Personality and 

Coping
Jamie M. Jacobs1 and Charles S. Carver2,3
Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard
1

Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

2
Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
3
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

How do people deal with threats and challenges pertaining to acute and chronic diseases?
Answers to this question generally invoke the concept of coping: attempts to remove or dimin-
ish a stressor or limit its impact. Coping responses vary widely, based in part on the duration
of the disease (acute vs. chronic), its severity and prognosis, and the person’s overall interpre-
tation, or appraisal, of the illness and its implications. Coping can also be affected by personal-
ity, such that a given stressor elicits different coping responses from different people. In this
way, personality and situational coping both play roles in subsequent mental and physical
health outcomes (Sharpe, Martin, & Roth, 2011; also see Kern & Friedman, 2011; Carver &
Connor‐Smith, 2010). This chapter outlines several aspects of personality and coping, describes
how they relate to each other, and suggests how they may relate to outcomes in the context of
physical health and illness.

Personality

The psychology of personality includes a very broad range of ideas (see Carver & Scheier,
2012), but two themes stand out. One is that personality incorporates some internal processes
or dynamics that influence the person’s thoughts, feelings, and actions. The other is that,
despite having the same basic functions, people differ from one another. There are many view-
points on the nature of the underlying systems and also on what individual differences are
most important. Here we outline two viewpoints that have been influential in health
psychology.

The Wiley Encyclopedia of Health Psychology: Volume 2: The Social Bases of Health Behavior, First Edition.
General Editor: Lee M. Cohen. Volume Editors: Kate Sweeny and Megan L. Robbins.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

V2_c48_ehp0352.indd 411 03/09/2020 20:20:39

 412 Jamie M. Jacobs and Charles S. Carver

The Five‐Factor Model

What is generally termed the five‐factor model is a structural framework for describing
­individual differences. It places personality on five broad trait dimensions, commonly labeled
extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (e.g.,
McCrae & John, 1992). Each person is assumed to occupy a position on each of the five traits,
though that “position” is less a fixed point, perhaps, than a central tendency with variability
around it (e.g., Fleeson, 2001). This model was not only developed mainly through studies of
how people are described in natural language, but links have also developed between this view
of personality and analyses of childhood temperament (e.g., Hambrick & McCord, 2010;
McCrae et al., 2000).
Extraversion is a dimension of approach and engagement with incentives, as reflected in
descriptors such as active, assertive, energetic, and enthusiastic (McCrae & John, 1992). Some
views of extraversion also emphasize qualities of sociability (Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002),
and virtually all views incorporate an element of positive affect (Ozer & Benet‐Martinez,
2006).
Neuroticism is the tendency to respond to threat, frustration, and loss with negative emo-
tions (McCrae & John, 1992). Individuals high in neuroticism are vulnerable to anxiety,
moodiness, and general emotional distress (see Carver & Connor‐Smith, 2010). Another term
for neuroticism is emotional instability (McCrae & John, 1992).
Agreeableness refers to investment in establishing and maintaining social relationships
(Jensen‐Campbell & Graziano, 2001). Agreeableness facilitates compassion (Ozer & Benet‐
Martinez, 2006), and people high on this trait are more forgiving and trusting than those low
on it (McCrae & John, 1992).
Conscientiousness concerns thoroughness and trustworthiness. It includes qualities such as
planfulness, persistence, and organization (McCrae & John, 1992), competence, self‐efficacy,
and self‐discipline (Bartley & Roesch, 2011). Conscientiousness implies being perseverant in
goals and tasks (Ozer & Benet‐Martinez, 2006). People with this trait act in ways that facili-
tate achievement striving (McCrae & John, 1992).
The final factor generally termed openness to experience incorporates qualities such as curi-
osity and imagination (McCrae & John, 1992). Persons who are high on openness are flexible
and willing to involve themselves in new and atypical experiences (McCrae, 1996). Openness
to experience often overlaps with qualities such as creativity and inspiration (Ozer & Benet‐
Martinez, 2006).

