SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2007, 35 (8), 1087-1098

© Society for Personality Research (Inc.)

Coping Flexibility and Locus of Control

as Predictors of Burnout among
Chinese College Students

Yiqun Gan and Jiayin Shang

Peking University, Beijing, China
Yiling Zhang
University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii

The study compared the predictive value of locus of control and coping flexibility on student
burnout. Two hundred and seventy-three Chinese university students completed the Chinese
version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory - Student Survey (MBI-SS; Schaufeli, Martinez,
Marques-Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002), the Coping Flexibility Inventory (CFI; Zhang,
Gan, & Zhang, 2005), and Rotter’s Internal-External Scale (1966). Results indicated that
the construct of coping flexibility was composed of perceived controllability and strategy-
situation fit, which negatively predicted burnout. Coping flexibility accounted for significant
incremental variance beyond locus of control in predicting the three dimensions of burnout.
The results provided evidence for the advantage of a person-situation interactional construct
in predicting behavior, compared to its personality counterpart.

Keywords: coping flexibility, student burnout, locus of control, situation-strategy fit,

perceived controllability.

Locus of Control and Burnout

Student burnout has been brought to attention by research in recent years.
Being conceptually related to job burnout, student burnout refers to the set of

Yiqun Gan and Jiayin Shang, Department of Psychology, Peking University, Beijing, China; and
Yiling Zhang, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii.
The authors thank Professor Daniel Shek and Hei Ning Cham for their insightful comments.
Appreciation is due to reviewers including: Filiz Bilge, PhD, Psychological Counseling, Hacettepe
University, Beytepe Campus, Ankara, Turkey, Email: fbilge@hacettepe.edu.tr; Isabel Martinez, PhD,
Universidade de Lisboa, Facultade de Psicologia y Ciencias da Educacao, Alameda da Universidade,
Lisboa, 1649-013, Portugal, Email: imartine@psi.uji.es; Lian Rong, PhD, College of Education
Science, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350007, China, Email: lianrong1122@126.com
Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Yiqun Gan, Department of Psychology, Peking
University, Beijing 100871, China. Phone: +86-10-6275-7271; Fax: +86-10-6276-1081; Email:
ygan@pku.edu.cn

1087
1088 COPING FLEXIBILITY AND BURNOUT

psychological syndromes that occur due to chronic academic stress and course
loads, manifested as student exhaustion, cynicism regarding learning tasks and
reduced professional efficacy. Schaufeli, Martinez, Marques-Pinto, Salanova, and
Bakker (2002) developed the student version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory
(i.e., MBI-SS), and demonstrated cross-cultural validity of this measure.
Many studies are interested in personality predictors of burnout. External-
internal locus of control is among the most often cited predictors of burnout. The
concept of locus of control comes from Rotter’s (1966) social learning theory.
Rotter believes that people have varying degrees of internality and externality.
Internals believe that rewards they receive are contingent upon their own
behavior, and are confident that they can control their destinies. Externals are
just the opposite. They think that rewards are not dependent upon their actions
and that the events that happen to them are the result of external factors, such as
others’ influences or luck.
As one of the most important personality variables that affect mental health, the
relationship between locus of control and psychological symptoms has been the
focus of much research. For instance, Presson and Benassi (1996) conducted a
meta-analysis on 97 studies investigating locus of control and depression, finding
that the average correlation coefficient between externality and depression was
0.31.
A great deal of the research conducted on locus of control has been done in
North America. However, some researchers have pointed out that the concept
of locus of control is a culturally related concept, largely reflecting the central
values of Westerners’ thought, such as those of independence and autonomy
(Marks, 1998). Wang (1991) adapted Rotter’s (1966) Internal-External Locus of
Control Scale and found that Chinese university students exhibited more external
locus of control than did their American counterparts. In a particular situation,
the results may have even been reversed. Hipps and Malpin (1991) measured
the internal locus of control of middle-school principals under the stress of
threatened unemployment. They found that the higher these principals scored on
internal locus of control, the higher they scored on the MBI.
This result suggests that locus of control, as a construct indicating general
expectancy, is not the determinant of burnout. Instead, the capability to modify
one’s perceptions of control to fit situation demands is more important (Wong &
Sproule, 1984). In other words, what can prevent burnout is not an internal locus
of control, but an accurate perception of controllability of the situation, and an
appropriate appraisal and matched coping strategies. Given this understanding
the concept of coping flexibility emerges.

