Coping As A Mediator Between Personality and Stress Outcomes

European Journal of Personality
Eur. J. Pers. 19: 229–247 (2005)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/per.546
Coping as a Mediator Between Personality

and Stress Outcomes: A Longitudinal
Study with Cataract Surgery Patients
NINA KNOLL1*, NINA RIECKMANN2 and RALF SCHWARZER3

1
Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
2
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, USA
3
Free University Berlin, Germany
Abstract
Personality and coping were specified as predictors of emotional outcomes of a mildly
stressful medical procedure. Situation-specific coping was examined in contrast to
dispositional coping, and it was tested whether one or the other would mediate the
relationship between higher-order personality factors and stress outcomes. Cataract
patients (N ¼ 110) participated at four measurement points in time during a six-week
period surrounding their scheduled surgery. Dispositional coping did not mediate the
personality–outcome relationship. In contrast, situation-specific coping acquired a
mediator status between personality and adaptational criteria and accounted for
independent outcome variance once personality traits were included as predictors in
the models. Thus, the data suggest that whether or not coping mediates between
personality factors and affective outcomes may be related to the methodological
approaches of its operationalization. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Individuals exhibit a vast variety of behaviours when confronted with a stressful situation.
Coping researchers suggest that such behaviours reflect people’s coping efforts to alleviate
the stressful impact of a situation, either by altering characteristics of the situation or by
regulating their emotional reactions to it (see e.g. Lazarus, 1991). From the viewpoint of
this research tradition, coping is conceptualized as diverse, changing, and, to a large
degree, shaped by situational demands and people’s appraisals of these demands as well as
their personal means available to confront them.
Personality researchers, on the other hand, have pointed to stable and enduring
dispositions that may explain why some persons are more vulnerable to stressful situations
*Correspondence to: Nina Knoll, Charité Campus Mitte, Institute of Medical Psychology, Luisenstrasse 57,
10117 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: nina.knoll@charite.de
Contract/grant sponsor: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG; contract/grant number: DFG-GK 429/1-98.
Received 23 April 2004

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 15 October 2004
230 N. Knoll et al.
than others. Neuroticism, for example, is suggested to be linked to individual differences

in emotional reactivity to stress (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1987).
Suls, David, and Harvey (1996) proposed the third generation of coping research as the
combination of the above outlined avenues. Since then, a growing body of evidence from
very different populations has linked broad personality dispositions such as Neuroticism to
specific ways of coping in a variety of potentially taxing situations (Bosworth, Feaganes,
& Vitaliano, 2002; David & Suls, 1999; Penley & Tomaka, 2002; Watson & Hubbard,
1996).
Going a step further, some authors have looked at how higher-order personality factors
and coping might both contribute to the prediction of emotional adaptation to stressful
experiences (Bolger, 1990; Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1986; Murberg,
Bru, & Stephens, 2002). Some studies revealed evidence for coping taking on a mediator
status between personality factors and different outcome criteria. Moreover, evidence
suggests that, above and beyond broad personality factors, coping remains an independent
predictor with regard to affective states and changes in taxing situations. However, results
have not been consistent. In some instances, coping was not found to be an independent
predictor of emotional outcomes (McCrae & Costa, 1986) or failed to mediate the
relationship between higher-order personality factors and affective adaptation to a
stressful episode (e.g. Hemenhover & Dienstbier, 1998).
Coping: incremental validity and mediation

One aim of the present study was to examine the predictive power of both higher-order
personality factors and coping with regard to the adaptation to a stressful situation.
Especially, the independent predictor status of coping and a possible mediating function
between personality factors and emotional outcomes under stress were investigated. So
far, literature has provided conflicting evidence on these issues.
For instance, Bolger (1990), using a prospective design, reported evidence for situation-
specific coping processes mediating the associative relationship between Neuroticism and
changes in anxiety in a taxing situation as well as retaining an independent predictor status
with regard to the outcome. On the other hand, using a longitudinal approach and a
retrospective assessment of stressors as well as coping strategies employed, McCrae and
Costa (1986) did not find evidence that coping remained an independent predictor of
different emotional outcomes once personality factors were controlled for. Their findings
indicated that the relations between coping and emotional outcome criteria were spurious,
that is, they mostly disappeared when personality traits were accounted for. This led the
authors to suggest that above and beyond higher-order personality traits coping is a rather
weak predictor of emotional adaptation to stress, if not an ‘epiphenomenon of personality’.
Hemenhover and Dienstbier (1998) reported similar results, finding that coping did
not yield a mediator status between trait anxiety and health outcomes in a longitudinal
study.
Some authors (e.g. Bolger, 1990) suggested that the means of coping assessment (i.e.
assessment of dispositional coping, retrospective assessment of coping) is to blame for a
possible lack of independent predictor status of coping once higher-order personality
factors are controlled. For instance, in McCrae and Costa’s research, participants were
instructed to recall long-past (i.e. over one year) life events and associated coping efforts.
Bolger suggested that this approach might have resulted in the inaccurate and dis-
positionally biased recollection of events and reactions (Peterson, 1980). Superordinate
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 229–247 (2005)
Coping as a mediator 231
factors such as Neuroticism and Extraversion are more likely to encompass dispositional
coping and thus might overlap with its share of predicted outcome variance. This in turn,
would lead to spurious effects of coping on outcomes once higher-order personality factors
are accounted for.
To further explore this issue, in the present study, effects of broad personality dimen-
sions and different operationalizations of coping on affect were examined in a medical
setting that involved potential physical threat, i.e. cataract surgery.
Cataract surgery
The cataract is a very prevalent eye disease in late midlife to older age. The disorder itself
involves a loss of lens transparency, resulting in symptoms such as blurred vision,
sensitivity to light and glare, increased nearsightedness, and distorted images in either eye.
The only way to treat the cataract is by means of surgery. Generally, blindness is an
objective long-term threat if an operation is avoided. Undergoing surgery, the majority of
patients receive local anaesthesia, usually by means of eye drops and an injection next to
the outer eye, or an anaesthetic gel directly applied to the eye. The patient’s cornea is
minimally incised. Subsequently, the opaque lens is destroyed by means of an ultrasound
procedure (phacoemulsification) and removed, with the capsula of the lens remaining
intact. Then, the artificial lens is implanted. Lasting only around 15–20 minutes on
average, the procedure is very brief. Inpatients are usually released within 48 hours of the
surgery (mean time frame from admission to discharge ¼ 3.2 days; Federal German
Statistical Office, 2001).
The present study

