Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Dialectical Thinking and Coping

Flexibility: A Multimethod Approach
Cecilia Cheng

Journal of Personality

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Assessing coping flexibilit y in real-life and laborat ory set t ings: A mult imet hod approach
Cecilia Cheng

Cognit ive Processes Underlying Coping Flexibilit y: Different iat ion and Int egrat ion
Cecilia Cheng

Flexible coping responses t o severe acut e respirat ory syndrome-relat ed and daily life st ressful event s
Yiling Zhang
 Dialectical Thinking and Coping Flexibility:
A Multimethod Approach

Cecilia Cheng
The University of Hong Kong

ABSTRACT Coping flexibility refers to the formulation of flexible cop-

ing strategies that meet distinct demands under changing circumstances.
Dialectical thinking was proposed to be related to flexible coping across
situations. The hypothesized link between dialectical thinking and coping
flexibility was explored by a multimethod approach. In Study 1, the as-
sociation between dialectical thinking and coping flexibility was examined
using a cross-sectional design. In Study 2, the hypothesized link was tested
using an experimental paradigm in which dialectical thinking was manip-
ulated by priming procedures. Participants’ responses to different hypo-
thetical stressful situations were assessed after priming. Study 3 adopted a
prospective design in which dialectical thinking assessed at an initial phase
was a predictor of changes in coping flexibility and state anxiety over a 12-
month period. Results from the three studies consistently revealed a pos-
itive relationship between dialectical thinking and coping flexibility.

People differ in their coping style when dealing with the changing
environment. Some people tend to use distinct types of coping strat-
egy to handle different stressful events, whereas others tend to use a
particular type of coping strategy across different stressful events.
Variability in coping, commonly referred to as coping flexibility,
reflects an individual’s tendency to formulate flexible strategies to
handle different demands under changing circumstances (see, e.g.,

The author would like to thank Eva Chan, Ka-cheung Cheng, Yige Dong, Oi-wah
Huen, Gigi Lam, Kin-tong Kwan, Kai-yan Ng, Pui-kin Ser, Jane Tsoi, Chu-kwan
Wong, and Cathy Wu for research and clerical assistance.
Preparation of this article was supported by Research Grants Council’s Competitive
Earmarked Research Grant HKU6233/04H and Seed Funding Programme for Basic
Research 200611159018.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cecilia Cheng,
Department of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong
Kong. E-mail: ceci-cheng@hku.hk.

Journal of Personality 77:2, April 2009

r 2009, Copyright the Authors
Journal compilation r 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00555.x
472 Cheng

Cheng, 2001; Lester, Smart, & Baum, 1994; Schwartz, Peng, Lester,
Daltroy, & Goldberger, 1998; Watanabe, Iwanaga, & Ozeki, 2002).
The construct of coping flexibility comprises three elements: (a) flex-
ible cognitive appraisal, (b) flexible coping pattern, and (c) a good
strategy–situation fit (see Cheng, 2001; Cheng & Cheung, 2005).
Studies (e.g., Haythornthwaite, Menefee, Heinberg, & Clark, 1998;
Kaluza, 2000; Slangen-de Kort, Midden, Aarts, & Van Wagenberg,
2001; Watanabe et al., 2002) have shown that individuals high in
coping flexibility can distinguish among stressful situations in terms
of their controllability and deploy different strategies accordingly,
whereas those low in coping flexibility tend to use a particular type of
strategy in most situations.
Individual differences in coping flexibility can be represented by
different types of coping pattern. A coping pattern is made up of a
combination of coping strategies that uniquely define the deployment
of multiple strategies, thus unveiling the overall structure of strategy
deployment. Studies (e.g., Cheng, 2001; Gan, Liu, & Zhang, 2004;
Kaluza, 2000; Mattlin, Wethington, & Kessler, 1990) have adopted
the typological approach to identify groups of individuals with sim-
ilar coping patterns. Results revealed three major types of coping
patterns. First, a functional flexible (also labeled as active flexible or
versatile) coping pattern indicates the ability to distinguish and re-
spond appropriately to meet the changing situational demands. In
controllable stressful situations, these individuals tend to use primary
approach coping, which refers to a constellation of strategies that aim
to change aspects of the stressful event. In uncontrollable stressful
situations, they tend to use secondary approach coping, which refers
to a constellation of strategies with an underlying goal of changing
one’s thoughts and feelings. Second, an active-inflexible (also labeled
as rigid–instrumental or cognitively active) coping pattern indicates
consistencies in the perception of situations as controllable and the
deployment of primary approach coping in handling most situations.
Third, a passive-inflexible (also labeled as resigned–defensive or pas-
sive impulsive) coping style refers to consistencies in the perception of
situation as uncontrollable and the deployment of secondary ap-
proach coping in handling most situations.
Individual differences in coping flexibility were found to be asso-
ciated with individual differences in positive psychological and phys-
ical outcomes. Individuals who are more flexible in coping,
compared to those who are less flexible in coping, tend to report
Dialectical Thinking 473

