o f coping among 108 undergraduate
students (approximately 60% female, 40% male). The students were asked to complete a Stress

25
Questionnaire, designed to reflect appraisal, emotion and coping at three stages o f a mid-term
examination: two days before the midterm (Time I), five days after the midterm and two days
before grades were announced (Time 2) and five days after grades were announced (Time 3).
Then, they indicated on a five-point Likert scale the extent to which they felt each o f 15
emotions; and, finally, they filled out the Ways o f Coping Checklist, which contains a broad
range o f cognitive and behavioral strategies people use to manage stressful demands, subdivided
into eight coping scales.
Using paired t-tests, changes in the eight types o f coping across the tfiree time periods
indicated a significant decrease from Time 1 to Time 2, where the most dramatic shift was a
large decrease in problem-focused coping [t (122) = 11.36, p < .001] suggesting that nothing
could be done to change the outcome o f the exam at Time 2. This is further demonstrated by the
second most dramatic shift which was a large increase in distancing, which peaked at Time 2
[t (124) = -9.28, p < .001]. Then, wishful thinking and distancing decreased significantly from
Time 2 to Time 3 [t (102) = 4.76, p < .001; and, t (104) - 8.55, p < .001, respectively]. The
absence o f a significant increase in any type o f coping from Time 2 to Time 3 suggests that no
one situational demand was experienced by the group after grades were announced, further
suggesting that coping at Time 3 was influenced by individual differences.
Though an effective study to evaluate the dynamic change in appraisal and coping as an
encounter unfolds, it is still limited to an adult population thus providing little information o f the
mechanisms involved in adolescent coping.
Research that focuses on the process o f coping among adolescents include coping with
chronic life strain (Mates & Allison, 1992); high risk situations (Brown et al., 1989); stressful

26
life events (Hoffman, Levy-Shiff, Sohlberg, & Zarizki, 1992); psychological distress (Glyshaw.
Cohen, & Towbes, 1989); and, loneliness (Woodward, 1988). These studies are limited in the
sense that most investigate major life events, the stressors are not specific, with the exception of
loneliness, they are chronic, and the adolescents create their own definitions and descriptions of
the stressor.
Lazarus and Folkxnan's (1984) model describes two major forms o f coping functions:
problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping is defined as
"managing or altering the problem causing the distress" (p. 150). In general, this form o f coping
is more likely to occur when the conditions o f the event are appraised as amenable to change.
Emotion-focused coping is defined as "regulating the emotional response to the problem"
(p. 150). This form o f coping is more likely to occur when it has been appraised that nothing can
be done to modify the conditions o f the event (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
There appears to be substantial empirical support for the distinctions between problem
and emotion-focused coping among adults (Compas et al., 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980,
1985; Gamble, 1994). However, it should be noted that although they are distinguishable,
Folkman and Lazarus (1980) state that both forms of coping are used, simultaneously, by
everyone in virtually every stressful encounter almost 98% o f the time.
Compas, Malcame, and Fondacaro (1988) examined the coping strategies used by 130
children and young adolescents (73 girls and 57 boys) ranging in age from 10 to 14 (mean age =
11.89). To assess coping, the participants described one stressful interpersonal event and one
stressful academic event and then rated the cause of the event on a five-point Likert scale. All
responses were classified as either problem-focused or emotion-focused coping. Then the Child

27
Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the Youth S elf Report version o f the CBCL were completed to
assess emotional and behavioral problems.
As expected the results indicated that the students utilized both problem- and emotionfocused coping in response to academic and interpersonal stressors, though the actual percentage
was not provided. Both girls and boys reported that they had more control over the cause o f
academic events than social events; and both boys and girls generated more problem-focused
alternatives for academic stressors than for social stressors. Thus, it appears that appraisals o f
controllability are related to problem-focused coping.
The M ANOVA for the number o f strategies used in total for the two events indicated a
significant effect for grade. Post hoc analyses indicated that the number o f emotion-focused
strategies used increased with age with eighth graders using more strategies than sixth and
seventh graders.
Finally, behavior problems were highest when subjects mismatched their appraisals o f
control and coping by either generating few problem-focused alternatives when they believed
they had control over the academic stressor or by generating many problem-focused alternatives
when they believed they did not have control over the academic stressor (M = 55.38, n = 13).
Conversely, behavior problems were lowest when perceptions o f control and coping were
matched by subjects either generating few problem-focused alternatives when they believed they
did not have control (M = 50.24, n = 33) or by generating more problem-focused alternatives
when they believed they had control (M = 47.93, n = 15). The findings regarding the match
between coping and appraisals o f control were found for using problem-focused coping with an
academic stressor. No differences were found for emotion-focused coping.

28
Two limitations o f this study include the use o f self-reports, which are retrospective,
where the reliance on memory to recall reactions can create a source o f error in the data. Also,
the size o f the sample was small. Therefore, it is important to have a sample large enough to
make adequate conclusions about adolescents.
To further demonstrate the relationship between control appraisals and coping strategy.
Gamble (1994) examined 146 fourth through eighth grade students (mean age = 11.3 5 years) and
166 undergrad students (mean age - 20.73 years). The younger group was 54% female and the
older group was 68% female. The participants completed the Children's and Adolescent's
Problem Solving Inventory (CAPS!) while thinking about a conflict with their mother, with a
friend and an experience o f failure, either academic or athletic. On a three-point Likert scale they
reported how much control they felt they had over how things would turn out with these three
stress encounters. Next, they rated how frequently they used any o f five coping responses,
operationally defined in accordance with Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) theory.
To test for the relative contribution o f perceptions o f controllability com pared to other
kinds o f appraisal in predicting the frequency o f using five different coping strategies,
hierarchical multiple regression equations were computed. The results, o f the young adolescents,
indicated that for all five coping responses, the control variables were most predictive o f the
planful problem solving and support seeking coping strategies, accounting for 8% - 21% o f the
variance in coping responses.
Interestingly, among the young adults, appraisals o f controllability were less predictive o f
coping strategies than were other appraisals such as, concerns about other people and their own
well-being, w hich accounted for 18% to 41% o f the variance in predicting coping variables.

29
Among the younger group, appraisals o f controllability were predictive o f problem-focused
coping.
Though an effective study, the perceptions o f controllability accounting for the variance
in coping responses, ranged from 1%-21%. The large range could be due to the large age span
used in this study. One limitation o f this study is the unequal number o f males and females
included. Another is that adolescents between the ages o f 15 and 18 were not represented, thus
m aking it difficult to generalize the results to all adolescents.
Age Differences and Coping
Some studies have found a positive relation between reports o f emotion-focused coping
and age (Band & Weisz, 1988; Compas et al., 1988, 1993; Hoffman et al, 1992). Developmental
increases in emotion-focused coping have been reported in situations including medical, dental,
academic and interpersonal stressors. Hauser and Bowlds (1990) explain that as adolescent's
reasoning becomes more complex, they are able to view dilemmas from multiple perspectives,
which in turn increases their potential repertoire o f coping strategies, especially those that
involve appraising events. It appears that the relationship between age and coping, characteristic
o f older adolescent coping, varies during adolescence and stabilizes during adulthood. Compas
et al. (1988) reports that there are no consistent findings in the literature regarding problemfocused coping and age, among adolescents.
One reason that cognitive development may affect coping efforts and their outcomes may
be that problem-focused coping involves concrete behaviors that can be observed in adult
models. However, emotion-focused coping involves more covert processes of cognitive and
emotional self-control that may be less observable to children. Also, emotion-focused coping is

30
more abstract in nature, and its use requires more cognitive maturity. Thus, the use o f em otionfocused coping strategies may be acquired over a longer period o f development. In Compas et
al. (1988) study o f 130 children and adolescents, ranging in age from 10 to 14 years, the use o f
emotion-focused coping strategies increased with age but the use o f problem-focused coping
strategies rem ained stable.
Few studies focus on 15 year old adolescents and the relationship between
appraisals and coping. Also, studies do not include the relationship between self-efficacy and
problem-focused or emotion-focused coping. Therefore, in my study I would like to examine the
coping strategies o f 13 to 16 year olds and the relationships between appraisals o f controllability
and self-efficacy with problem-focused and emotion-focused coping.