Optimism and Expectancy‐Value Process Models

Another individual difference variable that figures prominently in the coping literature is opti-
mism (see Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom, 2010 for a review). Optimism, which does not fit
neatly into the five‐factor model, derives from a different research tradition, following from
expectancy‐value models of motivation. Optimism consists of a generalized favorable versus
unfavorable expectancy for one’s future. As is true of all expectancy‐value models, this con-
struct assumes that a favorable expectancy promotes greater motivation, resulting in greater
persistence and generally better outcomes.
Optimism forms a lens, or cognitive filter, that influences life at multiple levels. It affects
people’s appraisals of challenging or stressful situations and their subsequent reactions (both
behavioral and physiological) to those situations. Optimism is not the view that adversity
will not occur; rather, it incorporates the belief that adversity and threat can be overcome

V2_c48_ehp0352.indd 412 03/09/2020 20:20:39

 Personality and Coping 413

(Fowler & Geers, 2015). Whether people are optimistic or pessimistic influences the extent to
which they experience distress in the context of adversity, and it influences the manner in
which people cope.

Optimism and the Five‐Factor Model

Although standing somewhat apart from the five‐factor model, optimism shares qualities with
four of the five traits of that model. Optimism is positively associated with extraversion, agree-
ableness, and conscientiousness and negatively associated with neuroticism. The one factor
with which optimism is not associated is openness to experience. In general, neuroticism and
extraversion are the most correlated of the big five traits with optimism. However, optimism
is not simply low neuroticism and high extraversion; rather, it reflects a more complex profile
(Sharpe, Martin, & Roth, 2011).

Coping

Coping is generally defined as the cognitive and behavioral efforts made by an individual to
manage or reduce external or internal demands associated with a stressor that seem to tax or
exceed the individuals’ resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Coping takes many forms, and
a variety of distinctions have been made within the realm of coping. Coping may be cognitive
or behavioral. It may effective or ineffective. Some would say that coping consists of inten-
tional use of strategies, but others would say that some coping consists of involuntary reac-
tions. Several distinctions are elaborated upon in the following sections (for more detail, see
Carver & Connor‐Smith, 2010).

Problem‐Focused Versus Emotion‐Focused Coping

A distinction was made early in the literature on coping between problem‐focused and emo-
tion‐focused coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Problem‐focused coping comprises active
efforts to remove the stressor or reduce its impact by engaging in such activities as problem
solving, conflict resolution, information seeking, and decision making. Emotion‐focused cop-
ing comprises a set of efforts to manage and reduce the emotional distress provoked by the
stressor (see Gross, 2014). Problem‐focused behaviors are most commonly used, and are
thought to be more useful, in situations where the stressor is controllable. Emotion‐focused
coping is more common in situations of low controllability.
Emotion‐focused coping is more diverse than problem‐focused coping. Included in this
category are activities as diverse as relaxation, meditation, music therapy, physical exercise,
massage, cognitive restructuring, and humor. Also included in this category are avoidant strat-
egies such as self‐distraction, shopping, wishful thinking, and retreating into substance use.
These responses are all intended to regulate stress‐induced emotions.
Many emotion‐focused responses are quite useful. Even distraction away from a threat can
be useful in the short term, especially if a person has already taken suitable action. Some emo-
tion‐focused coping responses, however—particularly those with avoidant properties—are not
effective in the long term and can have adverse consequences for longer‐term health and
well‐being.
Problem‐focused and emotion‐focused coping categories are distinguishable in principle,
but they often are used jointly (Lazarus, 2006). They can also facilitate one another. Although

V2_c48_ehp0352.indd 413 03/09/2020 20:20:39

 414 Jamie M. Jacobs and Charles S. Carver

problem‐focused coping is aimed at removing the stressor or blunting its impact, a secondary
consequence of effective problem‐focused coping is a reduction in distress. Although emo-
tion‐focused coping is aimed at emotion regulation, the reduction in distress can also make it
easier to turn to problem‐focused coping.