In this study, we examined the possible mediating functions and incremental validity of
different operationalizations of coping between higher-order personality factors and
emotional outcomes in a potentially stressful situation.
Containing classic aspects of potential stressors such as lack of control and
predictability as well as possible physical harm, impending cataract surgery should pose
a threat to patients. Previous studies support this notion, reporting that cataract patients
exhibit higher levels of state anxiety prior to than post-surgery (Foggit, 2001).
METHOD
Design and sample

Recruitment of participants took place in two German hospitals, the Department of
Ophthalmology at the Berlin Virchow Hospital as well as the Department of Ophthal-
mology at the Mainz University Hospital. Means of recruitment did not vary between
clinics, and the same instructor recruited patients in Berlin and Mainz.
Assessment periods for each participant were six weeks around the scheduled time of
surgery (one day pre-event to six weeks post-event). While formal data assessment started
upon admission to the hospital and was initiated by a personal recruitment interview with
the patient, all data were collected by means of questionnaires. Upon the first measurement
point (T1), participants were contacted in their hospital rooms by a female study
investigator shortly after admission to the hospital. They were given a detailed description
of the purpose of the study. Study materials and design were explained. Informed consent
232 N. Knoll et al.
was obtained for (a) participation in the study and (b) authorization for access to medical
data. Patients were handed the questionnaires, and were instructed to leave them in an
envelope with the nurses at the front desk on the day of discharge. Patients were instructed
to complete the main questionnaire on the same day (T1, admission to the hospital);
questionnaires assessing T2 (day of surgery) and T3 (discharge) outcomes were left with
the patient, together with instructions for completion on the respective days at specified
time points. Instructions for the completion of all study materials were provided orally by
the investigator as well as in written form as a header on each questionnaire. On the last
measurement occasion (T4, six weeks post-surgery), questionnaires were mailed to
participants’ home addresses. Respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire
within one week of receipt and to send it back to study headquarters as soon as possible.
One inclusion criterion pertained to the inpatient/outpatient status of the participant.
Many cataract surgeries are now performed on an outpatient basis. To retain a high com-
parability of the situation among all participants, however, only inpatients were included in
the study. A second inclusion criterion was being able to read the materials and ques-
tionnaires, which were printed in 15-point Arial typeface with additional one-point distance
between characters to accommodate the needs of individuals with impaired vision.
The full sample at the first measurement point comprised 110 cataract patients. Eight of
these 110 participants failed to provide data for the second measurement point in time.
One more patient did not provide data at the third measurement occasion. Even if
participants failed to provide data at measurement points T2 and T3, they were contacted
at measurement point T4. A total of 94 participants provided information at T4. However,
only 86 of these patients had answered questionnaires at all four measurement occasions,
which corresponds to 78 per cent of the full sample. In all cases, non-continuing
participants failed to either turn in or send back the completed study materials.
The sample consisted of individuals aged between 43 and 89 years (M ¼ 71.6; SD ¼ 8.9),
48 of whom were men and 62 women. About 57 per cent of participants were married, and
roughly 29 per cent were widowed. Few participants were divorced (5.5 per cent) or single
(7.3 per cent). Most participants (74.6 per cent) reported 9–10 years of schooling. A
remaining 25 per cent reported 12–13 years of school education corresponding to German
high school diploma. Most of the participants were living in their private homes
(94 per cent). Only about 5 per cent were living at retirement facilities. The vast majority
of patients (91.8 per cent) were retired at the time of data assessment and had been so for an
average of 16.33 (SD ¼ 12.7) years. Continuers and non-continuers did not differ
significantly on any of the socio-demographic variables. Participants not providing data
for all measurement points in time were excluded from the respective analyses, resulting in
different sample sizes depending on the measurements included in the analyses.
Measures
Personality
Three of the ’Big Five’ higher-order personality traits (i.e. Neuroticism, Extraversion, and
Openness to Experience) were assessed as independent variables in this framework. They
were measured using the German version of the NEO-FFI (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993).
Participants answered on a five-point scale, rating the resemblance of each item to their
own usual thoughts and actions. The response scale ranged from 0 (has nothing to do with
my thoughts or actions) to 4 (describes my thoughts or actions very well). Each scale was
represented by 12 items.
Neuroticism’s (N) internal consistency was acceptable with Cronbach’s ¼ 0.69 as