Method
Participants
One hundred male and female. Grade 8. 9, and 10 students, aged 13 to 16, from a high
school in a small community in British Columbia participated in this study. All students were
enrolled in a mathematics course in which a mathematics exam was administered.
Procedure
Permission to approach the principal o f the school and the mathematics teachers, to
conduct this study, was obtained from the Ethics Committee at the University o f N orthern British
Columbia. The principal and teachers were invited to participate in the study by letter followed
by an appointment to meet personally to explain the purpose o f the study. See Appendix A for a
copy o f the letters sent to the principal and teachers. The study was described as an exploration
o f how students think and feel before and after writing a mathematics exam. The matliematics
teachers were asked to distribute letters o f consent to the students for parental perm ission to
participate in the study. See Appendix A for a copy o f the consent form.
All students were given a mathematics exam, during regular class time, as part o f their
fulfillment for the requirements o f their math course. Prior to the exam, students were
adm inistered a tension thermometer (Walk, 1956) assessing their present level o f stress, a
questionnaire assessing their appraisal o f the exam (controllability o f the situation and selfefficacy), and the State-Anxiety scale o f the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y (Spielberger,
1983) to assess their present level o f anxiety. Following the exam, students were given a
modified version o f Folkman and Lazarus' (1988) Ways o f Coping Questionnaire, a dem ographic
questionnaire, and were readministered the State-Anxiety scale. Finally, the grades from the

J /

exam were collected from the teachers. To ensure anonymity, each student was given a code
from 001 to 100.
M easures
The measures included a tension thermometer, an appraisal questionnaire, the StateAnxiety scale o f the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y (Spielberger, 1983), a modified
version o f the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988), a demographic
questionnaire, and the assigned grades for the exam. See Appendix B for measures.
The Tension Thermometer. The tension thermometer (Walk, 1956) was a hand-drawn
therm om eter used to rate the level o f tension the student was presently experiencing in regard to
the pending examination. The thermometer scale ranged from the scale value 10, which was
described as "completely tense, not relaxed at all", to zero which was described as "completely
relaxed, not tense at all".
The Appraisal Questionnaire. The appraisal questionnaire consisted o f eight items
representing primary appraisal (how important is the situation) and secondary appraisals o f
control and self-efficacy. Primary appraisal was measured by one item previously used by Hart
and Cardozo (1988) in a study o f 135 college students. The item asked, "is the exam important
to me", rated on a scale from zero to three, where zero was "not at all", and three was "very much
so".
Control appraisals were measured with two items, also from Hart and Cardozo's (1988)
study o f 135 college students. The first control item indicated how much control they feel they
had over the occurrence o f the exam ("I feel in control o f the exam situation"). The second item
involved control o f their emotions ("I feel in control o f my emotions"). Respondents indicated

33
on a five-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, and 4 = very much so) the degree o f control they felt
they had. Scores ranged from zero to eight, where a high score indicated greater control.
Self-efficacy appraisals were measured using a scale modeled after Bandura (1977), Feltz
and Riessinger (1990) and Haney and Long (1995). There were five self-efficacy items asking
students to rate, on a scale from zero to 100, how confident they feel about completing and
passing the exam ("I feel confident that I can score 10 marks out o f 50 on this exam", "I feel
confident that I can score 20 marks out o f 50 on this exam", "I feel confident that I can score 30
marks out o f 50 on this exam", "I feel confident that I can score 40 marks out o f 50 on this
exam", and, "I feel confident that I can score 50 marks out o f 50 on this exam"). Scores ranged
from zero to 500, where a high score indicated greater confidence.
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. To assess anxiety, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
(STAI) developed by Spielberger (1983) was administered to the students. It is one o f the most
widely used instruments to assess anxiety. The STAI is available in Form X (1970) and Form Y
(1983). Form Y was developed in response to some concerns that Form X did not sufficiently
differentiate between depression and anxiety. Pearson Product Moment correlations between
Form X and Form Y are over .95 for males and females.
The 40-item test is divided into two 20-items parts, one measuring the individual's level
o f state anxiety and the other measuring the level o f trait anxiety. The State-Anxiety (S-Anxiety)
scale is designed to measure transitory anxiety or the anxiety the individual is presently
experiencing, such as just before a mathematics exam. The Trait-Anxiety (T-Anxiety) scale is
designed to assess a relatively stable individual difference in anxiety-proneness, characterized by
the disposition to react or behave in a particular, predictable way. Because this study

34
investigated the level o f anxiety experienced just prior to w riting a mathematics exam, rather
than how an individual generally feels, only the S-Anxiety scale o f the STAI was used.
The test-retest reliability o f Form Y o f the S-Anxiety scale, for college and high school
students after 30 days and 60 days was relatively low, ranging from r= .16 to .62, with a median
reliability coefficient o f r= .33. A low stability coefficient is expected for the S-Anxiety scale
because a valid measure o f state anxiety should reflect the influence o f the unique situational
climate (Kline, 1993). Internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach's Formula KR-20 alpha,
was calculated on normative samples. The normative samples consisted o f 1,838 working adults
(ages 19-69), 424 high school students, 855 college students, and 1,964 military recruits.
Internal consistency o f the S-Anxiety scale showed that all but one group (male high school
students) had coefficient alphas over .90. According to Dreger (1978) and Kline (1993) alpha
coefficients are a more suitable reliability indicator o f S-Amxiety than test-retest coefficients
because o f the fluctuating nature o f S-Anxiety.
Alpha reliability coefficients are higher for the STAI S-Anxiety scale when it is given
under conditions o f psychological stress. The alpha reliability o f the Form X S-Anxiety scale
was .92 when given to a group o f college males immediately after a difficult intelligence test, and
.94 when given immediately after viewing a distressing film. For the same subjects, the alpha
reliability dropped to .89 when given after a brief period o f relaxation training. M any researchers
have found that the reliability o f the STAI is as high as one could expect (Dreger, 1978; Katkin,
1978; Kline, 1993).
Evidence o f construct validity o f the S-Anxiety scale is illustrated in the scores o f
military recruits tested shortly after they began stressful training programs. Their scores were

35
m uch higher than those o f college and high school students o f about the same age and who were
tested under relatively nonstressful conditions. Also, the S-Anxiety scores o f college students
were significantly higher under examination conditions and significantly lower after relaxation
training than when they were tested in a regular class period.
To dem onstrate trait anxiety is unrelated to intelligence or aptitude, the STAI scales were
com pared to four measures of academic aptitude and achievement: high school grade point
average, high school rank, scores from the Florida Statewide Twelfth Grade Placement Test and
scores from the College Entrance Examination Board. Form X was given to approximately
1,200 freshm en entering Florida State University. The correlations between STAI and the four
measures o f academic aptitude and achievement were essentially zero, sometimes obtaining
small negative correlations o f r= -.04.
Ways o f Coping Questionnaire. Coping strategies were assessed with a modified twofactor version o f Folkman and Lazarus' (1988) Ways o f Coping Questionnaire (WCQ). The two
factors were problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies. Problem-focused coping
strategies involved nine items focusing on changing the problem, such as "I knew what had to be
done, so I doubled my efforts to make things work". Emotion-focused coping strategies involved
10 items focusing on dealing with the emotional response to the stressor, such as "I went on as if
nothing happened". The modified version contained 19 items that described a wide range o f
cognitive and behavioral strategies people use to manage stress. The students were asked to
"think about the exam you have just written" and then to "indicate the extent to which you used
each o f the following strategies during the exam". Items were responded to on a four-point
Likert scale where zero was "did not apply or not used" and three was "used a great deal".

For the present study, 18 items were taken directly from Folkman and Lazarus' (1988)
WCQ; and, one item was taken from Madden, James, and Paton (1993). This modified WCQ
version contained two problem-focused subscales (confrontive coping and planful problem
solving) and two emotion-focused subscales (distancing and escape-avoidance).
The Demographic Questionnaire. The demographic questionnaire contained items
requesting the students' age, gender, ethnicity and grade, obtained for descriptive purposes only.
G rades. The mathematics teachers graded the exams and provided a score for the number
of m athem atical questions answered correctly.
Analysis o f Data
Preliminary analyses o f the dependent variables provided descriptive data, such as means,
standard deviations, and frequency distributions for male and female students.
Second, the data were analyzed by Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, an
independent measures t-statistic, an analysis o f variance (ANOVA), and by a stepwise multiple
regression analysis. Pearson product moment correlations were used to analyze the stated
hypotheses. An independent measures t-test was used to test for significant differences in coping
and appraisal for males and females. An ANOVA was used to test for differences between stateanxiety before and after the math exam for males and females. A multiple regression analysis
was used to assess the contribution o f control appraisals, self-efficacy appraisals and anxiety on
problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, and grades, for all the students.