lower anxiety levels, lower depression levels, fewer psychosomatic

symptoms, and fewer stress-related symptoms such as proneness
to worry and exhaustion (e.g., Cheng, Hui, & Lam, 1999; Fresco,
Williams, & Nugent, 2006; Katz, Kravetz, & Grynbaum, 2005; Mino
& Kanemitsu, 2005). Experimental studies have shown that individ-
uals higher in coping flexibility tend to display lower stress-induced
systolic blood pressure (Watanabe et al., 2002) and smaller increases
in heart rate (Krohne & Fuchs, 1991) when coping with stressful
tasks. Longitudinal studies (e.g., Cheng, 2003; Cheng, Yang, Jun, &
Hutton, 2007) revealed that coping flexibility predicted a reduction
in anxiety and depression, palliation of symptom severity, and en-
hancement in quality of life over time.
Studies on coping flexibility have consistently revealed that some
individuals are characterized by a more variable pattern of coping
than others, and these individual differences were related to both
psychological and physical outcomes. What are the cognitive under-
pinnings that underlie such individual differences in strategy formu-
lation? The present research aims to address this issue by providing
an account of the link between thinking style and coping flexibility.
Individuals with distinct thinking styles may use different heuristics
in guiding their decision-making process, which may in turn con-
tribute to different patterns of coping flexibility.
Dialectical thinking is proposed to be relevant to coping flexibil-
ity. Dialectical thinking is characterized by a unique perspective on
change, contradiction, and meaning of events (see, e.g., Hou & Zhu,
2002; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). In view of change, dialectical thinkers
tend to perceive that the world and all the events embedded in it are
always changing. In view of contradiction, these individuals tend to
accept that seemingly contradicting propositions can coexist in a
balanced and harmonious manner. In view of meaning, they tend to
regard that the meaning of an event can be reflected by its opposite
predication or other relevant alternatives. The specific meaning of
any event is framed by the context in which it is embedded.
The proposition of the link between dialecticism and coping flex-
ibility is predicated on Cheng’s (2003) study, which revealed an in-
verse relationship between the motivational variable of need for
closure and coping flexibility. Need for closure refers to a desire of
certainty and intolerance of ambiguity (see Kruglanski & Webster,
1996). In this study, individuals high in coping flexibility were found
to have a low need for closure, indicating that they are more tolerant
474 Cheng

of uncertainty and ambiguity. Those low in coping flexibility were

found to have a high need for closure, indicating that they are less
likely to tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity.
Because changes and contradictions both involve uncertainty and
ambiguity, individuals high in coping flexibility were proposed to be
characterized by a dialectical mode of thinking. Specifically, dialec-
tical thinking was predicted to be related to two aspects of coping
flexibility: (a) a balanced coping profile and (b) a goodness of fit
between the use of coping strategies and specific demands of stressful
situations. First, individuals with a higher capacity for dialectical
thinking are more likely to acknowledge and accept seeming con-
tradictions than those with a lower capacity for dialectical thinking.
Having a unique view of contradiction, individuals with a higher
capacity for dialectical thinking were predicted to vary their use of
both primary approach coping and secondary approach coping
across different types of stressful situations. By contrast, those
with a lower capacity for dialectical thinking were predicted to
have a stronger preference for one type of coping strategy over the
other. If some individuals have a strong preference for primary ap-
proach coping, they tend to use much primary approach coping but
very little secondary approach coping. If others have a strong pref-
erence for secondary approach coping, they tend to use much sec-
ondary approach coping but very little primary approach coping.
Taken together, the coping profile of individuals with a higher ca-
pacity for dialectical thinking was predicted to be more balanced than
that of individuals with a lower capacity for dialectical thinking.
Second, compared to individuals with a lower capacity for dia-
lectical thinking, those with a higher capacity for dialectical thinking
are more likely to perceive the environment as ever-changing and the
meaning of events as framed by the specific situation in which it is
embedded. Having a unique view of change and meaning of events,
individuals with a higher capacity for dialectical thinking were pre-
dicted to deploy different types of coping strategy across a vast array
of stressful events. It is noteworthy that such changes in strategy
deployment do not reflect a cluster of random, ‘‘wishy-washy’’ re-
sponses. Rather, their strategy deployment may reflect a meaningful
pattern showing a goodness of fit between the nature of coping
strategies and the specific situational demands. According to the
transactional theory of coping (see Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, 1987),
a goodness-of-fit coping pattern is characterized by the use of
Dialectical Thinking 475

primary approach coping to directly handle controllable stressful

events but secondary approach coping to change oneself to accom-
modate uncontrollable stressful events. However, individuals with a
lower capacity for dialectical thinking were predicted to use a single
type of coping strategy regardless of the characteristics of stressful
events.
In summary, the present research examined the hypothesized link
between dialectical thinking and coping flexibility. Three studies
were conducted to address this unexplored issue. The major aim of
Study 1 was to explore the relationship between dialectical thinking
and coping flexibility with a cross-sectional design. Study 2 sought to
clarify the direction of such a link in an experimental setting. Using a
priming paradigm, some participants were induced to think in a di-
alectical manner. Their coping responses to different hypothesized
stressful situations were assessed after the priming task. Adopting a
prospective design, Study 3 explored the predictive relationship be-
tween dialectical thinking assessed at an initial time point and
changes in coping flexibility over a 12-month period. State anxiety
was included as an outcome measure of coping in this study.

STUDY 1
Study 1 examined whether dialectical thinking is associated with
flexible coping across distinct types of stressful situations. It is note-
worthy that only self-report questionnaires were included in this
study, and this methodology is susceptible to the confounding effect
of social desirability (see, e.g., Gordon, 1987; Kozma & Stones,
1987). Results obtained from these measures can be spurious due to
respondents’ tendency to give socially desirable answers. To mini-
mize this problem, a measure of social desirability was included to
examine the possible associations between social desirability and the
major variables. Statistical methods (i.e., covariation) were used to
partial out the potential confounding effects of social desirability.