Engagement Versus Disengagement Coping

A particularly important distinction is the one made between engagement and disengagement
coping. Engagement coping, also known as approach coping, is geared toward dealing with
the stressor and its emotional consequences (Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003).
Disengagement coping involves trying to avoid or escape from dealing with the threat.
Engagement coping encompasses both problem‐focused and some of the emotion‐focused
techniques. Emotion‐focused techniques that would be viewed as engagement coping would
include support seeking, emotion regulation, acceptance of the reality of the challenge, and
cognitive restructuring.
Disengagement techniques are avoidant in nature, including reactions such as denial, wishful
thinking, and substance use. Often people use disengagement coping to distance themselves
from the stressor. While this can be effective for avoiding distress in the short term, it does not
address the situation that is producing the distress. More important, it could worsen long‐term
outcomes. For instance, a person with a cancer diagnosis who avoids scheduling an appoint-
ment for a scan may evade distress temporarily. But that evasion ultimately allows an opportu-
nity for the cancer to progress. This may result in more aggressive treatment and greater overall
stress and threat to life. Certain disengagement coping mechanisms can cause other problems,
such as drugs, alcohol, and overeating. Disengagement coping may ultimately lead to an aban-
donment of the goals with which the stressor is interfering in order to avoid experiencing or
exacerbating any associated negative emotions (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989).

Proactive Coping
A final variation in the concept of coping we will note here is what is termed proactive coping.
Proactive coping is anticipating and preparing for obstacles or stressful situations before they
arise (Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002). Proactive coping is goal oriented and adaptive, and those
who cope proactively are motivated to succeed. This tendency to expect and prepare for chal-
lenges plays a large role in the reduction of associated emotional distress and may be dictated
by personality traits (Hambrick & McCord, 2010).

Personality and Coping

How do aspects of personality relate to aspects of coping? Personality is not the same as cop-
ing, but personality can influence what sorts of coping a person engages in, at several stages in
the stress process. Most fundamentally, personality can influence how people appraise and
interpret potential stressors. A person who perceives a great threat will turn to coping responses
more quickly than a person who perceives a lesser threat. Since appraisals also influence choice
of coping response, differences in appraisal affect what actions follow. People also vary in
which coping responses come naturally to them. Thus, even given the same appraisal, people
may cope in different ways.

V2_c48_ehp0352.indd 414 03/09/2020 20:20:39

 Personality and Coping 415

The following sections address this issue from the perspective of the two views on personal-
ity that were described earlier in the chapter. First we consider the five‐factor model.

Five‐Factor Model and Coping

A recent meta‐analysis of personality traits and coping (see Connor‐Smith & Flachsbart, 2007)
showed a number of associations between coping tendencies and traits from the five‐factor
model. For example, the trait of extraversion was fairly consistently related to use of problem‐
focused coping strategies and cognitive restructuring. These findings are consistent with the
view that extraversion is a dimension of engagement with incentives and pursuit of goals.
In contrast to this, the meta‐analysis found that neuroticism related inversely to problem
solving and cognitive restructuring. Neuroticism also was positively associated with several
maladaptive emotion‐focused coping strategies, such as wishful thinking and withdrawal. On
the positive side, neuroticism was also found to predict greater support seeking, which can be
helpful in coping with health difficulties and chronic illness.
Interestingly, persons higher in neuroticism report greater emotional reactivity to negative
life events and are more likely to develop anxiety and depression in response to such events
(Lahey, 2009). Coping style probably plays a role in this relationship, given evidence that per-
sons high in neuroticism use more disengagement‐related strategies than problem‐focused
coping behaviors (Watson & Hubbard, 1996). Consistent with this pattern, people high in
neuroticism also tend not to engage in proactive coping.
The trait of conscientiousness is associated with properties such as self‐discipline, compe-
tence, self‐efficacy, and striving toward achievement. Not surprisingly, then, it is strongly asso-
ciated with the use of problem‐focused, approach coping (Bartley & Roesch, 2011), including
proactive coping. People high in conscientiousness also report greater positive affect. This
relationship is likely mediated by the use of problem‐focused coping in situations of daily stress
(Bartley & Roesch, 2011).
Although the term proactive coping is generally reserved for cases of preparation for a par-
ticular stressor, there is a sense in which general efforts to live healthy lives represent proactive
coping. Such health‐promoting behaviors are an important part of managing well‐being.
Persons who are emotionally stable, introverted, and conscientious are more likely to engage
in health‐promoting behaviors such as physical activity, a healthy diet, immunizations, safe
driving, sleep, weight control, and not smoking (Korotkov, 2008).