Coping Flexibility and Burnout

As Cheng (2001, 2003) has proposed, the concept of coping flexibility includes
 COPING FLEXIBILITY AND BURNOUT 1089
three aspects: (1) cognitive flexibility, defined as the variability of individuals’
controllability perception across situations. (2) situation-strategy fit, defined as a
coping strategy that matches the nature of the situation at hand. More specifically,
situation-strategy fit may be defined as the goodness of fit between appraisal of
control and coping strategies. When situations are perceived as controllable,
and problem-focused strategies are utilized, this may be referred to as situation-
strategy fit. Likewise, when a situation is perceived as uncontrollable and
emotion-focused strategies are used, this may also be seen as situation-strategy
fit. (3) coping effectiveness, which refers to the degree to which people believe
their coping behaviors help to attain their goals effectively.
The concepts of coping flexibility and locus of control are closely related. On
the one hand, locus of control refers to the perception of controllability, while
coping flexibility refers to an individual’s variance of controllability perception
under different situations. On the other hand, coping flexibility represents a
good fit between individual’s controllability perception and situational feature,
reflecting an interaction between individual’s dispositional and situational
factors.
If we examine the three aspects of coping flexibility carefully, we would find
that only the first two aspects are central to this construct, especially in predicting
student burnout. We make this statement for two reasons: (1) the first two aspects
of coping flexibility – controllability variance and situation-strategy fit – both
integrate a situational element; whereas coping effectiveness does not include
a situational factor. (2) subjective-rated coping effectiveness implies too much
about adaptiveness, so it is not appropriate to use this for purposes of comparison
with locus of control in predicting burnout.
When emotion-focused strategies are used and stressors are perceived as
controllable, or when problem-focused strategies are used and situations are
perceived as uncontrollable, incongruence arises. This incongruence increases
the subjective emotional stress experienced, leading the individual to burnout.
Thus, coping flexibility, as in inaccurate judgments of situation and misuse of
coping strategies, rather than global beliefs about individual potential to control
events, is more likely to be the determinant of burnout.

The Present Study

The objective of the present study was to compare the predictive value of locus
of control and coping flexibility of student burnout among Chinese students.
To accomplish this goal, it was necessary to identify the components of coping
flexibility. First, the relationships among locus of control, coping flexibility,
and student burnout were examined. Second, structural equation models
were estimated to identify elements of coping flexibility and to examine the
relationship of coping flexibility and burnout. Lastly, hierarchical regression
1090 COPING FLEXIBILITY AND BURNOUT

models were built to illustrate the incremental variance of coping flexibility over
locus of control in predicting burnout.
Based on the above discussion, the following three hypotheses were
proposed:
1. Coping flexibility has two active elements: controllability variance, and
situation-strategy fit.
2. Coping flexibility negatively predicts student burnout.
3. Coping flexibility explains the incremental variance beyond that of locus of
control in predicting burnout.

Method

Participants
Three hundred and fifty-four college students were recruited from a university
in Beijing, China. Eighty-one students had incomplete data or random response
and thus their records were discarded, leaving a total of 273 students, with an
average age of 21.08 years old (SD = 2.03). Their gender, grade, and majors are
presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Gender, Grade, Major and Family Education Background Compositions of the
Participants