37
Results
One hundred participants, 43 male and 57 female, aged 13 to 16, participated in this
study. The mean age for males was 14.51 years CSD = .91) and, for females it was 14.91 years
(SD = .93). Eighty-six percent o f the students were Caucasian, 4% Afro-Canadian or American,
2% East Indian, 2% First Nations, 1% Asian, and 5% were a combination o f two or m ore o f the
above mentioned distinct ethnic groups. See Table 1 for subject characteristics.
Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variables
An independent measures t-test was computed on all dependent measures to determine if
there were significant differences in coping and appraisal for males and females. The results
indicated that there were no significant differences between males and females on the dependent
variables, self-efficacy, control, anxiety, tension, importance, problem-focused coping, emotionfocused coping. Math grade point average (GPA), and Math test score, p > .05. The means and
standard deviations for the outcome measures o f dependent variables for the total group by sex
are listed in Table 2.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test for differences between stateanxiety before and after the math exam for males and females. The results indicated that there
were no significant main effects for time or gender, nor were there any interaction effects found
among these variables, p > .05.
Hypotheses
Pearson product moment correlations were computed on all dependent variables to assess
the relationships stated in the hypotheses. Hypothesis one stated that control appraisals o f the
exam situation would be positively correlated with problem-focused coping strategies. The

38
Table 1.
Subject Characteristics for all Participants In = 100^
Demographic Variable

M

SD

Range

Age

14.33 years

.93

13-16

Male (n = 43)

14.51

.91

43%

Female (n = 57)

14.19

.93

57%

Grade

Percent

8-10
Eight (n = 23)

13.04 years

.21

23%

Male (n = 7)

13.14

.38

7%

Female (n = 16)

13.00

.00

16%

14.04

.19

28%

Male (n = 13)

14.00

.00

13%

Female (n = 15)

14.07

.26

15%

15.10

.55

49%

Male (n = 23)

15.21

.52

23%

Female (n = 26)

15.00

.57

26%

Nine (a = 28)

Ten (n = 40)

Ethnic
Afro-Canadian/.American

4%

Asian

1%

Caucasian

86%

East Indian

2%

First Nations

2%

39

Table 2
Means o f Outcome Measures o f Dependent Variables For Males (n = 43) and Females Tn = 571
M

SD

Range

Tension (n = 100)

43.75

26.28

0-100

Male

42.44

28.46

Female

44.74

24.72

Importance (n = 100)

2.41

.78

Male

2.30

.85

Female

2.48

.71

Self-Efficacy (n - 100)

350.70

97.94

Male

360.86

83.13

Female

343.04

107.88

Control (n = 100)

5.59

1.75

Male

5.86

1.60

Female

5.38

1.84

STAI Pre ( n = 100)

42.47

13.57

Male

41.28

13.54

Female

43.37

13.64

12.07

4.64

Male

12.74

4.45

Female

11.56

4.76

11.56

5.25

Male

11.67

6.01

Female

11.47

4.67

STAI Post (n = 100)

40.42

13.81

Male

38.74

14.05

Female

41.71

13.61

Measure

Problem-Focused Coping (n = 100)

Emotion-Focused Coping (n = 100)

0-3

0-500

0-8

20-80

0-27

0-30

20-80

(table continues)

40
Table 2. (continued)
Measure

M

SD

Range

Math GPA (n = 100)

70.34

15.25

30-97

Male

68.35

14.16

Female

71.89

16.00

69.69

18.53

Male

68.67

16.72

Female

70.49

19.95

M ath Test Score (n = 100)

13-100

Note. STAI Pre= State-Anxiety score before the exam; STAI Post=State-Anxiety score after the
exam; M ath GPA=M ath grade point average.

41
results indicated that, for the entire group, the relationship between control and total problemfocused coping was not significant, p > .05. However, control was negatively correlated with
one subscale o f problem-focused coping, confrontive coping, (r = -.28, p < .01), indicating that
students who felt more in control used less confrontive coping during the exam. For males, the
correlation between control and confrontive coping was r = -.33, p < .05. For females, the
correlation was r = -.28, p < .05. See Appendix C for Table 3 for the correlations o f all
dependent variables for the entire group. Table 4 for the correlations o f dependent variables for
males, and Table 5 for the correlations o f dependent variables for females.
Hypothesis two stated that control appraisals o f the exam situation would be negatively
correlated with emotion-focused coping strategies. The results indicated that the relationship
was not significant for total emotion-focused strategies, p > .05. However, there was a
significant negative relationship between control and one subscale o f emotion-focused coping,
escape-avoidance coping, (r = -.42, p < .01), indicating that students who felt less in control used
more escape-avoidance coping. For males and females, the correlation between control and
escape-avoidance coping was r = -.42, p < .01.
Hypothesis three stated that self-efficacy would be positively correlated with problemfocused coping strategies. The results demonstrated that, for the entire group, there was a
significant positive correlation between self-efficacy and total problem-focused strategies (r =
.22, p <.05), indicating that more self-efficacious students used more problem-focused coping.
The significant correlation was found among female students, (r = .37, p < .01), but not among
the male students, p >.05. For the entire group, self-efficacy was positively correlated with one
subscale o f problem-focused coping, planful problem-solving, (r = .34, p < .01), indicating that

42
more self-efFicacious students used more planful problem-solving coping. For females, selfefficacy was also positively correlated with planful problem-solving, (r = .45, p < .01), indicating
that girls who felt m ore self-efficacious used more planful problem-solving to cope with the
exam. However, this relationship was not found among the male students, p > .05. Finally, there
was a significant negative correlation between self-efficacy and one subscale o f problem-focused
coping, confrontive coping, (r - -.35, p < .01), found among male students, indicating that boys
used more confrontive coping when they felt less self-efficacious. Interestingly, the correlation
between self-efficacy and confrontive coping was not significant for girls nor for the entire group
as a whole, p > .05.
Hypothesis four stated that self-efficacy would be positively correlated with appraisals o f
control. The results indicated a significant relationship for the entire group, (r = .46, p < .01),
indicating that self-efficacious students felt more in control o f the exam situation. For males, the
correlation between self-efficacy and control was r = .39, p < .01; and, for females, the
correlation was r = .48, p < .01.
Hypothesis five stated that stress would be positively correlated with emotion-focused
coping strategies. The dependent variables for stress were tension and state-anxiety before the
exam. The results indicated that, for the entire group, tension did not correlate significantly with
total em otion-focused coping strategies, p > .05. However, tension was positively correlated
with the em otion-focused coping subscale, escape-avoidance coping, (r = .27, p < .01), indicating
that students who felt more tension used more escape-avoidance coping. For females, tension
was also positively correlated with escape-avoidance coping, (r = .41, p < .01), but for males,
there was no significant relationship, p > .05. For the entire group, tension was negatively

43
correlated with the emotion-focused coping subscale, distancing, (r = -.35, p < .01), indicating
that students who felt less tension used more distancing to cope with the exam. For males, the
correlation between tension and distancing was r = -.29, p < .05; and, for females, the correlation
was r = -.42, p < .01.
State-anxiety, for the entire group, before the exam did not correlate significantly with
total emotion-focused strategies, p > .05. However, state-anxiety correlated positively with the
emotion-focused coping subscale, escape-avoidance coping, (r = .51, p < .01), indicating that
students who felt more anxious before the exam used more escape-avoidance coping during the
exam. For males, the correlation between state-anxiety before the exam and escape-avoidance
coping was r = .44, p < .01. For females, the correlation was r = .57, p < .01. Finally, stateanxiety, for the entire group, before the exam was negatively correlated with the emotion-focused
coping subscale, distancing, (r = -.32, p < .01), indicating that the less anxious students used
more distancing. This correlation was also found for females, (r = -.35, p < .01), indicating that
when female students felt more anxious before the exam they used less distancing. There was
not a significant correlation between state-anxiety before the exam and distancing found for
males, p > .05.
Age Relationships on Selected Variables
Pearson product moment correlations were conducted to further analyze the significant
relationships between age and the dependent variables for the total group. Interestingly, there
was a significant negative correlation between age and self-efficacy, (r = -.21, p < .05), indicating
that older students felt less self-efficacious before the exam. The significant negative
relationship was found for female students, (r = -.33, p < .01), but not for males, p > .05. There

44
was also a significant negative correlation between age and control, (r = -.26, p < .01), indicating
that older students felt less in control o f the exam situation. The significant negative relationship
was also found for girls (r = -.35, p < .01) but not for boys, p > .05. Finally, age was
significantly related to state-anxiety before the exam, (r = .23, p < .05), indicating that the older
students felt more anxiety before the exam.
Stepwise Multiple Regression
A stepwise multiple regression analysis was done with the dependent variables, problemfocused coping, emotion-focused coping and test score. The independent variables were selfefficacy, control, and state-anxiety before the math exam. The resulting regression models
included self-efficacy (R Squared = .25) for the dependent variable test scores, F (1, 96) = 31.28,
p < .01; and, self-efficacy and state-anxiety before the exam (R Squared = .10) for the dependent
variable problem-focused coping, F(2, 97) = 5.48, p < .01. The other independent variables did
not provide any more predictive power than was needed to predict problem-focused coping and
test score. None o f the independent variables provided sufficient predictive power for emotionfocused coping.