Optimism and Coping
Another personality dimension that has been linked to coping is optimism. Solberg Nes and
Segerstrom (2006) conducted a meta‐analysis of optimism effects. Optimism is systematically
associated with greater use of approach coping tendencies, strategies that are active and prob-
lem focused. Optimism is also related to the use of social support, both for emotional reasons
and for instrumental assistance. In contrast to these tendencies, pessimism is associated with
avoidance strategies, essentially efforts to escape the stressor and sometimes to escape even
acknowledging the stressor (e.g., Solberg Nes & Segerstrom, 2006).
As one example, in a sample of HIV‐positive men and women coping with the loss of their
partners to AIDS, optimism was positively associated with reports of using active coping strat-
egies and negatively associated with reports of using avoidant coping strategies and falling into
hopelessness (Rogers, Hanson, Levy, Tate, & Sikkema, 2005).

V2_c48_ehp0352.indd 415 03/09/2020 20:20:39

 416 Jamie M. Jacobs and Charles S. Carver

In a study of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients (Carver et al., 1993), optimism was
associated with greater use of a range of engagement coping at time‐appropriate points in
treatment. That is, correlations of optimism with report of planning and active coping emerged
prior to surgery but not afterward. Correlations with acceptance and use of humor were pre-
sent across the first 6 months after treatment, and with positive reframing across the first 3
months. Optimism was also inversely associated with disengagement coping—denial and
behavioral disengagement—across the full year after treatment.
Although similar effects have emerged in diverse contexts (Carver et al., 2010), there
do appear to be boundaries on such effects of optimism on coping. Very recent research
has investigated the role of what has been termed comparative optimism, which statisti-
cally is nearly independent of trait optimism as discussed here. Comparative optimism is
assessed by items asking about the likelihood that respondents will experience problems in
a given life domain compared with other people who are otherwise like them. Comparative
optimists say those events are less likely than do other people. Trait optimists who were
also comparative optimists minimized the degree of threat posed by particular health chal-
lenges; those who were trait optimists but not comparative optimists did not (Fowler &
Geers, 2015).

Adjustment and Health

Coping, Adjustment, and the Role of Personality

Coping is associated with the health perceptions and quality of life of patients dealing with
chronic illness. Across many diseases and health conditions, coping tendencies are associated
with both mental and physical outcomes. There are two ways in which coping can have ben-
eficial effects on well‐being. First, it does so to the extent that it removes or eliminates the
threat (thereby reducing distress). Second, it does so to the extent that it directly reduces
distress.
Which of these classes of coping is more appropriate depends on the context. In the
context of a controllable stressor, problem‐focused behaviors such as active problem solv-
ing and changing one’s circumstances are helpful (see Carver & Connor‐Smith, 2010 in
further readings). In the context of an uncontrollable stressor, these responses are less
useful; emotion regulation, use of social support resources, and controlled emotional
expression are most beneficial (Penley, Tomaka, & Wiebe, 2002). Reliance on an emo-
tion‐focused strategy in the context of a controllable stressor may be less productive, and
vice versa. Behaviors that are either pointlessly ruminative or avoidant in nature—e.g.,
venting, denial, and self‐blame—tend to predict poorer adjustment regardless of context
(e.g., Moskowitz, Hult, Bussolari, & Acree, 2009; also see Austenfeld & Stanton, 2004
in further readings). This selection and matching of the most beneficial coping strategy
(or strategies) to a given stressor is one way to think about how coping influences adjust-
ment. Within this viewpoint, the role of personality is principally to influence choice of
coping responses.
A second way in which personality may play a role here is to moderate the effect of coping,
such that once a coping response is selected, personality may influence how well the individual
implements that response and how well it works for that individual. For example, problem‐
solving behaviors may be more successfully implemented by people who are conscientious (see
Carver & Connor‐Smith, 2010 in further readings).