was Extraversion’s (E) with ¼ 0.71. Openness to Experience (O), however, exhibited
very low internal consistency (Cronbach’s ¼ 0.51). Moreover, interscale correlations
yielded a negative association between Openness to Experience and Neuroticism
(r ¼ 0.18, p ¼ 0.05). It was thus decided to alter the Openness scale as little as possible
to achieve better internal consistency along with an improvement of the interrelative
structure of both scales. Inspection of corrected item–total correlations as well as prin-
cipal component analysis of the Openness scale led to the exclusion of three reversed
items that were either not at all or even negatively associated with the remainder of the
scale. These items were (1) I don’t like to waste time with daydreams, (2) Only rarely
do I take note of different moods or emotions that are elicited by different contexts,
and (3) I think that we should consult religious authorities when making ethical
decisions (authors’ translation). Exclusion of these three items led to an improved
internal consistency of Cronbach’s ¼ 0.60. The correlation between N and O dropped
to 0.14 (ns). Personality traits were assessed once at T1, that is, upon admission to the
hospital.
Coping
Coping was assessed using the Brief COPE (Carver, 1997), which was adapted to the
German language. The Brief COPE was developed on the basis of theoretical consi-
derations and is construct oriented. It consists of 14 scales, each scale represented by two
items. Due to a lack of internal consistency and item variance, only 11 of these 14
subscales were further analysed.
At T1 (admission to hospital), participants were instructed according to a situation-
specific version of the instrument. They were asked to indicate their actions and thoughts
in instances when they had thought about the upcoming surgery during the week prior to
surgery up to the present day (T1). Participants indicated their answers on a four-point
Likert-type scale, rating the resemblance of each item to coping efforts pursued. The
response scale ranged from not at all (1) to very much (4). At T4, a dispositional version of
the instruction of the Brief COPE was provided. Participants were asked to think of their
usual thoughts and actions while faced with a difficult situation. Aside from the
instruction, item wording was left unchanged.
As recommended by Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989), the selected 11 subscales
were further summarized into four factors by means of confirmatory factor analyses
(CFA). Informed by previous results on the factorial structure of the COPE instruments (cf.
Carver et al., 1989) and by bivariate associations among the subscales, the hypothesized
CFA models for both situation-specific and dispositional versions of the Brief COPE
included four latent factors of coping: Focus on Positive (Acceptance, Positive Reframing,
and Humor), Support Coping (Instrumental Support, Emotional Support, and Religion),
Active Coping (Active Coping and Planning), and Evasive Coping (Self-Blame, Denial,
and Venting). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed using data from 110
cataract patients for situation-specific coping. Maximum likelihood estimation was
employed to estimate all models. An independence model that tests the hypothesis that all
variables are independent of one another was rejected, 2 (55, N ¼ 110) ¼ 246.41,
p < 0.01. The hypothesized model was tested in a second step. Associated statistics
yielded support for it: 2 (38, N ¼ 110) ¼ 51.11, p ¼ 0.08, with a comparative fit index
(CFI) ¼ 0.93, GFI ¼ 0.93, RMSEA ¼ 0.06; an averaged lambda was 0.60 in a completely
standardized model.
234 N. Knoll et al.
With dispositional coping, the same four-factor model was tested. An initial indepen-
dence model was rejected at 2(55, n ¼ 94) ¼ 316.40, p < 0.01. The hypothesized model
was tested in a next step and yielded acceptable fit statistics, 2(38, n ¼ 94) ¼ 51.90,
p ¼ 0.07; CFI ¼ 0.95, GFI ¼ 0.91, RMSEA ¼ 0.06; an averaged lambda was 0.67 in a
completely standardized model.
Consequently, four new coping scales for each of the situation-specific and dispositional
versions were built. Focus on Positive coping (situation specific/dispositional) consisted of
six items, yielding internal consistencies of sit spec ¼ 0.70 and dispo ¼ 0.76. Active
Coping (situation specific ¼ 0.74 and dispositional ¼ 0.81) included four items.
Support Coping (situation specific ¼ 0.73 and dispositional ¼ 0.76) and Evasive
Coping (situation specific ¼ 0.61 and dispositional ¼ 0.70) each comprised six items.
To aggregate, scale means were computed. Values ranged from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very
much). Correlations of the situation-specific with the respective dispositional scales
yielded coefficients ranging from rsit spec–dispo ¼ 0.34 (Evasive Coping) to rsit spec–dispo ¼
0.59 (Support Coping) that resembled common state-dispositional relationships
typically varying around r ¼ 0.50. Similar coefficients for situation-specific and
dispositional measures of the long version of the COPE have been reported by Carver
and Scheier (1994). Interscale correlations ranged from r ¼ 0.13 (ns) to r ¼ 0.40
( p < 0.001) for situation-specific and r ¼ 0.09 (ns) to r ¼ 0.44 ( p < 0.001) for
dispositional coping scales.
Positive and negative affect
Affect was assessed by means of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule by Watson,
Clark, and Tellegen (1988) in its German translation by Krohne, Egloff, Kohlmann, and