Method
Participants

Participants were 116 Chinese (50 men, 66 women) undergraduates who

took part as partial fulfillment of course requirements of Introduction to
Psychology. Their average age was 20.14 years (SD 5 1.06).
476 Cheng

Measures

Dialectical thinking. The Chinese version of the Dialectical Self

Scale (DSS; Spencer-Rodgers, Peng, Wang, & Hou, 2004) was used to
measure dialectical cognitive tendencies, namely, contradiction (e.g.,
‘‘There are always two sides to everything, depending on how you look
at it’’), cognitive change (e.g., ‘‘I find that my values and beliefs will
change depending on who I am with’’), and behavioral change (e.g., ‘‘The
way I behave usually has more to do with immediate circumstances than
with my personal preferences’’). These items assess contradictions
and changes in three realms: psychological (13 items), environmental
(12 items), and interpersonal (7 items). For each item, respondents give a
rating along a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). The DSS scores range from 32 to 224, with a higher DSS score
indicating a higher capacity for dialectical thinking. Previous studies
(Hou, Zhu, & Peng, 2003; Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2004) have found that
the DSS could account for acknowledgment and acceptance of contradic-
tions in self-construals and health beliefs, thus providing evidence that it
is a valid measure of dialectical thinking. This measure had adequate in-
ternal consistencies in previous studies and the present research (Cron-
bach’s a 5 .77 for Study 1 and .75 for Study 3).

Coping flexibility. The Coping Flexibility Questionnaire (CFQ; Cheng,

2001) was used to assess coping flexibility. In this measure, respondents
describe four controllable and four uncontrollable hassling events experi-
enced in the past 3 months. For each event, they are instructed to describe
all the coping strategies deployed to handle it. They also report their pri-
mary goal of using the coping strategies by choosing one of the following:
(a) to confront and change aspects of the stressful event directly (primary
approach coping), (b) to change one’s thoughts and feelings about the
stressful event (secondary approach coping), and (c) to avoid handling the
stressful event (avoidant coping). The goodness-of-fit criteria specified by
the transactional theory of coping (see Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, 1987)
was adopted for scoring the CFQ: using primary approach coping in con-
trollable stressful events or secondary approach coping in uncontrollable
stressful events. A response that meets the goodness-of-fit criteria is given a
score of 1, whereas all other responses are given a score of 0 (see Cheng,
2001). The CFQ score is derived from averaging the score of the eight
events, and the goodness-of-fit score ranges from 0 to 1. A higher CFQ
score indicates a greater extent of match between the characteristics of
coping strategies and situational demands. The CFQ displayed good cri-
terion-related validity, discriminant validity, and predictive validity (e.g.,
Cheng, Hui, & Lam, 2004; Gan, Zhang, Wang, Wang, & Shen, 2006).
Dialectical Thinking 477

Social desirability. The Chinese version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social

Desirability scale (MCSD; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Reynolds, 1982;
Yang, 1997) was used to measure social desirability. The MCSD consists
of 33 items to which respondents indicate ‘‘yes’’ (1) or ‘‘no’’ (0). The
MCSD scores range from 0 to 33. A higher score indicates a hope to
achieve greater social desirability. The Chinese MCSD displays good
reliability and criterion-related validity (Yang, 1997).

Procedures

The set of questionnaires was administered in groups of 8 to 12 by a

research assistant. After the research assistant had given instructions,
participants were asked to sign a consent form before the study began.
Upon completion of the questionnaire set, participants were thanked and
debriefed.

Results and Discussion

This study examined the hypothesized relationship between dialec-
tical thinking and coping flexibility. A higher capacity for dialectical
thinking was predicted to be related to a higher level of coping flex-
ibility, as indicated by (a) a more balanced profile of primary ap-
proach coping and secondary approach coping and (b) a better fit
between the characteristics of coping strategies and situational de-
mands. Before conducting the main analyses, two sets of preliminary
analyses were conducted. The first examined sex differences in dia-
lectical thinking, coping flexibility, and social desirability. Results
revealed no statistically significant effect of sex on these variables,
F(3, 112) 5 1.05, p 5 .37. The upper panel of Table 1 shows the
descriptive statistics for the pool sample.
The second examined the interrelationships between dialectical
thinking and the use of the three coping strategies (primary ap-
proach, secondary approach, and avoidant). Because dialectical
thinking can reflect changes in one’s thoughts and behaviors in re-
sponse to environmental changes, it may conceptually overlap with
secondary approach coping, which refers to changes in one’s
thoughts and feelings. Referring to Table 2, dialectical thinking
was unrelated to the use of secondary approach coping and the other
types of coping. This is because dialectical thinking refers to cogni-
tive and behavioral changes in response to the changing environment
as well as acceptance of contradictions and uncertainty. Secondary
approach coping comprises strategies that target changing one’s
478 Cheng

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables for Studies 1 and 3

Variable M SD SE

Study 1 (N 5 116)
Dialectical thinking 124.81 12.65 1.74
Coping flexibility 0.45 0.26 0.03
Social desirability 17.35 6.36 0.59
Study 3 (N 5 74)
Dialectical thinking—Time 1 122.53 12.47 1.92
Coping flexibility—Time 1 0.45 0.25 0.03
State anxiety—Time 1 42.03 14.20 1.65
Coping flexibility—Time 2 0.49 0.30 0.03
State anxiety—Time 2 44.61 13.55 1.58

thoughts and feelings without referring to any contexts or accep-

tance of contradictions and uncertainty. Hence, these results indicate
that dialectical thinking and secondary approach coping are con-
ceptually distinct.
Cluster analysis was performed to identify groups of participants
with different coping profiles, and the dialectical thinking scores
were then compared among these cluster groups. In the hierarchical
cluster analysis, participants were classified into discrete groups
based on their use of three coping strategies. Hierarchical cluster
analysis was used because it is largely data driven, which minimizes
the possible confounding effect of subjective decisions in data

Table 2
Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients Among Study Variables in Study 1
(N 5116)