45
Discussion
Research has repeatedly shown that when people are confronted with a stressful
encounter, they will use both problem- and emotion-focused coping strategies, simultaneously,
with an emphasis on one strategy over the other, depending on whether the situation is
controllable and whether they believe they have the abilities to actually do som ething about it
(Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, 1985; Forsythe & Compas, 1987). The students in this study used
both problem- and emotion-focused strategies, 98% o f the time, to cope with the stressful Math
exam. It was expected that control o f the exam situation would be related to problem-focused
coping strategies but this did not occur in this study. Compas et al. (1993) suggests that there are
inconsistent findings in the literature on adolescents, in regard to problem-focused coping. In
Compas et al. (1988) study o f 130 children and young adolescents, students who felt more in
control o f academic stressors used more problem-focused coping strategies. Compas et al.
(1991) and Seiffge-Krenke (1995) both found that there is a greater use o f problem-focused
coping in situations appraised as controllable and changeable than in situations that have to be
accepted as they are.
A significant relationship was found between control and confrontive coping, a subscale
o f problem-focused coping, (r = -.28, p < .01). Students who felt in control used less confrontive
coping (e.g. expressing feelings). This is supported in the research (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985;
Seiffge-Krenke, 1995). Perhaps, at this stage in the exam process, there was nothing more that
could be done to change the outcome o f the exam and trying something risky or letting their
feelings out somehow may have been the only alternatives left to use. These participants were
adolescents who were not in a position to change the situation and writing the M ath exam was a

46
requirement.
The second hypothesis stated that there would be a relationship between control o f the
exam situation and emotion-focused coping strategies. There was not a significant relationship
between total emotion-focused coping strategies and control, p > .05. However, escapeavoidance coping, a subscale o f emotion-focused strategies, was inversely related to control
indicating that students who felt less in control used more escape-avoidance coping. The
relationship between escape-avoidance and control was r = -.42, p < .01. This is similar to the
results found in other studies (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978; SeiffgeKrenke, 1995; Zeidner, 1996). In Folkman and Lazarus' (1985) study o f 108 college students
assessed at three stages o f a midterm exam, the students used more problem-focused coping
strategies when they were preparing for the exam than at any other stage in the exam process,
and when the exam was over, there was a significant decrease in problem-focused coping and a
significant increase in emotion-focused coping. Folkman and Lazarus suggested that when the
exam was over and nothing else could be done, problem-focused coping no longer had a useful
function. This demonstrates tliat when there is a possibility to control the outcome o f an exam,
students will use more problem-focused coping, and when nothing else can be done, students
rely more on avoidance and distancing to cope with the exam.
The third hypothesis stated that there would be a relationship between self-efficacy and
problem-focused coping strategies. As expected, self-efficacy was related to problem-focused
coping strategies. Self-efficacious students used more problem-focused coping strategies (r =
.22, p < .05), and more planful problem-solving (r = .34, p < .01), in particular. This supports
Bandura's (1986) theory o f self-efficacy that postulates if people believe they have the ability to

47
bring about change then they will make attempts to do so. In this study, it is evident that
students who believed in their abilities to succeed on the exam used strategies that would enable
them to do so. As found in other studies, self-efficacious students received higher grades and
performed better on the math exam than did the inefficacious students (Schunk, 1989;
Schwarzer, 1993).
Interestingly, the relationship between self-efficacy and planful problem-solving was
affected by gender. For females, but not males, there was a significant positive relationship (r =
.45, p < .01, for females; and, r = .13, p > .05, for males) that indicated that confident females
used planful problem-solving coping during the exam. Belle (1987) claims that in childhood,
girls are more likely than boys to seek help when facing problems, and they are more likely to
confide their experiences to at least one other person. Thus, in preparation for the exam, it is
possible that the girls in this study felt more comfortable about asking the teacher to clarify math
problems and then when it came to writing the exam, they knew what had to be done, were able
to concentrate, and followed a plan o f action.
The relationship between self-efficacy and confrontive coping was also different for
males and females. For males, but not females, confrontive coping was related to self-efficacy (r
= -.35, p < .01 for males; and, r = .02, p > .05 for females). Less efficacious males used more
confrontive coping during the exam. One explanation for this gender difference may be sex-role
socialization. Compas et al. (1987) argued that gender identity and sex-role socialization may
influence the use o f different coping strategies used by boys and girls. Another possibility may
be that adolescents do not match their appraisals of a situation with coping strategies as
effectively as adults do. Forsythe and Compas (1987) foimd in their study o f 84 college students

48
that when there was a good fit between appraisals o f controllability and the use o f problemfocused coping strategies, students experienced fewer psychological symptoms, such as anxiety.
Similarly, psychological sym ptom s were experienced less when appraisals o f uncontrollability
were matched with em otion-focused coping strategies. Folkman and Lazarus (1985) indicated
that the coping strategies used by college students, across a variety o f stressful episodes,
dem onstrated considerable variability across situations.
It was hypothesized that self-efficacy would be related to control appraisals. The results
dem onstrated that self-efficacious students believed they had more control over the exam
situation (r = .46, p < .01). Haney and Long (1995) and Zeidner's(1996) research also support
this relationship. It is interesting that since self-efficacy and control are related to each other and
self-efficacy is related to problem-focused coping that control was not related to problemfocused coping. It would stand to reason that if self-efficacy led to the greater use o f problemfocused coping strategies, then control appraisals would also, but this did not occur in the present
study. The results may have been different had a different analysis o f the data been used.
Perhaps there is an intervening variable, such as self-efficacy that is interfering with the
relationship between control and problem-focused strategies. It is possible that before the exam,
students actually felt confident that they could control the exam situation but during the exam,
they discovered that it was not controllable and selected an alternative strategy, which was
confrontive coping and escape-avoidance. Folkman et al. (1986) found that the couples in their
study used more confrontive and escape-avoidance when their self-esteem was at stake.
Finally, the fifth hypothesis stated that there would be a positive relationship between
stress and emotion-focused coping. Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) theory states that when a

49
stressful relationship between the person and the environment can be m anaged then attempts will
be made to use more problem-focused coping strategies. But, when the person-environment
relationship cannot be altered or managed then attempts to cope with the emotions that are
elicited are then the focus. Thus, when stress is high and nothing can be done to control the
situation then efforts are made to deal with the emotions. In this study, it was found that when
stress was indicated by tension and high levels o f anxiety, the students used more escapeavoidance coping (r = .27, p < .01, for tension; and, r = .51, p < .01, for anxiety), which is a
subscale o f problem-focused coping strategies. Thus, when students were experiencing a great
deal o f stress they wished for miracles that would end the discomfort, and by doing that it took
their minds off the task. The students in Zeidner's (1996) study o f 341 Israeli students, those
who had high test anxiety reported using more avoidance behavior, and avoidance behaviors, in
turn, were positively related to state-anxiety. In this study, stress was negatively correlated to
distancing (r = -.35, p < .01, for tension; and, r = -.32. p < .01, for anxiety), a subscale of
emotion-focused coping. It appears that when students were experiencing very little stress they
would try to make light o f the situation and not take the exam very seriously. Both Zeidner and
Folkman and Lazarus' (1985) studies indicated that problem-focused coping responses are
prevalent at the pre-exam stage because something can still be done to influence the outcome,
and, following the exam there would be a dramatic decrease in problem-focused coping and an
increase in emotion-focused coping. However, stress and anxiety had a negative relationship
with distancing which contradicts both Zeidner's and Folkman and Lazarus' findings. It seems
that the results regarding escape-avoidance coping is consistent with the literature, but the results
regarding distancing is not. Perhaps the lack o f fit is what Compas et al. (1993) were referring to

50
when they said adolescent coping is not as accurate as adult coping. Another possibility may be
that the coping measures used are not appropriate for adolescents. In this study, the students
were no longer in the anticipatory stage o f the exam process, thus, it would be reasonable that
they would not use more problem-focused coping at this time and focus, instead, on the emotions
that are elicited by the inability to alter the stressful event.
Another finding in this study was that when stress was low, self-efficacy and appraisals
o f control were high and as a result low stress was related to higher test scores. This is supported
in other studies where self-efficacy is also a key factor in relation to job and sport performance
(Bandura & Jourden, 1991; Haney & Long, 1995). According to Bandura's (1977) theory, selfefficacy and performance are related and dependent upon mastery and past performance. The
results from this study indicated that there was a relationship between Math GPA (past
performance) and exam score (r = .77, p < .01). These results suggest that students with high
Math GPA's also experienced less anxiety (r = -.38, p < .01), less stress (r - -.27, p < .01) and,
more self-efficacy (r = .56, p < .01) and more control (r = .38, p < .01). These results are sim ilar
to findings by Haney and Long (1995). This is also in keeping with most of the research that
indicated that low self-efficacy and higher test anxiety leads to greater decrements in task
performance (Bandura, 1977, 1986; Bandalos, Yates, & Thomdike-Christ, 1997; Betz and
Hackett, 1983; Yue, 1996). There were significant negative relationships between self-efficacy
and anxiety before the exam (r = -.44, p < .01), and between self-efficacy and tension (r = -.29, p
< .01), as expected. Thus, self-efficacious students experienced less stress. Self-efficacious
students also received higher scores on the exam (r = .49, p < .01).
A stepwise multiple regression indicated that self-efficacy was a better predictor o f test