Tausch (1996). Both scales (i.e. positive and negative affect) consisted of ten adjectives
each. Participants were asked to rate their own mood on the respective day by indicating
answers on a four-point scale for each adjective. Possible endorsements were not at all, a
little, quite a lot, and very much. Affect was assessed at four points in time in the present
study. The first measurement point took place on the day of admission to the hospital, the
second on the day of surgery, immediately prior to surgery. The third assessment took
place on the day of discharge from the hospital, and the fourth six weeks post-surgery. The
scale’s internal consistencies were satisfactory with an average Cronbachs’ alpha of
¼ 0.69 for negative affect and ¼ 0.89 for positive affect. Except for the second
measurement, immediately prior to surgery (T2: r ¼ 0.23, p < 0.05), negative and
positive affect were independent of each other.
Control variables
In addition to the predictors that were of central interest, three variables served as controls
to most analyses as they predicted parts of the affect outcome variance. Sex and age were
tested as rival predictors to personality and coping. Women tended to report more negative
affect and less positive affect than men, especially prior to surgery, with the largest mean
difference occurring at T2 for negative affect (t(100) ¼ 2.53, p < 0.05; Mwomen ¼ 1.42,
SDwomen ¼ 0.34; Mmen ¼ 1.26, SDmen ¼ 0.30) and at T1 for positive affect (t(108) ¼ 2.28,
p < 0.05; Mwomen ¼ 1.77, SDwomen ¼ 0.58; Mmen ¼ 2.02, SDmen ¼ 0.54). Approaching
significance, age was negatively associated with positive affect prior to surgery (T1
r ¼ 0.17, p < 0.10; T2 r ¼ 0.18, p < 0.10), but not with negative affect.
A third control variable was previous experience with cataract surgery. Of the 110
participants at T1 about one half (n ¼ 50, 45.5 per cent) had undergone cataract surgery
before. Participants who had undergone cataract surgery before reported less negative
affect and more positive affect pre-surgery than inexperienced participants with the
highest difference at T2 (negative affect, t(100) ¼ 2.57, p < 0.05; Mfirst surgery ¼ 1.43,
SDfirst surgery ¼ 0.37; Msecond surgery ¼ 1.27, SDsecond surgery ¼ 0.26; positive affect,
t(100) ¼ 2.23, p < 0.05; Mfirst surgery ¼ 1.71, SDfirst surgery ¼ 0.56; Msecond surgery ¼ 1.97,
SDsecond surgery ¼ 0.62).
Statistical analyses
The majority of analyses were conducted using hierarchical multiple regressions.
Generally, rival predictors to the ones hypothesized were entered first. When changes
between measurement points were of interest as outcomes, the so-called ‘residualized-
change’ approach was chosen by controlling for the respective previous assessment of the
variable of interest first while predicting the later outcome (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
Since the central hypotheses of the present study are concerned with possible mediation,
path analyses were the method of choice. Our approach was to perform a sequence of
multiple regression analyses that eventually form full models. Testing possible mediation
effects, according to Baron and Kenny (1986), a number of assumptions have to be met: (a)
the independent variable needs to predict the outcome directly, (b) the proposed mediator
also needs to be significantly related to the outcome, and (c) there needs to be an
association between the independent variable and the proposed mediator. By including the
proposed mediator, the direct effect should lessen considerably. In this study, only models
were tested that fulfilled Baron and Kenny’s (1986) necessary criteria for mediation in
separate analyses leading up to the full-model testing.
In the full models, the respective personality factors served as independent variables,
coping scales were tested as possible mediators and independent predictors (i.e.
independent of personality predictors) in their own right, and affect states and changes
were the outcomes. Following an analytic strategy proposed by Bolger (1990), all coping
scales (i.e. situation specific or dispositional, respectively) were included in the models at
once. Due to intercorrelations of the scales, the aim was to investigate whether above and
beyond common coping variance, the different dimensions would still make an individual
predictive contribution to states and changes of the outcome. This represents a more
conservative approach to testing coping’s independent predictor status in which common
coping variance is controlled for in the full models. Risking multicollinearity in the
analyses due to predictor overlap, tolerance, and variance inflation factors were monitored
in all analyses, but generally stayed within acceptable ranges: tolerance ranged between 0.63
and 0.95, reciprocally; variance inflation factors did not exceed 1.6 in the final models.
Apart from regression analyses, repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to test
broad mean changes of repeatedly measured outcomes.
RESULTS
Findings are divided into four parts. The first part investigates whether or not cataract
surgery constituted a stressful situation for participants. Changes in affect states over time
were examined from pre- to post-surgery. A second part deals with descriptive statistics on
situation-specific and dispositional coping scales. The third part describes relations
between higher-order personality, coping, and affect outcomes. A fourth part then tests the
full models, using both situation-specific and dispositional approaches.
236 N. Knoll et al.
Table 1. Affect outcomes: descriptive statistics