Variable 2 3 4 5 6

Dialectical thinking .27nn .04 .21n .15 .14

Coping flexibility — .01 .18 .18 .10
Primary approach coping — .48nn .89nn .04
Secondary approach coping — .12 .01
Avoidant coping — .08
Social desirability –
po.05.
n nn
po.01.
Dialectical Thinking 479

categorization. This technique has been commonly used to identify

underlying psychological dimensions (e.g., Forgas, 1982; Ogilvie &
Ashmore, 1991).
A 3  116 data matrix was constructed with the 116 participants
as cases and their use of primary approach coping, secondary ap-
proach coping, and avoidant coping across the rows. As recom-
mended by Blashfield (1984), the squared Euclidean distance was
employed as the proximity measure in clustering the data, and
Ward’s (1963) minimum variance method was adopted as the group-
ing method. In comparison with other possible solutions, the three-
cluster solution was the most meaningful (see Introduction). The
reliability of the solution was evaluated by the split-half method and
the patterns of results were replicable.
Figure 1 depicts the coping profiles of the three cluster groups.
Participants in the first cluster (the functional-flexible group, n 5 43)
were characterized by a balanced profile with a similar number of
primary approach coping and secondary approach coping reported.
Participants in the second cluster (the active-inflexible group, n 5 53)
were characterized by a profile with a high level of primary approach
coping and a low level of secondary approach coping reported. Par-
ticipants in the third cluster (the passive-inflexible group, n 5 20)
were characterized by a profile with a low level of primary approach
coping and a high level of secondary approach coping reported.

8 Functional-flexible group
Number of Reported Strategy

Active-inflexible group
7
Passive-inflexible group
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Primary Approach Secondary Approach Avoidant Coping
Coping Coping

Figure 1
The coping profiles of three cluster groups identified in the student
sample (Study 1, N 5116).
480 Cheng

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine differ-

ences in capacity for dialectical thinking among the three cluster
groups. Results revealed a statistically significant group effect,
F(2, 113) 5 14.99, po.0001. Post hoc Bonferroni tests revealed that
the flexible group (M 5 131.93, SD 5 10.14, SE 5 1.83) had a higher
capacity for dialectical thinking than the primary approach group
(M 5 120.17, SD 5 11.80, SE 5 1.65) and the secondary approach
group (M 5 117.6, SD 5 15.63, SE 5 2.68), pso.0001.
To test the hypothesized link between dialectical thinking and
coping flexibility, partial correlation analysis was conducted between
the two variables with social desirability as a covariate. Results re-
vealed a statistically significant relationship between dialectical
thinking and coping flexibility with the effects of social desirability
partialed out, partial r(113) 5 .26, p 5 .006.
Taken together, the present results revealed that a higher capacity
for dialectical thinking was associated with a more balanced coping
profile and a greater extent of strategy–situation fit. These results
provided tentative support for a link between dialectical thinking
and coping flexibility.
Because this study adopted a cross-sectional design, the direction
of relationship between the two variables remained unexplored.
Moreover, caution should be taken when interpreting the results be-
cause only undergraduates were recruited in this study. The gener-
alizability of the present findings to adults, in general, remains
unknown. To address these unexplored issues, Study 2 extended
this study with an experimental paradigm that examined the influ-
ence of dialectical thinking on coping flexibility among individuals
with a greater range of age and education background.

STUDY 2
Results from Study 1 provided tentative support for the hypothe-
sized relationship between dialectical thinking and coping flexibility.
Coping flexibility was positively associated with dialectical thinking.
This study further examined the direction of this hypothesized rela-
tionship in an experiment. Spencer-Rodgers and colleagues (2004)
have designed a priming paradigm in which participants could
be induced to think in a dialectical way. These experimental proce-
dures were employed in this study to manipulate dialectical thinking.
Dialectical Thinking 481

Participants were then asked to complete an allegedly unrelated task,

in which they were asked to report what they would do in various
hypothesized stressful situations. The hypothesized influence of di-
alectical thinking on coping flexibility was examined.

Method
Participants

Participants were 160 Chinese adults (72 men, 88 women) recruited from
three community centers in Hong Kong. Their average age was 28.13
years (SD 5 6.69). Two percent attained no higher than junior high
school education, 59% were high school graduates, and 39% were uni-
versity graduates. All of them received 100 Hong Kong dollars (about
12.50 U.S. dollars) for their participation. A preliminary analysis was
conducted to examine possible effects of sex, age group,1 and educational
level on coping flexibility. Results revealed no statistically significant
main and interaction effects for the demographic variables, Fso1.07,
ps4.35. These demographic variables were omitted in all subsequent
analyses.

Measures

Priming task. In this experiment, participants were randomly assigned

to either the experimental or the control condition. In the experimental
condition, participants were instructed to read a passage developed by
Spencer-Rodgers and colleagues (2004):

Life can be full of contradiction and uncertainty. We would like you to

reflect, in writing, on a time in your life when it was full of contradic-
tion and uncertainty. . . . We would like you to recall experiences in
which you were very aware of both the pros and cons of the situations
and there were no right answers. The situations or experiences had
positive outcomes and consequences for you (and the people you care
about) as well as equally negative outcomes or consequences for you
(and the people you care about). Think about these contradictory ex-
periences. . . . Describe how you thought through all of the facts and
possible perspectives, including the opposing ones.

After reading the passage, 30 blank lines were provided for participants to
write about their thoughts. They were reminded that there were no right

1. Participants were categorized into the following age groups: (a) 18–29, (b) 30–
39, (c) 40–49, (d) 50–59, or (e)  60 years.
482 Cheng

or wrong answers. The primary aim of this priming task was to induce
them to think about all the contradictions and uncertainties in their lives.
In the control condition, a passage of an identical length (i.e., 175
Chinese characters) was provided for participants to read:

Tourism is an important source of income to Hong Kong. We would

like you to advise, in writing, the Hong Kong Tourism Board on how
to draw in more tourists to visit the city. . . . We would like you to recall
some major initiatives that have been implemented by the Hong Kong
Tourism Board over the past few years, that is, what it has done to
market Hong Kong as one of the world’s leading tourism destination
and to enhance tourists’ experience when they visit the city. Think
about all these initiatives. . . . Describe how you thought about all the
possible ways of attracting more tourists to visit Hong Kong, including
previous ones.