51
score (25% o f the variance accounted for) and problem-focused coping strategies (5% of the
variance accounted for) than appraisals o f control or state-anxiety. In keeping with the literature
on self-efficacy, test anxiety, control, and coping, it appears that confidence in one's ability to
succeed leads to the use o f more problem-focused coping strategies to deal with the demands
o f the situation, which in turn, leads to higher performance (Bandura, 1986; Bandalos et ah,
1997; Betz and Hackett, 1983; Haney & Long, 1995; Yue, 1996). Thus, it seems then that
believing in yourself has more o f an impact on how you will do in a stressful situation than
whether you feel you can control the situation.
Age Differences on Dependent Variables
Age was negatively related to self-efficacy, (r = -.21, p < .05), indicating that older
students felt less self-efficacious. Interestingly, this was only significant for female students,
r = -.33, p < .01. The negative relationship is in the opposite direction to what would be
expected. Some researchers found that older students were more self-efficacious (Haney &
Long, 1995; Hauser & Bowlds, 1990). Houser and Bowlds (1990) suggest that as adolescents
mature, their reasoning becomes progressively more complex, they can view dilemmas from
multiple perspectives, thus increasing their repertoire o f coping strategies, especially those that
involve appraising events. However, another study by Band and Weisz (1988), found that
among 72 children, aged 6 to 12 years, younger children rated themselves as more selfefficacious than older children when using primary control coping, defined as attempting to
change situations. If we followed Bandura's (1977) argument that performance is based on
mastery and past performance, then we would expect older students would have had more
experience with M ath and with writing Math exams. Another possibility for the negative

52
relationship between self-efficacy and age, may be that some older students had not been
successful previously in their math performance and this may have reduced their confidence in
how well they perform. Future researchers may want to collect information regarding success
and failure with past performance.
Age was negatively related to control (r = -.26, p < .01). Older students felt they had less
control over the exam situation, whereas younger ones felt they could control it. Band and
Weisz (1988) reported that younger children felt more self-efficacious over events they felt they
could control and change. Since control and self-efficacy are positively correlated, it is not
surprising that the older students who felt less control also felt less efficacious.
Age was also related to escape-avoidance coping, (r = .19, p < .01), indicating that older
students used more escape-avoidance coping during the exam. This has been found in other
studies o f children and adolescents (Band & Weisz, 1988; Compas et al., 1993; Haney & Long,
1995; Hauser & Bowlds, 1990; Seiffge-Krenke, 1995). In Compas et al. (1988) study, the use of
emotion-focused coping strategies increased from sixth to eighth grade, whereas the use o f
problem-focused coping remained relatively consistent. In Seiffge-Krenke's (1995) study o f
1,028 German students, aged 12 to 19 years, older students reported using more emotion-focused
strategies, such as accepting their limitations in changing stressful situations and willingness to
make compromises, more than did younger students. It is possible that the relationship between
age and coping is characteristic o f older adolescent coping that varies during adolescence and
stabilizes during adulthood. Compas et al. (1993) suggest that one reason younger children
might feel more in control o f stressful situations and feel more self-efficacious may be that
problem-focused coping can be more easily learned through observation, whereas, em otion-

3_)

focused coping is more abstract in nature and its use requires more cognitive maturity. Band and
W eisz (1988) suggested that secondary control coping, defined as accepting the situation and
dealing with the emotions elicited, had a subtle way o f reducing stress among the older students,
by lowering one's expectations in order to minimize future disappointment, such as receiving a
poor grade on an exam. Thus, the use o f emotion-focused coping strategies, such as escapeavoidance may be acquired over a longer period o f development, and its use may require more
cognitive maturity.
Coping and Performance - Gender Differences
The relationship between coping and performance appeared to be more evident among
the male students than female students. Although t-tests showed that there were no significant
differences between males and females, correlation coefficients indicated that there was a
significant relationship between coping and performance for males. For males, but not females,
there was a significant negative correlation between Math GPA and confrontive coping, (r = -.35,
p < .05), indicating that males who performed poorly in Math in the past used more confrontive
coping during the exam. For boys, but not girls, there was a significant negative correlation
between M ath GPA and escape-avoidance coping, (r = -.36, p < .01), indicating that boys who
had performed poor in Math in the past used more escape-avoidance coping during the exam.
For all students, poor Math GPA was associated with a low Math score on the exam, (r = .77, p <
.01), indicating that students who performed poorly in the past also performed poorly on the
exam. In general, it appeared that when boys had a poor history o f Math performance, they used
both problem - and emotion-focused strategies simultaneously and regardless o f which coping
strategy was used, when they had performed poorly in the past, they continued to receive a low

54
test score in the present. Thus, in keeping with Bandura's (1977) theory, past performance and
m astery continues to influence present performance.
Limitations
This study generalizes to students, aged 13 to 16, in grades 8, 9, and 10. One limitation is
that appraisals o f control could have been more refined to account for which aspect o f the
situation was being controlled for. For example, are they trying to control the cause or the
outcom e. In future, it would be beneficial to list a number o f items the person may be attempting
to control in the situation to see if there are any differential effects. Another limitation may be
due to the fact tliat the age groups were not separated. For example, age was significantly
correlated with appraisals o f control and self-efficacy. Thus, it was possible that younger
students, aged 13, differed from those who were 16, but the sample was not large enough to see
the difference.
Implications for Counselling
Among adolescents, a key appraisal variable is self-efficacy. It seems that for adolescents
it is more important to believe in one's abilities to execute a particular behavior that will bring
about change than it is to feel in control a situation. The importance o f self-efficacy is not new
because this was clearly established in the 1970's by Albert Bandura. What is different is that
self-efficacy remains a key factor, 30 years later, among an adolescent population that is just
starting to receive attention in the research literature. For today's youth, it would be
recom m ended that school counsellers continue to hold workshops that teach skills training, such
as study skills and skills aimed directly at enhancing a student's self-efficacy. To enhance selfefficacy, school counsellers need to design skills training in a way that will let students

33

experience frequent successes. Skills training would not only enhance the student's level o f selfefficacy but it would also increase their level o f self-esteem.
It should also be noted that when students feel they have little control over a stressful
academic situation, they tend to experience greater levels o f stress and use more emotion-focused
coping strategies. School Counsellers could also teach students who are stressed, stress
management techniques so that they could learn ways to reduce their stress during an exam so
they could concentrate on the content o f the exam. Progressive muscle relaxation techniques and
cognitive-behavioral intervention techniques, such as reducing negative self-talk, and changing
mistaken beliefs, could be taught to the students to help them cope with stress. By increasing
self-efficacy and learning to relax, students would feel more confident about their abilities and
they would get practice coping. This way they would feel more in control o f the situation and
would focus more on the exam.
The results in this study indicate that success in past performance leads to future success
in sim ilar areas. Thus, teaching students how to cope with stressful situations, both academic
and interpersonal, would lead to higher self-esteem and self-efficacy, which in turn, could lead to
future successes. The implications being that students may remain in school longer and feel
more confident in their abilities to pursue advanced education.

56
References
Aldvvin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective.
N ew York: Guilford Press.
Appley, M., & Trumbull, R. (1986). Dynamics o f stress: Physiological, psychological,
and social perspectives. N ew York: Plenum Press.
Arnold, M. B. (ed.). (1968). The nature o f em otion. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
Austin, S. H. (1975). Coping and psychological stress in pregnancy, labor and delivery
with natural childbirth and medicated patients. Dissertation Abstracts International. 35C11).
5631-B.
Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress.
Psvchological Bulletin. 80. 286-303.
Band, E. B., & Weisz, J. R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: Children's
perspectives on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychologv. 2412). 247-253.
Bandalos, D. L., Yates, K., & Thomdike-Christ, T. (1995). Effects o f math concept,
perceived self-efficacy, and attributions for failure and success on test anxiety. The Journal of
Educational Psvchology. 87(4). 611-623.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory o f behavioral change.
Psychological Review. 84. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations o f thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact
o f social com parison on complex decision making. Journal o f Personalitv and Social