V2_c48_ehp0352.indd 416 03/09/2020 20:20:39

 Personality and Coping 417

Coping, Personality, and Health

Regardless of whether the role of personality is to influence selection of coping response or to
influence the execution of the response, there are at least two pathways by which coping per
se may have an effect on health. One path involves the level of wear and tear created on physi-
cal systems as a result of ineffective coping with threats and challenges. There is little dispute
over the fact that chronic, elevated stress can affect physical health and disease processes via a
range of physiological pathways such as the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis and
the sympathetic nervous system (e.g., Schneiderman, Ironson, & Siegel, 2005). Effective cop-
ing can dampen physiological stress responses, proactive coping can prevent stress responses
altogether, and dysfunctional coping can worsen stress responses (Carver & Vargas, 2011).
With repeated or prolonged physiological activation, people become physically exhausted and
more susceptible to illness.
The key issue here may be the extent to which the stress is invoked repeatedly or chronically.
Meta‐analyses suggest that persons coping with conditions such as HIV, prostate cancer, and
diabetes who implement engagement coping have better physical and mental health than
those who do so to a lesser degree (e.g., Moskowitz et al., 2009). On the other hand, poorer
physical health outcomes are observed among persons who opt for disengagement coping
(Moskowitz et al., 2009; also see Austenfeld & Stanton, 2004).
A second pathway by which coping affects health is a behavioral mechanism. This pathway
follows from the fact that some kinds of effective coping involve engaging in health‐promoting
behaviors and avoiding health‐damaging behaviors. In this case, the effect on health is intrinsic
to the behavior itself. This pathway, of course, is also influenced by personality. The likelihood
of engaging in healthy lifestyle behaviors is greater among persons who are optimistic than
pessimistic (e.g., Carver et al., 2010). Of the five‐factor model, conscientiousness, agreeable-
ness, and extraversion are also linked to health‐promoting behaviors (e.g., Roberts, Kuncel,
Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007).

Concluding Comments

This review is by no means complete or comprehensive. Coping in a health context is a multi-

dimensional process, influenced by the healthcare environment, family factors, and life changes,
along with physical demands such as pain and treatment side effects. Variation in these demands
illustrates how different coping responses may be required for various components of a stressor.
In part for this reason, it is challenging to predict coping responses from personality disposi-
tions alone.
There is much more to be said about coping and personality in the context of different
health stressors, as well as the inevitable variation based on demographic differences such
as age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and stage of disease. More research is
needed on the extent to which coping is stable across situations. The concept of proactive
coping is another area in need of further investigation, for example, to understand whether
proactive coping follows from particular personality profiles, or whether it develops over
time in response to experiences of adversity. Finally, it would seem desirable to continue
to hone programs to teach effective coping, thereby helping patients enhance their use of
engagement coping techniques. Enhanced coping would, in turn, increase positive health
behaviors and improve health outcomes from morbidity to mortality in the context of
clinical settings.

V2_c48_ehp0352.indd 417 03/09/2020 20:20:39

 418 Jamie M. Jacobs and Charles S. Carver

Author Biographies

Dr. Jamie M. Jacobs is a clinical psychologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer
Center and Behavioral Medicine Service and an Assistant Professor of Psychology in the
Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Her expertise includes effects of stress
on health outcomes and the role of coping and stress management in buffering physiological
stress and disease processes in the context of cancer. She is also interested in psychological fac-
tors that predict nonadherence to cancer treatment regimens, in order to guide intervention
development to improve adherence and symptom management.
Charles S. Carver is distinguished professor of psychology at the University of Miami. His
background is in personality and social psychology, but he has also been active in health psy-
chology and experimental psychopathology. One aspect of his research has focused on coping
processes and optimism as a personality disposition, in the context of major health threats.

References
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? Social
attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 245–252.
doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.83.1.245
Austenfeld, J. L., & Stanton, A. L. (2004). Coping through emotional approach: A new look at emotion,
coping, and health‐related outcomes. Journal of Personality, 72, 1335–1364. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐
6494.2004.00299.x
Bartley, C. E., & Roesch, S. C. (2011). Coping with daily stress: The role of conscientiousness. Personality
and Individual Differences, 50, 79–83. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.027
Carver, C., Scheier, M., & Segerstrom, S. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 879–889.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006
Carver, C. S., & Connor‐Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61,
679–704. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352
Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S. D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. F., Robinson, D. S., … Clark, K. C.
(1993). How coping mediates the effect of optimism on distress: A study of women with early stage
breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 375–390. doi:10.1037/0022‐
3514.65.2.375
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2012). Cybernetic control processes and the self‐regulation of behavior.
In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 28–42). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically
based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283. doi:10.1037/0022‐
3514.56.2.267
Carver, C. S., & Vargas, S. (2011). Stress, coping, and health. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), The Oxford hand-
book of health psychology (pp. 165–191). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Connor‐Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta‐anal-
ysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080–1107. doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.93.6.1080
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure‐ and process‐integrated view of personality: Traits as density
distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027. doi:10.1037/0022‐
3514.80.6.1011
Fowler, S. L., & Geers, A. L. (2015). Dispositional and comparative optimism interact to predict avoid-
ance of a looming health threat. Psychology & Health, 30, 456–474. doi:10.1080/08870446.2014.
977282
Gross, J. J. (Ed.) (2014). Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