To examine the possible confounding effect of need for closure on the

priming task, participants’ written passages were coded and the number
of thoughts generated by participants in the two conditions was com-
pared. Results showed no statistical differences in the number of thoughts
between the group of participants in the experimental condition
(M 5 3.80, SD 5 1.70, SE 5 .19) and the group of participants in the
control condition (M 5 3.56, SD 5 1.72, SE 5 .19), t(158) 5 .88, p 5 .38.
These results indicate that the priming task was not confounded by need
for closure.
To ensure that participants would pay close attention to the priming
piece, they were told in advance that they had to answer some questions
that tested how well they had understood the passage. Three questions
were included on a separate sheet. In each of the questions, participants
were asked to recognize whether they had seen a word (i.e., ‘‘opposing,’’
‘‘tourists,’’ ‘‘hassle’’) in the instruction. The participants in the experi-
mental condition (M 5 2.88, SD 5 0.37, SE 5 0.04) and those in the con-
trol condition (M 5 2.90, SD 5 0.34, SE 5 0.04) were similar in having
most of the answers correct, t(158) 5 .45, p 5 .66. Such results indicate
that the participants had paid close attention to the priming piece.

Coping flexibility. Participants’ flexibility in coping across different

hypothetical stressful situations was measured by the Extended Miller
Behavioral Style Scale (EMBSS; Cheng, Chiu, Hong, & Cheung, 2001).
This measure was chosen because it comprises a wide range of hypothet-
ical situations, some of which are more familiar (i.e., Dentist, Airplane,
Dinner, Ballgame) but others are less familiar (i.e., Hostage, Layoff,
Early Cancer, Terminal Cancer) to university students. Vignettes less
Dialectical Thinking 483

familiar to the sample were included for assessing respondents’ ability to

deploy situationally appropriate coping. If a measure contains vignettes
that have been experienced by the respondents, their responses may be
confounded by their previous experience rather than the priming manip-
ulations.
Among these hypothetical stressful situations, three were set in a con-
trollable context (e.g., ‘‘The doctor tells you that the report shows that
you have got early stomach cancer, which can be controlled by medica-
tion’’ for the Early Cancer vignette), whereas the other five were set in an
uncontrollable context (e.g., ‘‘The doctor tells you that your cancer has
reached a terminal stage, and asks you to enjoy the rest of your life’’ for
the Terminal Cancer vignette). For each hypothetical situation, partici-
pants were asked to vividly imagine themselves encountering the situa-
tion. Their task was to decide whether they would employ a given strategy
in handling the situation. Each situation consists of four monitoring and
four blunting strategies.
The endorsement of an EMBSS item that matches the situation-
appropriate criteria was given a score of 1 (e.g., endorsing monitoring
strategies in the Early Cancer vignette, endorsing blunting strategies in
the Terminal Cancer vignette), and the endorsement of an item that does
not match those criteria was given a score of 0. The EMBSS score ranges
from 0 to 64. A higher EMBSS score indicates a greater extent of flexible
coping. The EMBSS was found to be reliable and valid (Cheng et al., 2001;
Cheng, Hui, & Lam, 2000), and the results yielded from these hypothetical
vignettes were consistent with those assessed in real life (Cheng, 2003).

Procedures

Participants had to sign a consent form before the experiment began.

They were instructed that they had to complete two tasks designed by a
cognitive psychologist and a health psychologist, respectively. In both the
experimental and the control conditions, participants first completed
the priming task and then the measure of coping flexibility. At the end
of the questionnaire, participants were asked to complete the recognition
task for manipulation check and to guess the purpose of the experiment.
Upon completion, participants were thanked, paid, and debriefed. None
of the participants could guess that the two tasks were related, nor could
they correctly guess the aim of the study.

Results and Discussion

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine the
effects of condition (experimental vs. control) on coping flexibility
484 Cheng

scores. Results showed a statistically significant main effect of con-

dition, F(1, 158) 5 5.22, p 5 .02. As predicted, such results indicate
that participants in the experimental condition (M 5 38.14, SD 5
15.75, SE 5 1.77) exhibited a greater extent of coping flexibility than
did their counterparts in the control condition (M 5 32.39, SD 5
16.09, SE 5 1.81).
Because of the use of an experimental design, these results provide
further support for the hypothesized influence of dialectical thinking
on coping flexibility. Although the experimental approach can reveal
causal links, experimentation is limited by artificiality. Moreover, no
outcome measures of stress experience have been included. Study 3
was conducted to further examine the direction of link between di-
alectical thinking and coping flexibility in a naturalistic setting. The
level of state anxiety, a common measure of stress outcome, was
assessed in addition to dialectical thinking and coping flexibility.

STUDY 3
The present study adopted a prospective design that comprised two
time points, which were conducted 12 months apart. Specifically,
dialectical thinking assessed at Time 1 was hypothesized as a pre-
dictor of changes in coping flexibility over time. Because state anx-
iety was a common indicator of psychological maladjustment in
coping research (e.g., Chapman & Hayslip, 2005; Gudykunst, 2005;
Poyrazli, Arbona, Nora, McPherson, & Pisecco, 2002; Yeh et al.,
2004), state anxiety was included as an outcome variable of coping.
The relationships among dialectical thinking, changes in coping flex-
ibility, and changes in state anxiety were examined.

Method
Participants

Participants were 74 Chinese adults (32 men, 42 women) recruited from

the same community centers in Hong Kong. Their average age was 28.11
years (SD 5 5.18). One percent attained no higher than junior high school
education, 58% were high school graduates, and 41% were university
graduates. None of these participants overlapped with those who partic-
ipated in Study 2. All of them were paid 100 Hong Kong dollars (about
12.50 U.S. dollars) for taking part in both time points of this study.
Dialectical Thinking 485

Measures

In this study, the DSS and the CFQ were used again to assess dialectical
thinking and coping flexibility, respectively (see Study 1 for details).