Gender n (%)
male 129 (47.3%)
female 137 (50.2%)
missing 7 (2.6%)
Grade
Year 1 25 (9.2%)
Year 2 67 (24.5%)
Year3 102 (37.4%)
Year4 50 (18.3%)
Graduates 26 (9.5%)
missing 3 (1.1%)
Major
art 139 (38.9%)
science 222 (60.4%)
others 0 (0%)
missing 2 (0.5%)
Parents’ Education
College or above 51 (18.7)
Middle school 173 (63.4)
Primary school or below 33 (12.1)
missing 16 (5.9)
Total 273
 COPING FLEXIBILITY AND BURNOUT 1091
Measures
Coping Flexibility Inventory (CFI) The CFI was constructed by Cheng (2001).
For the present research, the Chinese version of the CFI (adapted by Gan, Liu,
& Zhang, 2004) was used. For each stressful event, participants were first asked
to report the frequency of the event (0 - did not happen; 1 - happened). Next, a
6-point scale was applied in order to assess the degree to which the participants
can control events (controllability). This scale ranged from 1 (extremely low) to
6 (extremely high). The participants were then required to describe their actual
coping response to that event with a phrase, and to describe their primary goal
in using these strategies for that event (i.e., problem-focused coping, or emotion-
focused coping). At the end, participants were required to assess subjectively
the degree to which this strategy helped them obtain their goals, using the same
6-point scale.
The Stressful Events that Comprised the CFI The initial item pool comprised
98 stressful events which were collected by interviews and questionnaire
surveys. Based on 20 university students’ assessments of their actual control-
lability and frequency of occurrences, 50 most frequently occurring stressful
events were selected. Then, 30 stressful events with moderate ratings of control-
lability were deleted. Among the final selected 20 events, half of the items were
controllable events and the other half of the items were uncontrollable events
(see Appendix).
Maslach Burnout Inventory (Student Survey, MBI-SS) The MBI-SS was
constructed by Schaufeli, Martinez, Marques-Pinto, Salanova, and Bakker
(2002). It measures students’ feelings while they study. The MBI-SS consists
of 16 items and 3 subscales: Exhaustion, Cynicism, and Professional Efficacy,
which contain 5, 4, and 6 items respectively. A 7-point Likert scale is used, from
0 (never) to 6 (always).
The Chinese version of the MBI-SS was adapted by Zhang, Gan, and Zhang
(2005). The revised scale retained the original structure and all the original items
in the three subscales. In the current study, the alpha reliability coefficients of the
Exhaustion, Cynicism, and Professional Efficacy subscales were 0.65, 0.79, and
0.81, respectively.
Internal-External Locus of Control Scale The scale was initially constructed
by Rotter (1966). Respondents were asked to report their belief about life by
choosing “a” or “b” from a pair of sentence. The Chinese version of this measure
was adapted by Wang (1991). The Chinese version consists of 23 items. Nineteen
of these items loaded on one factor: Internal-External Locus of Control, where
higher scores indicate lower Internal Locus of Control. The remaining 4 items
are irrelevant sentences that the author of the scale put into the scale in order to
confuse its purpose. The internal consistency alpha in the current sample was
0.75.
1092 COPING FLEXIBILITY AND BURNOUT

Procedure
Participants responded to the questionnaires on a voluntary basis. The packet
of questionnaires took the participants approximately 20-30 minutes to complete.
Participants were instructed to answer the questionnaires in their hostel rooms
individually. After completing the questionnaires, each participant was thanked
for participating with a gift of stationery.

Results

The Means and Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix Among

Locus of Control, Coping Flexibility and Student Burnout
The means and standard deviations and correlations among Locus of Control,
the three components of Coping Flexibility and the three dimensions of Student
Burnout are shown in Table 2. Externality failed to correlate significantly with
any burnout dimensions, whereas Coping Flexibility dimensions correlated
significantly with every Burnout dimension. Specifically, Controllability variance
was positively correlated with Exhaustion and Cynicism. Strategy-Situation
Fit and Coping Effectiveness had negative correlations with Exhaustion and
Cynicism, and a positive correlation with Professional Efficacy.

Table 2
The Means and Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Locus of Control,
Coping Flexibility and Student Burnout

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Externality 11.38 5.27 0.751

2 Controllability Variance 1.14 .83 .101 —
3 Situation-strategy Fit 6.31 4.66 -.121 -.024 —
4 Coping Effectiveness 4.14 .69 .002 -.120 .090 —
5 Exhaustion 12.25 4.08 .090 .149* -.211** -.142* 0.657
6 Cynicism 10.39 4.18 .086 .170* -.168** -.179** .576** 0.786
7 Professional Efficacy 21.25 5.32 -.108 -.050 .174** .377** -.189** -.375** 0.809

Notes: (1) the Cronbach α of each subscale was listed in the diagonal in boldface type.
(2)* indicates correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** indicates correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The Structural Model of Coping Flexibility in Predicting Burnout

The three previously defined (Cheng, 2001) components of Coping Flexibility;
Controllability Variance, Strategy-Situation Fit, and Coping Effectiveness, were
used as indicators of the latent variable to predict student burnout. The burnout
variable had three indicators: exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficacy.
The resultant structural equation model was called Model 1. The goodness of fit
 COPING FLEXIBILITY AND BURNOUT 1093
indices of Model 1 are listed in Table 3. Model 1 did not appear to have adequate
goodness of fit.
The hypothetical model consisting of two components – Controllability
Variance and Strategy-Situation Fit – was estimated as Model 2. Model 2 had
a very good model fit with CFI = 1.00 and RMSEA = 0.000, within the criteria
Hu and Bentler (1999) set for model fit that CFI must be higher than 0.95, and
RMSEA lower than 0.05 did. c2 difference test indicated that Model 2 fitted the
data significantly better than model 1, Δc2(4) = 85.95, p < 0.001. Figure 1 depicts
the path diagram of Model 2. We can see that coping flexibility is composed of
two components with the same weights and same direction: cognitive flexibility
and strategy-situation fit. It negatively predicts burnout with a coefficient of
-0.86.