V2_c48_ehp0352.indd 418 03/09/2020 20:20:39

 Personality and Coping 419

Hambrick, E. P., & McCord, D. M. (2010). Proactive coping and its relation to the five‐factor model of
personality. Individual Differences Research, 8, 67–77.
Jensen‐Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal
conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323–362. doi:10.1111/1467‐6494.00148
Kern, M. L., & Friedman, H. S. (2011). Personality and pathways of influence on physical health. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 76–87. doi:10.1111/j.1751‐9004.2010.00331.x
Korotkov, D. (2008). Does personality moderate the relationship between stress and health behavior?
Expanding the nomological network of the five‐factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 42,
1418–1426. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.003
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64, 241.
doi:10.1037/a0015309
Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Emotions and interpersonal relationships: Toward a person‐centered conceptual-
ization of emotions and coping. Journal of Personality, 74, 9–46. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐6494.2005.
00368.x
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping.
European Journal of Personality, 1, 141–169. doi:10.1002/per.2410010304
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–
337. doi:10.1037/0033‐2909.120.3.323
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hřebíčková, M., Avia, M. D., … Smith,
P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186. doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.78.1.173
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications.
Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐6494.1992.tb00970.x
Moskowitz, J. T., Hult, J. R., Bussolari, C., & Acree, M. (2009). What works in coping with HIV? A
meta‐analysis with implications for coping with serious illness. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 121–141.
doi:10.1037/a0014210
Nes, L. S., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2006). Dispositional optimism and coping: A meta‐analytic review.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 235–251. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_3
Ozer, D. J., & Benet‐Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes.
Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127
Penley, J. A., Tomaka, J., & Wiebe, J. S. (2002). The association of coping to physical and psychological
health outcomes: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 551–603. doi:
10.1023/A:1020641400589
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of person-
ality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for
predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345. doi:10.1111/
j.1745‐6916.2007.00047.x
Rogers, M. E., Hanson, N. B., Levy, B. R., Tate, D. C., & Sikkema, K. J. (2005). Optimism and coping
with loss in bereaved HIV‐infected men and women. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24,
341–360.
Schneiderman, N., Ironson, G., & Siegel, S. D. (2005). Stress and health: Psychological, behavioral, and
biological determinants. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 607–628. doi:10.1146/annurev.
clinpsy.1.102803.144141
Schwarzer, R., & Taubert, S. (2002). Tenacious goal pursuits and striving toward personal growth:
Proactive coping. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions and challenges (pp.
19–35). London: Oxford University Press.
Sharpe, J. P., Martin, N. R., & Roth, K. A. (2011). Optimism and the big five factors of personality:
Beyond neuroticism and extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 946–951.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.033
Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A
review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129,
216–269. doi:10.1037/0033‐2909.129.2.216

V2_c48_ehp0352.indd 419 03/09/2020 20:20:39

 420 Jamie M. Jacobs and Charles S. Carver

Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the con-
text of the five‐factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 737–774. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐6494.1996.
tb00943.x

Suggested Reading
Austenfeld, J. L., & Stanton, A. L. (2004). Coping through emotional approach: A new look at emotion,
coping, and health‐related outcomes. Journal of Personality, 72, 1335–1364. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐
6494.2004.00299.x
Carver, C. S., & Connor‐Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61,
679–704. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2012). Cybernetic control processes and the self‐regulation of behavior.
In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 28–42). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Connor‐Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta‐
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080–1107. doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.93.
6.1080
Kern, M. L., & Friedman, H. S. (2011). Personality and pathways of influence on physical health. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 76–87. doi:10.1111/j.1751‐9004.2010.00331.x

V2_c48_ehp0352.indd 420 03/09/2020 20:20:39