57
Psychology. 56. 941 -951.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect o f perceiyed controllability and performance
standards on self-regulation o f complex decision making. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology. 56. 805-814.
Belle, D. E. (1987). Gender differences in the social moderators o f stress. In R. C.
Barnett, L. Biener, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and Stress. New York: Free Press.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship o f self-efficacy expectations to the
selection o f science-based college majors. Journal o f Vocational Behayior. 23. 329-345.
Brown, S. A., Stetson, B. A., & Beatty, P. A. (1989). Cognitiye and behayioral features
o f adolescent coping in high-risk drinking situations. Addictiye Behayiors. 14. 43-52.
Caryer, C. S., Pozo, C, Harris, S., Noriega, V., Scheier, M., Robinson, D., Ketcham, Al,
Moffat, P., & Clark, K. (1993). How coping mediates the effect o f optimism on distress: A
study o f women with early stage breast cancer. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology.
6 5 m . 375-390.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. P. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in a
stressful transaction. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, ô ô fll. 184-195.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. P., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 56(21. 267-283.
Cohen, L. H., Burt, C. E., & Bjorck, J. P. (1987). Life stress and adjustment: Effects of
life events experienced by young adolescents and their parents. Development Psychology. 2314).
583-592.
Compas, B. E., Banez, G. A., Malcame, V., & Worsham, N. (1991). Perceived control

58
and coping w ith stress: A developmental perspective. Journal o f Social Issues. 47. 23-34.
Compas, B. E., Davis, G. E., Forsythe, C. J., & Wagner, B. M. (1987). Assessment o f
m ajor and daily stressful events during adolescence: The adolescent perceived events scale.
Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychologv. 55t4h 534-541.
Compas, B. E., M alcame, V. L., & Fondacaro, K. M. (1988). Coping with stressful
events in older children and young adolescents. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
56(31 405-411.
Compas, B. E., Orosan, P. G., & Grant, K. E. (1993). Adolescent stress and coping
implications for psychopathology during adolescence. Journal o f Adolescence, 16. 331-349.
DeLongis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1982).
Relationship o f daily hassles, uplifts and major life events to health status. Health Psychology.
i . 119-136.
Dreger, R. M. (1978). Review o f the state-trait anxiety inventory. In O. K. Buros (Ed.),
The eighth mental measurements vearbook. Volume 1. N ew Jersey: Gryphon Press.
Folkins, C. H. (1970). Temporal factors and the cognitive mediators o f stress reaction.
Journal o f Personality and Social psychology. 14. 173-184.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis o f coping in a middle aged
com m unity sample. Journal o f Health and Social Behavior. 21, 219-239.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study o f
em otion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal o f Personality and
Social Psychologv. 48(11. 150-170.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Manual for the ways o f coping questionnaire.

59
Research Edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkei-Schetter, G.. DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986).
Dynamics o f a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. SOCSL 992-1003.
Forsythe, C. J. & Compas, B. E. (1987). Interaction o f cognitive appraisals o f stressful
events and coping: Testing the goodness o f fit hypothesis. Cognitive Therapy and Research.
lir4 L 473-485.
Gamble, W. C. (1994). Perceptions o f controllability and other stressor event
characteristics as determinants o f coping among young adolescents and young adults. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence. 23(11. 65-84.
Glyshaw, K., Cohen, L. H., & Towbes, L. C. (1989). Coping strategies and
psychological distress: Prospective analyses o f early and middle adolescents. Am erican Journal
o f Community Psvchologv. 17(5). 607-623.
Grob, A., Flammer, A., & Wearing, A. (1995). Adolescents' perceived control: Domain
specificity, expectations, and appraisal. Journal o f Adolescence. 18. 403-425.
Flaney, C. J. & Long, B. C. (1995). Coping effectiveness: A path analysis o f selfefficacy, control, coping, and performance in sport competitions. Journal o f Applied Social
Psychology. 25. 1726-1746.
Hart, K. E., & Cardozo, S. R. (1988). Convergent and divergent validity evidence for a
new measure o f threatening and challenging stress appraisals. Paper presented at the convention
o f the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hauser, S. T., & Bowlds, M. K. (1990). Stress, coping, and adaptation. In. S. S.

60
Feldman, & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge, Mass:
H arvard University Press.
Hinkle, L. E., Jr. (1977). The concept o f "stress" in the biological and social sciences.
In Z. J. Lipovvski, D. R. Lipsitt, & P. C. Whybrovv (Eds.), Psychosomatic medicine: Current
trends and clinical im plications. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoffman, M. A., Levy-Shiff, R., Sohlberg, S. C., & Zarizki, J. (1992), The impact of
stress and coping: Developmental changes in the transition to adolescence. Journal o f Youth and
Adolescence. 21 ('4k 451 -469.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal o f
Psychosomatic Research. 11. 213-218.
Katkin, E. S. (1978). Review o f the state-trait anxiety inventory. In O. K. Buros (Ed.),
The eighth mental measurements vearbook. Volume 1. New Jersey: Gryphon Press.
Kanner, A. D., & Feldman, S. S. (1991). Control over uplifts and hassles and its
relationship to adaptational outcomes. Journal o f Behavioral Medicine. 14(21 187-201.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981).
Com parisons o f two modes o f stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life
events. Journal o f Behavioral Medicine. 4. 1-39.
Kline, P. (1993). The handbook o f psychological testing. London, England: Routledge.
Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology o f work behavior t4th ed.L California: Brooks/Cole.
Lazarus, R. S., & DeLongis, A. (1983). Psychological stress and coping in aging.
Am erican Psychologist. 38. 245-254.
Lazarus, R. S., & Erikson, C. W. (1952). Effects o f failure stress upon skilled

61
performance. Journal o f Experimental Psychology. 43. 100-105.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. N ew York:
Springer.
Litt, M. D. (1988). Cognitive mediators o f stressful experience: Self-efficacy and
perceived control. Cognitive Therapv and Research. 12. 241-260.
Long, B. C., & Haney, C. J. (1988). Coping strategies for working women: Aerobic
exercise and relaxation interventions. Behavior Therapv. 19. 75-83.
M ates, D., & Allison, K. R. (1992). Sources o f stress and coping responses o f high
school students. Adolescence. 2711061. 461-474.
McGrath, J. E. (1970). Social and psychological factors in stress. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
M echanic, D. (1962). Students under stress: A study in the social psychologv o f
adaptation. N ew York: The Free Press. Reprinted in 1978 by the University o f Wisconsin
Press.
M oos, R. H., & Tsu, V. D. (1977). The crisis of physical illness: An overview. In R. H.
Moos (Ed.). Coping with physical illness. New York: Plenum.
Neugarten, B. L. (1977). Personality and aging. In J. L. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.),
Handbook o f the psychology o f aging. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Pearlin, L. L, & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure o f coping. Journal o f Health and
Social Behavior. 19. 2-21.
Phelps, S. B., & Jarvis, P. A. (1994). Coping in adolescence: Empirical evidence for a
theoretically based approach to assessing coping. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence. 2313).

62
359-371.
Rabkin, J. G., & Struening, E. L. (1976). Life events, stress, and illness. Science. 194.
1013-1020.
Rakover, S., & Levita, Z. (1973). Heart rate acceleration as a function o f anticipation
time for task performance and reward. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 28. 39-43.
Rice, K. G., Herman, M. A., & Petersen, A. C. (1993). Coping with challenge in
adolescence: a conceptual model and psycho-educational intervention. Journal o f Adolescence.
16.235-251.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J.
Zim m erm an & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theorv.
research, and practice. N ew York: Spring Verlag.
Schwarzer, R. (1993). M easurement o f perceived self-efficacy. Psvchometric scales for
cross-cultural research. Berlin: Freie Universitat.
Seiffge-Krenke, 1. (1995). Stress, coping, and relationships in adolescence. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). State-trait anxiety inventory ('Form YL Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
W alk, R. D. (1956). Self-ratings o f fear in a fear-invoking situation. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology. 52. 171-178.
W ills, T. A. (1986). Stress and coping in early adolescence: Relationships to substance
use in urban school samples. Health Psychology. 5(61. 503-529.
W rubel, J., Benner, P., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Social competence from the perspective

63
o f stress and coping. In J. Wine & M. Syme (Eds.), Social competence. New York: Guilford.
W oodward, J. C., & Frank, B. D. (1988). Rural adolescent loneliness and coping
strategies. Adolescence. 23. 559-565.
Zeidner, M. (1996). How do high school and college students cope with test situations?
British Journal o f Educational Psychology. 66. 115-128.
Yue, X. (1996). Test anxiety and self-efficacy: Levels and relationship among secondary
school students in Hong Kong. Psychologia. 39. 193-202.

64

APPENDIX A

Letter to Principal
Letter to Teacher
Parental Consent Form

THE UNIVERSITY O F NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA

November 22. 1997.

Dear Mr. Egglestone.

My name is Caroline Neill and I am a Master's o f Education student in the Department of
Educational Counselling at the University o f Northern British Columbia under the supervision of
Dr. Colleen Haney (Faculty o f Arts. Social, and Health Sciences, phone 960-5639). The
university has given me approval for my research thesis to examine Student Stress and Coping.
The purpose o f my study is to explore how students think and feel before and after
writing a mathematics examination. The information gathered will be used to examine stress and
coping as it applies to adolescents. The participants o f this study consist o f approximately 100
male and female, grade 8. 9 and 10 students, enrolled in a mathematics course.
I asked the mathematics teachers to distribute letters o f consent to the students for
parental permission to participate in the study. The study will take approximately 15 minutes of
class time.
Thank you for your support in this ver\^ important issue to improve our understanding o f
how students deal with stress. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.