State anxiety. The state subscale of the Chinese State-Trait Anxiety In-
ventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970; Ye, 1990) was
used to assess state anxiety. The STAI state subscale comprises 20 items.
This subscale taps the extent of anxiety respondents felt at Time 2. The
state anxiety scores range from 20 to 80, with a higher score indicating a
higher state anxiety level. The Chinese version of the STAI is both reliable
and valid (Shek, 1988; Ye, 1990).

Procedures

At Time 1 (February 2006), an advertisement was placed in the commu-

nity centers recruiting participants to take part in this study. A total of
83 participants took part in this phase, and they were asked to complete
the DSS, CFQ, and STAI. Participants had to sign a consent form before
completing the questionnaire. At the end of the session, participants
were thanked and told that a research staff would contact them later.
At Time 2 (February 2007), participants were contacted again to take
part. Nine participants dropped out of the study. Participants who took
part at both time points and those who dropped out at Time 2 did not
differ in the variables assessed at Time 1, F(3, 79) 5 1.53, p 5 .21. Only the
data of the 74 participants who completed the questionnaires at both time
points were included in subsequent statistical analyses. These participants
completed the CFQ and STAI during this phase. The procedures were
identical to those of the Time 1 phase, except participants were debriefed
and paid after they had finished the task.

Results and Discussion

Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine possible effects of
sex, age group, and educational level on the major variables. Results
showed that there were no statistically significant main and interac-
tion effects, Fso.88, ps4.46. All the demographic variables were
thus excluded in subsequent analyses. Descriptive statistics for the
variables for the pooled sample are shown in the lower panel of
Table 1.
As in Study 1, hierarchical cluster analysis was used to classify
participants into discrete groups based on their use of the three cop-
ing strategies. A three-cluster solution was similarly found for the
486 Cheng

Time 1 and Time 2 variables. Figure 2 depicts the coping profiles of

the three cluster groups at both time points. At Time 1 and Time 2,
participants in the flexible group (the functional-flexible group,
n 5 31 for Time 1, n 5 28 for Time 2) were characterized by a bal-
anced coping profile with a similar amount of primary approach
coping and secondary approach coping reported. Participants in the
primary approach group (the active-inflexible group, n 5 30 for Time
1, n 5 29 for Time 2) were characterized by a coping profile with a
high level of primary approach coping and a low level of secondary
approach coping reported. Participants in the secondary approach
group (the passive-inflexible group, n 5 13 for Time 1, n 5 17 for

Time 1
8
Functional-flexible group
Number of Reported Strategy

7 Active-inflexible group
Passive-inflexible group
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Primary Approach Secondary Approach Avoidant Coping
Coping Coping

8 Time 2
Number of Reported Strategy

7 Functional-flexible group
Active-inflexible group
6 Passive-inflexible group

5
4
3
2
1
0
Primary Approach Secondary Approach Avoidant Coping
Coping Coping

Figure 2
The coping profiles of three cluster groups identified in the commu-
nity sample at two time points (Study 3, N 5 74).
Dialectical Thinking 487

Time 2) were characterized by a coping profile with a low level of

primary approach coping and a high level of secondary approach
coping reported.
ANOVA was performed to examine the differences in capacity for
dialectical thinking among the three cluster groups. At both time
points, statistically significant effects of group were found, Fs(2,
71) 5 6.35 and 8.49, pso.003. Post hoc Bonferroni tests showed that
participants in the flexibility group had a higher capacity for dialec-
tical thinking scores (Ms 5 130.46 for Time 1 and 132.22 for Time 2)
than the primary approach group (Ms 5 117.33 for Time 1 and
114.65 for Time 2) and the secondary approach group (Ms 5 114.21
for Time 1 and 118.93 for Time 2), pso.0001.
Table 3 shows the interrelationships among the variables. Dialec-
tical thinking was found to be positively related to both Time 1 and
Time 2 coping flexibility. These results were consistent with the find-
ings of Study 1. To further examine the predictive role of dialectical
thinking on coping flexibility, a path analysis was performed using
EQS (Bentler & Wu, 2004) with dialectical thinking assessed at the
initial phase as a predictor of changes in both coping flexibility and
state anxiety over time. Changes in coping flexibility and state anx-
iety were represented by difference scores, which were derived by
subtracting each participant’s score at Time 1 from his or her score
at Time 2.
Figure 3 summarizes the results of the path analysis. As shown in
this figure, dialectical thinking was a statistically significant predictor
of changes in coping flexibility, which in turn was inversely associ-
ated with changes in state anxiety. Specifically, a higher capacity for

Table 3
Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients Among Study Variables in Study 3
(N 5 74)

Variable 2 3 4 5

Dialectical thinking—Time 1 .30nn .24n .33nn .18

Coping flexibility—Time 1 — .37nn .56nn .27n
State anxiety—Time 1 — .07 .46nn
Coping flexibility—Time 2 — .38nn
State anxiety—Time 2 —
n
po.05. nn
po.01.
488 Cheng

Changes in
Coping
Flexibility
.31

Time 1
–.37
Dialectic
Thinking

–.19 Changes in
State
Anxiety

Figure 3
The path diagram with bold signifying statistically significant path
coefficients and paths (pso.05).

dialectical thinking was found to predict an increase in flexibility in

coping, which in turn was related to a reduction in state anxiety over
time. Such results provide further support for the hypothesized link
between dialectical thinking and coping flexibility.