Table 3
Fit Indices of the Alternative Models

χ2 df χ2/df GFI AGFI RMSEA NFI CFI

Model 1 88.33 8 11.04 0.91 0.75 0.19 0.66 0.67

Model 2 2.38 4 0.595 1.00 0.99 0.000 0.99 1.00

Note: Model 1: Coping Flexibility measure has three indicators: cognitive flexibility, strategy-
situation fit, and coping effectiveness.
Model 2: Coping Flexibility measure has two indicators: cognitive flexibility and strategy-situation
fit.

exhaustion 0.97

0.25 fit
0.16
0.87
coping
flexibility 0.86 burnout 0.43
cynicism 0.82
0.28
-0.84
0.92 variance

efficacy 0.30

Chi-square = 2.38, df = 4, p value = 0.66576, RMSEA = 0.000

Figure 1: The Structural model of Coping Flexibility and Burnout: Model 2.

The Incremental Variance of Coping Flexibility to Burnout

Dimensions
Three hierarchical regressions were conducted with burnout dimensions as
criteria, and Locus of Control and coping flexibility components as predictors.
1094 COPING FLEXIBILITY AND BURNOUT

The B, Beta, R Square, Adjusted R Square, and R Square Change are presented
in Table 3.

Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Burnout Dimensions with Coping Flexibility as
Incremental Variance over Locus of Control

B SE Beta t Sig.

Exhaustion
Block 1 Locus of Control
.117 .052 .156 2.250 .026
Adj. R2 = .020 F = 5.063 .026
Block 2 Locus of Control .084 .052 .112 1.628 .105
Controllability Variance -.166 .053 -.215 -3.156 .002
Strategy-Situation Fit .526 .300 .119 1.753 .081
ΔR2 = .060 F = 6.561 .001
Cynicism
Block 1 Locus of Control .117 .055 .147 2.122 .035
Adj.R2 = .017 F = 4.501 .035
Block 2 Locus of Control .091 .055 .115 1.658 .099
Controllability Variance -.107 .056 -.133 -1.922 .046
Strategy-Situation fit .583 .323 .125 1.807 .062
ΔR2 = .039 F = 4.355 .025
Professional Efficacy
Block 1 Locus of Control .153 .071 .150 2.159 .032
Adj. R2 = .018 F = 4.661 .032
Block 2 Locus of Control -.125 .071 -.122 -1.752 .081
Controllability Variance .193 .072 .184 2.663 .008
Strategy-Situation fit -.095 .414 -.016 -.229 .819
ΔR2 = .034 F = 3.578 .030

The results indicated that Locus of Control accounted for only 1.7%-2.0% of
the burnout variance. In the second block, all R Square Changes were significant
and coping flexibility explained an incremental variance of 3.4%-6.0%.

Discussion

The Construct of Coping Flexibility

Our first hypothesis was supported. The results of the structural equation
model demonstrate that the construct of coping flexibility is composed of
the variability of perceived controllability and strategy-situation fit, without
including subjective ratings of coping effectiveness. The construct of coping
flexibility is proposed under the context of person-situation interaction, and
situation is one of its necessities. In fact, after Cheng (2001), Williams (2002)
also brought forward a definition of coping flexibility, which was referred to as
 COPING FLEXIBILITY AND BURNOUT 1095
“a stable individual difference variable of the extent to which individuals are
able to adjust or adopt different aims of coping across different situations” (p.
18). This definition also included the element of situation, and it was similar to
the “strategy-situation fit” Cheng proposed.