Sincerely.

Caroline Neill
M.Ed. Student
Faculty of Arts. Social, and Health
Sciences
U.N.B.C.
Tel. 562-5710

Dr. Colleen Haney
Faculty o f Arts, Social and Health
Sciences
Counselling Education Program
U.N.B.C.

TH E UNIVERSITY O F NO RTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Novem ber 22. 1997.

Dear Teachers,
My name is Caroline Neill and I am a Master's o f Education student in the Department of
Educational Counselling at U.N.B.C. under the supervision o f Dr. Colleen Haney (Faculty of
Arts. Social, and Health Sciences, phone 960-5639). The university has given me approval for
my research thesis to examine Student Stress and Coping.
The purpose o f my study is to explore how students think and feel before and after
writing a mathematics examination. The participants o f this study will consist o f approximately
100 male and female, grade 8. 9 and 10 students, enrolled in a mathematics course. Participation
in this study will require parental consent for each student and we will ask the students to return
their consent forms to you. The study involves the completion o f questionnaires that will take
approximately five minutes before the mathematics examination and ten minutes after the
examination. I will collect the questionnaires and the data wall be kept anonymous and
confidential. The anonymous raw data will be available only to m yself and my thesis Supervisor
and will be shredded within five years.
Thank you for your consideration o f this very important issue to improve our
understanding o f how students cope with stress. If you require any further information, please do
not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely.

Caroline Neill
M.Ed. Student
Faculty o f Arts. Social, and Health
Sciences
U.N.B.C.
Tel. 562-5710

Dr. Colleen Haney
Faculty o f Arts. Social, and Health
Sciences
Counselling Education Program
U.N.B.C.

TH E UNIVERSITY O F NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA

PARENTAL CONSENT FORM

Dear Parents:

A study entitled "Adolescent Appraisals and Coping Strategies" is being conducted by Caroline
Neill, a Master's o f Education student of the Department o f Educational Counselling at U.N.B.C.
under the supervision o f Dr. Colleen Haney (Faculty o f Arts, Social, and Health Sciences). For
the purpose o f this study, the students will be asked to complete questionnaires asking them
about their thoughts and feelings during a mathematics exam. Your son and/or daughter is being
asked to participate in this study by completing a questionnaire before and after the exam. Your
child's participation in this study will not affect his/her school grades in any way.
The results o f this study will be used to understand how students deal with exam stress. Your
child’s participation is purely voluntary and strict confidentiality will be maintained throughout
this study. This means that your child does not have to participate but will do so only if you
consent by signing the bottom o f this form, and if your child provides consent also. Your child
may withdraw from this study at any time without any penalty. Your child will not be required
to write his/her name on the questionnaires, or in any other way identify him/her self in the
study.
Should you have any questions about this research, you may call either Caroline Neill at 5625710 or her Supervisor, Dr. Haney at 960-5639 at U.N.B.C.

PARENTAL CONSENT FORM
I _________________________ have read the above information and I undr-rowuid the procedures
to be used in this study. I also understand that my child's participation in this study is purel>
voluntaiy and can be terminated at any time upon my or my child's request without any penalty.
My signature below certifies that I consent to my child's participation in this study and I
acknowledge receipt o f a copy o f this consent form.
Name o f child__________________________________ Date____________________________
Signature of Parent/'Guardian.

68

APPENDIX B

Tension Thermometer
Primary and Secondary Appraisal Questionnaire
Self-Evaluation Questionnaire: State-Anxiety Scale
Items on the M odified Version o f the Ways of Coping Questionnaire
M odified Version of Ways o f Coping Questionnaire
Demographic Questionnaire

69
TENSION THERMOMETER

Rate the level o f stress that you are experiencing right now. at this moment.

- 10 completely tense (not relaxed at all)

- 8 very tense (only slightly relaxed)

- 6 tense

- 4 relaxed

- 2 very relaxed

- 0 completely relaxed (not tense at all)

70
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY APPRAISAL QUESTIONNAIRE
The purpose o f this questionnaire is to gain a better understanding o f how students experience
exams.
PRIM ARY APPRAISAL (STAKES)
In anticipating the upcoming exam, please answer the following questions.
not at all somewhat moderately
so
1. Is this exam important to me
0
1
2
SECONDARY APPRAISAL (SELF-EFFICACY/CONTROL)
2. This m ath exam is worth 50 marks. Please answer each question.
On a scale o f 0 to 100 how confident are you that you can successfully get:
10 marks out o f 50?
0........................................................................................... 100
(Not Confident)
(Very Confident)
Write the number out o f 100______________
20 marks out o f 50?
0 ...............................................................................................100
(Not Confident)
(Very Confident)
Write the number out o f 100______________
30 marks out o f 50?
0 ...............................................................................................100
(Not Confident)
(Very Confident)
Write the number out o f 100______________
40 marks out o f 50?
0 ........................................................................................... 100
(Not Confident)
(Very Confident)
Write the number out o f 100______________
50 marks out o f 50?
0 ........................................................................................... 100
(Not Confident)
(Very Confident)
Write the number out o f 100______________
3. For this mathematics exam. Please answer each question.
A. I feel in control o f the exam situation: (please circle)
0
1
2
3
not at all
Somewhat
B. I feel in control o f my emotions: (please circle)
0
1
2
3
not at all
Somewhat

4
very much so
4
very much so

ver>' much
so
3

M inÎ)1g a r d e n
Palo AUo. California

SELF-EVALUATIO N Q U E S TIO N N A IR E

STAI Form Y-1

Please provide th e follow ing Information;

Nam e________________________________________________ Date_____
Age_______________________

G ender [Circle) M

F

I

DIRECTIONS:
A num ber of statements which people have used to describe themselves are given below.
Read each statem ent and then circle the appropriate value to the right of the statement to

\ %

indicate how you feel right now, that is, a t this moment. There are no right or wrong
answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement but give the answ er which
seems to describe your present feelings best.

'0

^0

1. I fee! c a lm ..........................................................................

2

3

4

2. I fee! s e c u r e ...................................................................... .

2

3

4

3. I am t e n s e ...........................................................................

2

3

4

4. I feel stra in e d .....................................................................

2

3

4

5. I feel at e a se .......................................................................

2

3

4

6. I feel u p s e t..........................................................................

2

3

4

7. I am presently w oirying over possible m isfortunes.

2

3

4

8. I feel s a tis fie d ....................................................................

2

3

4

9. I feel frig h te n e d ................................................................

2

3

4

10. I feel c o m fo rta b le .............................................................

2

3

4

11. I feel se lf-c o n fid e n t.........................................................

2

3

4

12. I feel n e rv o u s .....................................................................

2

3

4

13.1 am jitte r y ..........................................................................

2

3

4

14. I feel in d e c is iv e ................................................................

2

3

4

15. I am relaxed.

2

3

4

2

3

4

2

3

4

2

3

4

19. I feel steady

2

3'

4

20. I feel pleasant

2

3

4

© Copyright 1968,1977 by Consulting Psychologists P ress, Inc. All rights reserved.

STAIS-AD T est Form Y

72
ITEMS ON THE MODIFIED VERSION OF THE WAYS OF COPING QUESTIONNAIRE
(Folkman & Lazarus, 1988)

PROBLEM -FOCUSED COPING STRATEGIES
Confrontive Coping
* - I stood m y ground and fought for what I wanted
* - I tried to get the person responsible to change his or her mind.
* - 1 expressed anger to the person(s) who caused the problem.
- I let my feelings out somehow.
- I took a big chance or did something very risky
- I did something which I didn't think v/ould work, but at least I was doing something.
Planful problem-solving
* - I changed something so things would turn out all right
- I knew what had to be done, so I doubled my efforts to make things work
- I made a plan o f action and followed it
- I ju st concentrated on what I had to do next - the next step
- I drew on my past experiences when I was in a similar position
- I came up with a couple o f different solutions to the problem
- I went over in my mind what I would do

EM OTION-FOCUSED COPING STRATEGIES
Distancing
- I made light o f the situation; refused to get too serious about it
- I went on as if nothing has happened
- I didn't let it get to me; refused to think
about it too much
- I tried to forget the whole thing
- I looked for the silver lining, so to speak; tried to look on the bright side of things.
- I went along with fate; sometimes I just have bad luck.
- I made m yself not worry or be upset by the situation (Madden, James, & Paton, 1993).
Escape-Avoidance
- 1 wished that the situation would go away or somehow be over with
- 1 hoped a miracle would happen
- 1 had fantasies about how things might turn out
* - I tried to make m yself feel better by eating, drinking, smoking, drugs, medication, and so
forth.
* - 1 avoided being with people in general
* - I refused to believe that it had happened

73

EM OTION-FOCUSED COPING STRATEGIES, continued
Escape-Avoidance. continued
* - 1 took it out on other people
* - 1 slept more than usual

* These items were not used in the modified version o f the Ways o f Coping Questiormaire
because they were not appropriate for an exam situation. See next page for the modified
version o f the Ways o f Coping Questionnaire.