Outcomes M SD Range
Negative affect admission (T1) 1.34 0.29 1.00–2.70

Negative affect surgery (T2) 1.35 0.33 1.00–2.40
Negative affect discharge (T3) 1.15 0.17 1.00–1.78
Negative affect 6 weeks post (T4) 1.21 0.25 1.00–2.40
Positive affect admission (T1) 1.88 0.58 1.00–3.30
Positive affect surgery (T2) 1.84 0.60 1.00–3.70
Positive affect discharge (T3) 2.18 0.74 1.00–4.00
Positive affect 6 weeks post (T4) 2.29 0.67 1.00–3.91
94 < n < 110. Tx ¼ measurement occasion.
Affect pre- to post-surgery

We expected that cataract surgery would constitute a stressful situation. Hence, an increase
in negative affect prior to and a decrease after surgery were predicted. On the other hand,
we expected a decrease in positive affect pre-surgery, followed by an increase post-
surgery.
To test broad mean changes in negative and positive affect over this time period, one-
way repeated measures ANOVAs were carried out, with the four distinct measurement
points serving as the TIME factor. Although negative affect remained at fairly low levels,
significant change took place over the repeated assessments (F(3, 255) ¼ 19.99, p < 0.001,
2 ¼ 0.19). Inspection of the contrasts yielded significant changes between the day of
surgery (T2) and discharge (T3; F(1, 85) ¼ 41.86, p < 0.001, 2 ¼ 0.33) as well as between
discharge (T3) and the six-week post-surgery follow-up (T4; F(1, 85) ¼ 4.46, p < 0.05,
2 ¼ 0.05). As expected, the mean negative affect was at a higher level pre-surgery and
dropped post-surgery. No significant increase in negative affect was observed for the two
pre-surgery measurements; however, there was a significant increment of negative affect
from discharge to six weeks post-surgery (see Table 1).
Positive affect was reported at higher levels than negative affect at all points in time.
Participants also showed considerable change over time in reports of positive affect (F(3,
255) ¼ 18.28, p < 0.001, 2 ¼ 0.17). As expected, we found low positive affect at both pre-
surgery measurement points, and a significant increase of positive affect from pre- to post-
surgery (F(1, 85) ¼ 39.7, p < 0.001, 2 ¼ 0.32). Positive affect remained at this high level
at the six-week follow-up (T4; see Table1).
Coping: situation specific versus dispositional

Looking at both the situation-specific (T1) and dispositional (T4) versions of the four
coping scales, strategies that focus on the positive aspect of the situation showed the
highest mean levels among coping strategies in both assessments (Msit spec ¼ 2.25,
SD ¼ 0.60; Mdispo ¼ 2.37, SD ¼ 0.65) followed by Support Coping (Msit spec ¼ 1.81,
SD ¼ 0.60; Mdispo ¼ 1.86, SD ¼ 0.63) and Active Coping (Msit spec ¼ 1.77, SD ¼ 0.68;
Mdispo ¼ 2.07, SD ¼ 0.80), and by Evasive Coping (Msit spec ¼ 1.35, SD ¼ 0.37; Mdispo ¼
1.43, SD ¼ 0.45).
Participants reported higher levels of dispositional as compared to situation-specific
Active Coping (t(93) ¼ 4.18, p < 0.001, n ¼ 94) and Evasive Coping (t(93) ¼ 2.32,
p < 0.05, n ¼ 94).
Associations between personality variables and pre- and post-surgical affect

Correlations revealed positive associations of Neuroticism with negative affect at admis-
sion (T1), day of surgery (T2), and discharge (T3). There was no significant association
between Neuroticism and state negative affect at six weeks post-surgery (T4). Contrary to
expectations from state–trait anxiety theory and other empirical findings (e.g. Spielberger,
1985), Neuroticism did not explain significant change variance between the two pre-
surgical measurement points, nor pre- to post-surgery. On the other hand, Neuroticism also
revealed inverse relationships with positive affect at all measurement points (T1–T4; see
Table 2) and change in positive affect from day of surgery to discharge (r. positive affect
T2 ¼ 0.24, p < 0.05)
Extraversion was related to positive affect also pre- to immediately post-surgery, failing
to show an association with six-weeks-post-surgery positive affect (see Table 2). However,
Extraversion was related to change variance between positive affect at admission and day
of surgery (r. positive affect T1 ¼ 0.22, p < 0.05).
Finally, Openness to Experience was associated with positive affect at assessments T1
(admission to the hospital) and T2 (day of surgery; approaching significance). Openness to
Experience also explained parts of the change variance between negative affect at
admission and day of surgery (r. negative affect T1 ¼ 0.23, p < 0.05), indicating that
people with higher levels of Openness experienced greater reductions in negative affect
prior to surgery.
Not all of these bivariate associations withstood the control of the other personality
variables in additional analyses predicting affect states and changes. Factors that shared
significant bivariate associations with affect, but failed to remain significant once other
personality variables were accounted for, were Extraversion and Neuroticism predicting
positive affect at T1, Neuroticism predicting positive affect at T2, and Extraversion
predicting positive affect at T3. To avoid a further accumulation of non-significant
Table 2. Bivariate correlations: personality, situation-specific and dispositional coping with