GENERAL DISCUSSION
Previous studies on coping (e.g., Cheng, 2001; Gan et al., 2004;
Kaluza, 2000; Mattlin et al., 1990) have revealed considerable indi-
vidual differences in the extent of coping flexibility, but the thinking
style underlying such individual differences was unknown. The pres-
ent research contributed to the coping literature by revealing a link
between dialectical thinking and coping flexibility. Specifically, in-
dividuals having a higher capacity for dialectical thinking tend to
display greater flexibility in coping across different stressful events
and vice versa.
The link between dialectical thinking and coping flexibility may be
explained by the dialectical schemata framework proposed by Bass-
eches (1984). In this framework, dialectical thinking can be analyzed
in terms of cognitive schemata, or patterned movements in thought.
A major cognitive schema in dialectical thinking is the thesis–
antithesis–synthesis movement in thought. The operation of this
cognitive schema involves two phases. The first phase describes a
movement from a proposition (thesis) to another proposition (an-
tithesis). The second phase describes a further movement from a
separate examination of the two propositions to a synthesis of them.
Dialectical Thinking 489

When we apply the dialectical schemata framework as an attempt

to account for the decision process underlying coping flexibility, we
see that individuals adopting dialectical thinking may ponder
whether to confront the stressful event directly (primary approach
coping) or to change their thoughts and feelings about the stressful
event (secondary approach coping). Instead of evaluating the effec-
tiveness of a coping strategy based on its inherent characteristics,
these individuals may consider that every strategy has its own
strength and the effectiveness of a strategy depends largely on the
stressful event in which it is used. For instance, they may recognize
that primary approach coping is effective when the problems can
be solved by effort and that secondary approach coping is effective
when the problems cannot be solved with any possible means. Then
they integrate the strengths of various strategies to formulate a
‘‘meta-strategy’’: ‘‘If the outcome of a stressful event is amenable to
change, I will use primary approach coping. If the outcome of a
stressful event is not amenable to change, I will use secondary
approach coping.’’ Future studies are encouraged to examine the
cognitive mechanisms that account for the relationship between
dialectical thinking and coping flexibility.
Although dialectical thinking is positively related to coping flex-
ibility, it is worth noting that a positive association is also identified
between dialectical thinking and state anxiety. Such a result parallels
those from the study by Spencer-Rodgers and colleagues (2004).
These findings indicate that individuals with a higher capacity for
dialectical thinking are more anxious. This is probably because they
are more likely to recognize the dilemmas, contradictions, and un-
certainties embedded in the changing environment than those with a
lower capacity for dialectical thinking. The present results indicate
that, to cope with their higher levels of anxiety, individuals with a
higher capacity for dialectical thinking tend to deploy different
strategies in response to the changes in the environment and their
variations in strategy deployment reflect a meaningful pattern
rather than a cluster of random responses. Such a flexible coping
pattern in turn leads to anxiety reduction over time. Their adaptive
approach to higher anxiety levels is consistent with Jenkins’s (2005)
study that revealed a link between dialectical thinking and resil-
ience. Having higher levels of resilience, individuals with a higher
capacity for dialectical thinking may be more anxious, but they
may actively adopt flexible coping strategies to reduce their higher
490 Cheng

anxiety levels associated with the perceived contradictions and un-

certainties.
This research may have research implications. Specifically, a ma-
jor strength of this research is testing this hypothesized link using a
multimethod design. The initial findings obtained in a cross-sectional
design were found to be replicable in both experimental and pro-
spective settings. Given that each methodology has unique strengths
and weaknesses, researchers should not rely on a single methodol-
ogy. As shown in this research, the multimethod approach can rem-
edy the problems inherent in a particular methodology (see, e.g.,
Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Eid & Diener, 2006). The adoption of mul-
tiple, independent approaches allows researchers to ‘‘zero in’’ on the
information examined. Because distinct methods do not share the
same methodological shortcomings, the error patterns will differ
across methods. In addition, methods with distinct strengths and
weaknesses can complement each other, thus increasing the credi-
bility of the findings when used together.
Apart from research implications, the present research may pro-
vide some directions for future research. The present research
adopted cross-sectional, experimental, and prospective designs to
explore the link between dialectical thinking and coping flexibility.
Future studies may incorporate an intervention program for en-
hancing dialectical thinking that fosters more flexible coping. The
major strength of the intervention approach is that it shares the ad-
vantages of longitudinal and experimental approaches while mini-
mizing the limitations of these approaches. If a link is replicated, the
intervention approach can clarify causal links by examining how
participants’ cognitive flexibility changes after receiving training on
dialectical thinking and how this thinking style can be applied to the
flexible deployment of different coping strategies. These manipula-
tions are conducted in a relatively naturalistic manner such that the
manipulated changes in dialectical thinking are closer to real life,
thus enhancing the ecological validity of the findings (see Cheng
et al., 2007, for a discussion).
It is noteworthy that participants in the present research were all
ethnically Chinese, and whether these results are generalizable to
Western samples remains to be explored. Dialectical thinking has
been proposed as a cultural variable that distinguishes the think-
ing style between Asian and Western individuals (Nisbett, Peng,
Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). Specifically, dialectical thinking is more
Dialectical Thinking 491

prevalent among Asians than Westerners. Further cross-cultural

studies are needed to examine whether the link between dialectical
thinking and coping flexibility can still be found in the Western
context.