The Predicting Value of Coping Flexibility

Our third hypothesis was supported. The two components of coping flexibility
were significant in explaining additional variance over locus of control in
predicting burnout. The case of controllability variance is more complex. If we
look only at the correlation matrix, we may find that controllability variance
appeared to be positively correlated with burnout. However, correlation is the
mixed result in which many factors such as strategy-situation fit and locus
of control were not controlled. In the regression analyses where these factors
were properly controlled, controllability variance was found to be a negative
predictor of burnout. This result was confirmed in the structural equation model.
Therefore, we have confidence in concluding that controllability variance was a
protective factor with regard to student burnout.
The predicting effects of locus of control on three burnout measures were
significant when they were entered into regression equation alone. However,
when coping flexibility variables were entered in the second block, the predicting
effects of locus of control became insignificant. These results indicated that
coping flexibility variables acted as full mediators of the relationship between
locus of control and burnout. In other words, the effects of locus of control
with regard to burnout could be completely accounted for by the mechanism of
coping flexibility.
We did not find a predictive effect of strategy-situation fit for burnout. There
might be several ways to interpret the result. The most important one is that
students may have difficulty in classifying some coping reactions into problem-
focused coping or emotion-focused coping. Another related reason is that we had
a lot of missing data in this variable which reduced the power of analysis.

Implications
The current investigation was unique because it compares the predictive value
of coping flexibility for burnout with locus of control among Chinese college
students, confirming the additional variance that coping flexibility accounts for.
This study thus provides evidence for the advantage in predicting behavior of a
person-situation interactional construct over its personality counterpart.
The present study also provides empirical support for a two-component
structure of coping flexibility by building and comparing alternative structural
equation models.
1096 COPING FLEXIBILITY AND BURNOUT

An improved understanding of the relationship between coping flexibility and

student burnout is important because such knowledge could potentially be used
to design or improve the training programs in university counseling centers.
Unlike personality, coping flexibility is trainable. As a result, a new area of
student burnout intervention may be explored and developed.

Limitations and Future Research

The present study had several limitations. First, as we have mentioned in the
discussion, when participants felt it was difficult to decide whether their coping
reaction was problem-focused or emotion-focused, they either chose randomly
or left it blank. This may have reduced the predictive value of strategy-situation
fit. In further research, researchers could be involved to enhance the accuracy of
classification. Second, in the current study, the data were collected in a highly
competitive university. This may have limited the degree with which the results
may be generalized. The conclusion should, therefore, be validated with other
university student samples.
Further research is needed to understand better the dimensions of specific
situations. We need to go further than just drawing two categories along one
dimension – controllable vs. uncontrollable. We may be able to divide situations
further along other dimensions so that strategy-situation fit is more finely
defined.

References

Cheng, C. (2001). Assessing coping flexibility in real-life and laboratory settings: A multimethod
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 14-83.
Cheng, C. (2003). Cognitive and motivational processes underlying coping flexibility: A dual-
process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 425-438.
Gan, Y., Liu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2004). Flexible coping responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome-
related and daily life stressful events. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7 (1), 55-66.
Hipps, E. S., & Malpin, G. (1991, April 3-7). The relationship of locus of control, stress related
to performance- based accreditation, and job stress to burnout in public school teachers and
principals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago: Illinois.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55.
Marks, L. I. (1998). Deconstructing locus of control. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76,
251-260.
Presson, P. K., & Benassi, V. A. (1996). Locus of control orientation and depressive symptomatology:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 201-212.
Rotter, J. B. (1966).Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, General and Applied, 80, 1-28.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Marques-Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. (2002). Burnout
and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33 (5), 464-481.
 COPING FLEXIBILITY AND BURNOUT 1097
Wang, D. (1991). Revision of Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale with sample of
Chinese college students. Acta Psychological Sinica, 23 (1), 292-298.
Williams, N. L. (2002). The cognitive interactional model of appraisal and coping: Implications for
anxiety and depression. Unpublished dissertation. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Wong, T. P., & Sproule, C. F. (1984). An attributional analysis of locus of control construct and the
Trent Attribution Profile. In H. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (Vol.
3, pp. 81-83). New York: Academic Press.
Zhang, Y., Gan, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2005).The reliability and validity of MBI-SS and academic charac-
teristics affecting burnout. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13 (4), 383-385.

1098 COPING FLEXIBILITY AND BURNOUT

Appendix
Stressful Life Events Scale (20 items)

No. Events or Situations

1 excessive stress due to studying

2 relationship problems with supervisor or professor
3 ignored or belittled by staff in public places such as stores
4 failing an exam
5 misunderstood by other people
6 illness of family member or close friend
7 insomnia or other physical disturbances
8 robbed
9 separation from lover
10 treated with a cold shoulder at a friend’s gathering
11 criticized about your work or studies
12 fallen in love with somebody who is already married or engaged
13 quarrels with colleagues/fellow students
14 illness or injury
15 losing face in public
16 disturbances in relationship with lover
17 dissatisfied with course arrangement
18 starting a relationship
19 getting a reward
20 relationship problems with parents

Note: The uncontrollable events are in italics.