emotional outcomes
NA PA
T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4
Situation-specific
Focus on Positive 0.16y 0.13 0.03 0.05 0.40*** 0.40*** 0.42*** 0.18y
Support Coping 0.39*** 0.24* 0.21* 0.34*** 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.04
Active Coping 0.26** 0.08 0.20* 0.05 0.31** 0.25* 0.12 0.22*
Evasive Coping 0.20* 0.27** 0.20* 0.11 0.19* 0.09 0.06 0.10
Dispositional
Focus on Positive/d 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.16 0.08 0.03 0.13
Support Coping/d 0.24* 0.25* 0.11 0.34** 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.06
Active Coping/d 0.11 0.02 0.10 0.19y 0.17 0.20 0.06 0.09
Evasive Coping/d 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.15 0.04 0.10
Neuroticism 0.36*** 0.32** 0.30** 0.13 0.20* 0.18y 0.30** 0.20y
Extraversion 0.06 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.20* 0.31** 0.21* 0.09
Openness 0.09 0.14 0.03 0.14 0.28** 0.17y 0.07 0.00
94 n 110. T1 ¼ admission, T2 ¼ day of surgery, T3 ¼ discharge, T4 ¼ six weeks post surgery, NA ¼ Negative
Affect, PA ¼ Positive Affect, /d ¼ Dispositional coping assessment.
y
p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
238 N. Knoll et al.
Table 3. Bivariate correlations of coping responses with higher-order personality traits

Focus on Positive Active Coping Support Coping Evasive Coping
sita dispob sit dispo sit dispo sit dispo
Neuroticism 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.27** 0.25* 0.25* 0.35**

Openness 0.15 0.10 0.23* 0.24* 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.09
Extraversion 0.26** 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.01
a
sit ¼ situation-specific, N ¼ 110.
b
dispo ¼ dispositional, n ¼ 94.
y
p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
predictors these factors were not further considered as independent variables in the
full path models. When all NEO variables were entered in multiple regression analyses
predicting positive affect at admission, Openness remained the sole unique predictor.
When positive affect at day of surgery was the outcome, only Extraversion remained
significant. At discharge, Neuroticism was the only significant predictor for positive affect.
Personality predicts situation-specific and dispositional coping

Table 3 shows zero-order correlations between higher-order personality factors and
coping. Neuroticism was positively associated with situation-specific Evasive Coping. A
positive relation with situation-specific Support Coping was also found on a bivariate
level. As for dispositional coping, which was assessed six weeks post-surgery, a similar
picture emerged. Neuroticism was positively related to both situation-specific and
dispositional Evasive and Support Coping.
Interestingly, Extraversion was only related to Focus on Positive coping in its situation-
specific version; no association with Support Coping was found.
On a bivariate level, Openness to Experience went along with higher situation-specific
and dispositional Active Coping (see Table 3).
Mediation by coping?
Judging from zero-order correlations and additional regression analyses testing prediction
of affect by coping when all strategies were entered at once (situation specific or
dispostional, respectively), 10 models met the relevant criteria for testing mediation
(Baron & Kenny, 1986).1 Eight models involved situation-specific forms of coping. Only
two models included dispositional coping styles as potential mediators. Models involving
personality antecedents and the same affect outcomes, but testing either situation-specific
or dispositional coping strategies as possible mediators, are presented successively.
To test the full path models, sets of hierarchical regression analyses were computed,
using the most relevant control criteria as rival predictors in a first block. Rival predictors
1
Concerning a potential 11th model predicting negative affect at T3, additional regression analyses revealed that
the relevant criteria for testing mediation were not fully met. Although simple bivariate associations suggested
otherwise, when all situation-specific coping strategies were jointly entered in regression analyses predicting
negative affect at T3, none of them remained significant predictors. This was probably due to the overlap in
situation-specific coping strategies and their failure to predict large enough independent parts of outcome
variance.
were age, sex, and previous experience with cataract surgery as all of them had significant
relations with affect.
Coping mediates the relationship between personality traits and affect?

Models predicting negative affect
Relating Neuroticism to negative affect at T1 while controlling for age, sex, previous
experience with cataract surgery, and all four situation-specific coping strategies,
its standardized regression coefficient dropped from (without coping controlled) ¼ 0.37 ( p <
0.001) to (with coping controlled) ¼ 0.25 ( p < 0.01). The latter coefficient is the direct effect of
Neuroticism on negative affect at admission after control for coping. While this direct
effect was still significant, the indirect effect of Neuroticism through coping variables
accounted for over just about one-third of the Neuroticism–negative affect relationship
(32.43 per cent; see Table 4).
How much did each coping scale contribute to this joint indirect effect? Two coping
variables contributed to the partial mediation presented in the model, that is Focus on
Table 4. Path models predicting levels and change of negative affect
IV Mediators DV IE DE ()
————" ————" —
———"
0.20* F/POS 0.18* 0.04

Neuroticism 0.17y SUP 0.30** NA T1 0.05 0.25**
0.01 ACTIV 0.18* 0.00
0.20* EVAS 0.01 0.00
0.00 F/POS/d 0.09 0.00

Neuroticism 0.06 SUP/d 0.06 NA T1 0.00 0.40***
0.02 ACTIV/d 0.04 0.00
0.27** EVAS/d 0.07 0.02
0.24* F/POS 0.11 0.03