74

M ODIFIED VERSION OF THE WAYS OF COPING QUESTIONNAIRE
Think about the math exam you have just written. Read each statement carefully and indicate, by
circling the appropriate number, the extent to which you used each o f the following during the
exam.
Did not apply
Used
Used
or not used Somewhat Quite
a bit
1.

I made light o f the situation; refused
to get too serious about it.

2.

I knew what had to be done, so I
doubled my efforts to make things work.

0

3.

I went on as if nothing has happened.

0

2

4.

I made a plan o f action and followed it.

0

2

5.

I let my feelings out somehow.

0

9

6.

I didn't let it get to me; refused to
think about it too much.

7.

I went over in my mind what I would
do.

8.

I ju st concentrated on what I had to
do next - the next step.

9.

I took a big chance or did something
ver>' risky.

10. I tried to forget the whole thing.
11. I wished that the situation would go
away or somehow be over with.
12. I drew on my past experiences
when I was in a sim ilar position.
13. I did something which I didn't think
would work, but at least I was doing

0
0

Used a
Great
Deal

75
something.
M ODIFIED VERSION OF THE WAYS OF COPING QUESTIONNAIRE, cent.

Did not apply
Used
or not used Somewhat

14. I looked for the silver lining, so to speak;
tried to look on the bright side o f things.

0

15. I hoped a miracle would happen.

0

16. I came up with a couple o f different
solutions to the problem.

0

17. I went along with fate; sometimes I
just have bad luck.
18. I had fantasies about how things
might turn out.
19. I made m yself not worry or be upset
by the situation.

Used
Quite
a bit

Used a
Great
Deal

76
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
For purposes o f statistical analysis only, please answer the following questions about
yourself. Your answers will remain anonymous and strictly confidential. However, this
biographical data is crucial to the study.
Please answer the following questions.
1. UTiat is your age?______________ .
2. What grade are you in?__________.
3. What is your ethnicity? Please circle the most appropriate response.
Afro-American or Afro-Canadian
Asian
Caucasian
East Indian
First Nations
Other (Please specify):____________________________________
4. Sex. Please circle the m ost appropriate response.
Male
Female

77

APPENDIX C

Table 4: Correlations o f all Dependent Variables for Total Group
Table 5: Correlations for all Dependent Variables for Males
Table 6: Correlations for all Dependent Variables for Females

Tabic 3.

C orrelations o fa ll D ependent V ariables for Total G roup (n ^ 1001
M easure

Age

Tens

Imp

T ens

.23**

Im p

-.0 3

.14

S E ff

-.2 1 *

- .29**

.10

C ont

- .26**

-.5 9 * *

-.07

.46**

SPre

.23*

.74**

.08

-.44**

-.81**

PFC

-.0 0 1

.09

.29**

.22*

-.03

.09

Plan

- .1 2

.05

.25**

.34**

.11

-.05

.89**

Conf

.22

.12

.18

-.10

-.28**

.31**

.60**

.19*

EFC

-.0 3

- .1 7

.05

-.11

-.06

-.02

.35**

.20*

.43**

EscA v

.19*

.27**

.10

-.39**

-.42**

.51**

.16

-.08

.53**

.52**

Dist

-.1 5

-.3 5 * *

.003

.09

.17

-.32**

.32**

.28**

.20*

.87**

.04

S E ff

C ont

SPre

PFC

Plan

Conf

EFC

EscA v

Dist

S-Post

SPost

T#**

.47**

-.003

-.39**

-.56**

.67**

.08

-.12

.42**

.10

.57**

-.2 0 *

M -gpa

- 30**

- .27**

.04

.56**

.38**

-3 8 * *

-.07

.04

-3 4 * *

-.26**

-.41**

- .0 7

-.41**

Test

- .0 2

- .19*

-.003

.49**

.32**

-29**

-.01

.06

-.15

-.33**

-.39**

- .1 7

-.32**

M -gpa

.77**

N ote. T ens= T ension; Im p= lm portance; SH lT=Seli-Efficaey; C ont= C ontrol; SPre= State-A nxiety before the test; PFC =Total Problem -Focused
C oping; Plan=Planful Problem -Solving; C onf= C onfrontive C oping; FFC = T otal F m otion-Focuscd Coping; E scA v= E scapc-A voidancc C oping; ^
D ist=D istancing; S-Post= State-A nxiety follow ing the exam ; M -gpa=M ath C PA ; T est= T est score on M ath exam ,
* j l < .05; ** j i < .01.

mem
I’ablc 4.
C orrelations o f a ll D ependent V ariables for M ales (n = 43)
M easure

Age

Tens

Imp

SPre

Tens

.13

Imp

.02

-.04

SPre

.08

.61**

.05

S E ff

-.05

-.27

-.02

-.40**

Cont

-.21

-.49**

-.21

-.73**

.39**

PFC

.03

.16

.18

.25

-.05

-.19

Plan

-.02

-.20

.10

.05

.13

-.04

.87**

Conf

.10

-.02

.19

.42**

-J 5 * *

-.33*

.55**

.08

EFC

-.02

-.20

.13

-.06

-.26

-.09

.31*

.11

.45**

EscAv

.14

.10

.15

.44**

-J6 * *

-.42**

.24

-.11

.69**

.53**

Dist

-.09

-.29*

.08

-.28

-.13

.09

.25

.19

.19

.90**

.13

SPost

.19

.35**

-.06

.67**

-.33**

- j8 * *

.32*

.06

.55**

.18

.54**

-.05

M -gpa

-.28

-.20

-.03

-.31*

jW **

J6 * *

-.25

-.10

-.35*

-J3 *

-J6 * *

-.21

-.36**

Test

-.04

-.09

-.01

-.15

jg * *

.23

-.11

.04

-.30*

-.51**

-.39**

-.40**

-.33*

S E ff

Cont

PFC

Plan

C onf

EFC

EscA v

Dist

SPost

M -gpa

.77**

N ote. T cns^T ension; Im p=Im portancc; SH ff=Sell-ElTicacy; C onl^C ontrol; SPre^S tate-A nxicty before the test; PFC ^T otal Problem -Focused
C oping; Plan==Planful Problem -S olving; C onf= C onfrontive Coping; EFC =Total E m otion-Focused C oping; EscAv==Escape-Avoidance C oping;
D ist=D istancing; S-Post= State-A nxiety follow ing the exam ; M -gpa=M ath G PA ; T e s t - f est score on M ath exam .
* p_< .05; ** p_< .01.

^

'I’able 5.

C orrelations o f a ll D ependent V ariables for Fem ales Tn ~ 57')
M easure

Age

Tens

Imp

T ens

.34**

Im p

-.03

.31**

SPre

.36**

.86**

.08

S E ff

-.33**

-.31**

.20

- 46**

C ont

-.35**

-.69**

.04

-.87**

.48**

PFC

.06

.05

42**

.01

.37**

.03

Plan

-.23

-.07

.41**

-.12

.45**

.19

.91**

Conf

.29*

.27*

.20

35*

.02

-.28*

.64**

.27*

EFC

-.04

-.13

-.02

.01

-.01

-.03

.40**

.27*

.42**

EscA v

.24

.41**

.06

37**

- 41**

-4 2 * *

.12

-.07

.42**

.53**

Dist

-.22

-4 2 * *

-.07

-.35**

.26*

.23

.39**

.37**

.22

.83**

-.02

SPost

.40**

.58**

.03

36**

-.43**

-3 3 * *

-.05

-.25

33*

.04

.60**

-.34**

M -gpa

-.29**

-3 6 * *

.08

- 46**

.57**

.43**

.06

.16

-.15

-.21

-.47**

.06

-.49**

Test

.01

-.29*

-.01

- 41**

.46**

.39**

.05

.09

-.03

-.20

-.40**

.01

-.34**

SPre

S E ff

Cont

PFC

Plan

Conf

EFC

EscA v

Dist

SPost

M -gpa

.77**

N ote. T ens= T ension; Im p= linportance; SEIT=Self-Efficacy; C ont=C ontrol; SPre= Stale-A nxiely before the test; PFC =T otal Problem -Focused
C oping; Plan^P lanful Problem -S olving; C onf= C onfrontive C oping; EFC =Total E m otion-F ocused C oping; E scA v= E scape-A voidance C oping;
D ist=D istancing; S-Post= State-A nxiety follow ing the exam ; M -gpa=M ath G PA ; T est= T est score on M ath exam .
* jL< .05; ** p_< .01.

00

o