REFERENCES
Basseches, M. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2004). EQS for Windows user’s guide. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software Inc.
Blashfield, R. K. (1984). The classification of psychopathology: Neo-Kraepelinian
and quantitative approaches. New York: Plenum.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chapman, B. P., & Hayslip, B., Jr. (2005). Incremental validity of a measure of
emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 154–169.
Cheng, C. (2001). Assessing coping flexibility in real-life and laboratory settings:
A multimethod approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
814–833.
Cheng, C. (2003). Cognitive and motivational processes underlying coping flex-
ibility: A dual-process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
425–438.
Cheng, C., & Cheung, M. W. (2005). Cognitive processes underlying coping flex-
ibility: Differentiation and integration. Journal of Personality, 73, 859–886.
Cheng, C., Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Cheung, J. S. (2001). Discriminative facility and
its role in the perceived quality of interactional experiences. Journal of Per-
sonality, 69, 765–786.
Cheng, C., Hui, W., & Lam, S. (1999). Coping style of individuals with functional
dyspepsia. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61, 789–795.
Cheng, C., Hui, W., & Lam, S. (2000). Perceptual style and behavioral pattern of
individuals with functional gastrointestinal disorders. Health Psychology, 19,
146–154.
Cheng, C., Hui, W., & Lam, S. (2004). Psychosocial factors and perceived severity
of functional dyspeptic symptoms: A psychosocial interactionist model. Psy-
chosomatic Medicine, 66, 85–91.
Cheng, C., Yang, F., Jun, S., & Hutton, J. M. (2007). Flexible coping psycho-
therapy for functional dyspeptic patients: A randomized controlled trial. Psy-
chosomatic Medicine, 69, 81–88.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability inde-
pendent of psychopathology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2006). Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychol-
ogy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Forgas, J. P. (1982). Episode cognition: Internal representations of interaction
routines. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 15,
pp. 59–101). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
492 Cheng

Fresco, D. M., Williams, N. L., & Nugent, N. R. (2006). Flexibility and negative
affect: Examining the associations of explanatory flexibility and coping flex-
ibility to each other and to depression and anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 30, 201–210.
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, 55–66.
Gan, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, S., & Shen, X. (2006). The coping flexibility
of neurasthenia and depressive patients. Personality and Individual Differences,
40, 859–871.
Gordon, R. A. (1987). Social desirability bias: A demonstration and technique for
its reduction. Teaching of Psychology, 14, 40–42.
Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) The-
ory of strangers’ intercultural adjustment. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theo-
rizing about intercultural communication (pp. 419–457). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Haythornthwaite, J. A., Menefee, L. A., Heinberg, I. J., & Clark, M. R. (1998).
Pain coping strategies predict perceived control over pain. Pain, 77, 33–39.
Hou, Y., & Zhu, Y. (2002). The effect of culture on the thinking style of Chinese
people. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 34, 106–111.
Hou, Y., Zhu, Y., & Peng, K. (2003). Thinking style and disease cognitions among
Chinese people. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 4, 161–180.
Jenkins, A. H. (2005). Creativity and resilience in the African American experi-
ence. Humanistic Psychologist, 33, 25–32.
Kaluza, G. (2000). Changing unbalanced coping profiles—A prospective con-
trolled intervention trial in worksite health promotion. Psychology and Health,
15, 423–433.
Katz, S., Kravetz, S., & Grynbaum, F. (2005). Wives’ coping flexibility, time since
husbands’ injury and the perceived burden of wives of men with traumatic
brain injury. Brain Injury, 19, 81–90.
Kozma, A., & Stones, M. (1987). Social desirability in measures of subjective well-
being: A systematic evaluation. Journal of Gerontology, 42, 56–59.
Krohne, H. W., & Fuchs, J. (1991). Influence of coping dispositions and danger-
related information on emotional and coping reactions of individuals antic-
ipating an aversive event. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress
and anxiety (Vol. 13, pp. 131–155). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind:
‘‘Seizing’’ and ‘‘freezing’’. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on
emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141–169.
Lester, N., Smart, L., & Baum, A. (1994). Measuring coping flexibility. Psychol-
ogy and Health, 9, 409–424.
Mattlin, J. A., Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1990). Situational determinants
of coping and coping effectiveness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31,
103–122.
Dialectical Thinking 493

Mino, S., & Kanemitsu, Y. (2005). Cognitive appraisal and situation-appropriate

coping flexibility as related to clerical workers’ job satisfaction in stressful sit-
uations. Japanese Journal of Health Psychology, 18, 34–44.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems
of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–
310.
Ogilvie, D. M., & Ashmore, R. D. (1991). Self-with-other representation as a unit
of analysis in self-concept research. In R. C. Curtis (Ed.), The relational self
(pp. 282–314). New York: Guilford.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about con-
tradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.
Poyrazli, S., Arbona, C., Nora, A., McPherson, R., & Pisecco, S. (2002). Relation
between assertiveness, academic self-efficacy, and psychosocial adjustment
among international graduate students. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 43, 632–642.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38,
119–125.
Schwartz, C. E., Peng, C. K., Lester, N., Daltroy, L., & Goldberger, A. L. (1998).
Self-reported coping behavior in health and disease: Assessment with a card
sort game. Behavioral Medicine, 24, 41–44.
Shek, D. T. L. (1988). Reliability and factorial structure of the Chinese version of
the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Journal of Psychopathology & Behavioral
Assessment, 10, 303–317.
Slangen-de Kort, Y. A., Midden, C. J., Aarts, H., & Van Wagenberg, F. (2001).
Determinants of adaptive behavior among older persons: Self-efficacy, impor-
tance, and personal dispositions as directive mechanisms. International Journal
of Aging and Human Development, 53, 253–274.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K., Wang, L., & Hou, Y. (2004). Dialectical self-
esteem and East-West differences in psychological well-being. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1416–1432.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the State-
Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function.
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.
Watanabe, S., Iwanaga, M., & Ozeki, Y. (2002). Effects of controllability and
desire for control on coping and stress responses. Japanese Journal of Health
Psychology, 15, 32–40.
Yang, C. F. (1997). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes
(Vol. 1). Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan-Liou.
Ye, R. (1990). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Shanghai,
China: Educational Research Institute, Shanghai Teachers University.
Yeh, T. L., Huang, C. L., Yang, Y. K., Lee, Y. D., Chen, C. C., & Chen, P. S.
(2004). The adjustment to illness in patients with generalized anxiety disorder is
poorer than that in patients with end-stage renal disease. Journal of Psycho-
somatic Research, 57, 165–170.
494