Neuroticism 0.20 SUP 0.10 NA T2 0.02 0.17y
0.08 ACTIV 0.01 0.00
0.23* EVAS 0.22* 0.05
0.01 F/POS/d 0.08 0.00

Neuroticism 0.12 SUP/d 0.21y NA T2 0.03 0.26*
0.02 ACTIV/d 0.10 0.00
0.27** EVAS/d 0.06 0.02
0.12 F/POS 0.02 0.00

Openness 0.04 SUP 0.08 NA T1 to T2 0.00 0.10
0.22* ACTIV 0.08 0.02
0.22* EVAS 0.20* 0.04
F/POS ¼ Focus on Positive Coping, SUP ¼ Support Coping, ACTIV ¼Active Coping, EVAS ¼ Evasive Coping,
/d ¼ Dispositional coping assessment (shaded areas), NA ¼ negative affect, IV ¼ independent variable, DV ¼
dependent variable, IE ¼ indirect effect units, DE ¼ direct effect of the independent variable after the inclusion of
coping, Tx ¼ measurement occasion.
Betas are standardized regression coefficients net of sex, age, and previous experience with cataract surgery. Also,
in longitudinal models, the previous assessment of the respective DV was entered in the first step.
87 n 110.
y
p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
240 N. Knoll et al.
Positive (0.04 units of the total indirect effect) and Support Coping (0.05 units; see
Table 4). Thus, the higher negative mood on admission day reported by emotionally labile
persons may be explained in part by their more restricted use of Focus on Positive coping
and enhanced Support Coping. Another coping response that exhibited unique relations
with negative affect at T1 but did not mediate the personality–outcome relationship was
Active Coping. The more patients engaged in active forms of coping, the higher their
negative affect on admission day.2
Predicting negative affect on the day of surgery (T2), the standardized regression
coefficient for the direct effect of Neuroticism dropped to ¼ 0.17 ( p < 0.10) when
coping was controlled, as opposed to a unique effect of ¼ 0.28 ( p < 0.01) without taking
coping into account (39% drop). Most of this partial mediation goes back to situation-
specific Evasive Coping, some to Focus on Positive and Support Coping (see Table 4).
However, it was only Evasive Coping that predicted a significant share of unique variance
of negative affect on the day of surgery, suggesting that use of these coping responses was
connected to higher negative mood immediately prior to surgery.
Predicting variance in negative affect change from admission to hospital to day of
surgery, a third model was computed with Openness to Experience as the independent
variable. Taking situation-specific coping into account in path analysis reduced the
marginally significant direct effect of Openness on change in negative affect from T1 to T2
from a pre-coping ¼ 0.14 ( p < 0.10) to a post-coping ¼ 0.10 (ns). The majority of
this rather small indirect effect was channelled through Evasive Coping. The association
between Openness and Evasive Coping had not been visible in bivariate correlations and
has probably been suppressed by Active Coping as follow-up partial correlations showed.
Controlling for Active Coping, the correlation of Openness with Evasive Coping was r
Active Coping ¼ 0.20 ( p < 0.05).
Additional models predicting negative affect at admission (T1) and surgery (T2)
were analyzed with dispositional coping strategies serving as potential mediators.
Table 4 shows the results (shaded areas). Although zero-order correlations suggested
the possibility of indirect effects through dispositional Support Coping, these effects
could not be observed in either of the full models. Controlling for the other coping
strategies, the association between Neuroticism and dispositional Support Coping
was no longer significant. The direct effects of Neuroticism on negative affect at T1
and T2 were not considerably lessened by the inclusion of the dispositional coping
strategies (negative affect T1 model, pre-coping ¼ 0.40, p < 0.05, to post-coping ¼ 0.40,
p < 0.05; negative affect T2 model, pre-coping ¼ 0.27, p < 0.05, to post-coping ¼ 0.26,
p < 0.05). Additionally, dispositional Support Coping no longer accounted for fully
2
To take note of the difficulties that are associated with testing ‘mediation’ in cross-sectional models with
correlational data, i.e. the feedback problem, the order of the proposed mediators (i.e. coping) and outcomes (i.e.
affect) was reversed in additional analyses of T1 data. In these models, affect served as a proposed mediator and
coping was examined as an outcome. Partial regression coefficients indicated that both orders are feasible for the
T1 model involving coping and negative affect as predictors or outcomes. When negative affect is tested as a
mediator, much of the direct effects of Neuroticism on Support Coping and Focus on Positive Coping is
channelled through negative affect at T1. The same is not true for the Neuroticism–Evasive Coping relationship,
which remains direct and unaltered by the inclusion of negative affect at T1 in this model. Also, in the T1 model
involving Openness and positive affect at T1 as predictors of coping, no indirect effects of Openness on coping via
positive affect at T1 were observed. Thus, only in two instances did cross-sectional partial regression coefficients
hint at negative affect mediating the relation between Neuroticism and coping, and none of the relations between
Openness and coping were mediated by state affect.
significant unique variance in negative affect at admission once the other predictors
(i.e. sex, age, previous experience with cataract surgery, and Neuroticism) were included
in the models.
Models predicting positive affect

Since Openness to Experience was the only personality variable independently (i.e.
independent of other personality variables) connected with positive affect at T1
(admission), a path analysis was conducted containing Openness as an independent
variable, situation-specific coping responses as proposed mediators, and positive mood as
the outcome. While the direct effect of Openness on positive affect at T1 dropped by about
one-third from pre-coping ¼ 0.24 ( p < 0.05) to post-coping ¼ 0.16 ( p < 0.10), Focus on
Positive and Active Coping still predicted positive affect on admission day. Both of these
coping responses seemed to carry the major weight of the joint indirect effect; however,
only Active Coping mediated the effect. Indirect effects through Support Seeking and
Evasive Coping ranged around zero.
Concerning positive affect at T2 (day of surgery), especially Focus on Positive partially
mediated the relationship between Extraversion and the outcome by taking over ap-
proximately 42 per cent of the direct effect. The direct relationship between Extraversion
and positive mood on the day of surgery dropped from pre-coping ¼ 0.24 ( p < 0.05) to
post-coping ¼ 0.14 (ns).
Looking at change in positive affect from admission to surgery, effects of both
Extraversion and coping became very small, only approaching significance due to the large
share of variance accounted for by the first measurement point (positive affect T1), which
was entered in the first step of the regression equation. The direct effect of Extraversion on
change in positive affect from admission to surgery without taking coping into account
was marginally significant, with pre-coping ¼ 0.14 ( p < 0.10). Entering coping into the last
step of the hierarchical regression analysis reduced this direct effect only by 0.03 units to a
non-significant post-coping ¼ 0.11. The only coping variable accounting for a small indirect
effect of Extraversion on change in positive affect was again Focus on Positive (0.03 units,
¼ 0.14, p < 0.10).
Regarding positive affect at discharge, after coping was entered, the direct effect of
Neuroticism on positive affect changed by only 0.03 units from pre-coping ¼ 0.24
( p < 0.05) to post-coping ¼ 0.21 ( p < 0.05). Among coping variables, only Focus on
Positive remained a significant predictor of positive affect at T3, accounting for the greater
part of the joint indirect effect (see Table 5). This result suggests that emotionally labile
patients experienced less positive affect on the day of discharge from the hospital.
Furthermore, only a small amount of this association was explained by the fact that
emotionally labile persons prior to surgery also used fewer coping strategies that shift the
attentional focus to positive aspects of the situation, while more focusing on the positive
was generally associated with better mood at discharge.
Considering change in positive affect from day of surgery to discharge, no evidence of
mediation was found. Neuroticism’s direct effect on the outcome variable remained
virtually unchanged by the addition of coping to the equation. Additionally, what was a
marginally positive effect of Focus on Positive coping on change between positive affect at
T2 and T3 was no longer even marginally significant when Neuroticism (N) was entered in
the equation (pre-N ¼ 0.14, p < 0.10, to post-N ¼ 0.11, ns). In fact, when Neuroticism
was accounted for, none of the coping variables were significantly associated with change
variance between T2 and T3.
242 N. Knoll et al.
Table 5. Path models predicting levels and changes of positive affect

IV Mediators DV IE DE()
————" ————" —
———"
0.14 F/POS 0.32** 0.05

Openness 0.05 SUP 0.02 PA T1 0.02 0.16y
0.25** ACTIV 0.16y 0.04
0.21* EVAS 0.07 0.02
0.27*** F/POS 0.33*** 0.09
Extraversion 0.03 SUP 0.02 PA T2 0.00 0.14
0.03 ACTIV 0.19y 0.01
0.04 EVAS 0.05 0.00
0.27* F/POS 0.35*** 0.09
Neuroticism 0.23* SUP 0.04 PA T3 0.01 0.21*
0.10 ACTIV 0.03 0.00
0.25* EVAS 0.01 0.00
0.22* F/POS 0.14y 0.03
Extraversion 0.03 SUP 0.04 PA T1 to T2 0.00 0.11
0.01 ACTIV 0.07 0.00
0.04 EVAS 0.07 0.00
0.21* F/POS 0.11 0.02
Neuroticism 0.23* SUP 0.05 PA T2 to T3 0.01 0.18*
0.09 ACTIV 0.10 0.01
0.25* EVAS 0.04 0.01
F/POS ¼ Focus on Positive Coping, SUP ¼ Support Coping, ACTIV ¼Active Coping, EVAS ¼ Evasive Coping,
PA ¼ positive affect, IV ¼ independent variable, DV ¼ dependent variable, IE ¼ indirect effect units, DE ¼ direct
effect of the independent variable after the inclusion of coping, Tx ¼ measurement occasion.
Betas are standardized regression coefficients net of sex, age, and previous experience with cataract surgery. Also,
in longitudinal models, the previous assessment of the respective DV was entered in the first step.
101 n 110.
y
p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
None of the dispositionally assessed coping strategies met the necessary criteria for
testing possible mediation in models predicting levels and change of positive affect.
DISCUSSION
One of our aims was to investigate whether different operationalizations of coping remain
incrementally valid and/or gain a mediator status between higher-order personality traits
and emotional adaptation to a stressful episode. Findings suggested that mediation by and
incremental validity of coping depended on whether it was assessed situation specifically
or dispositionally.
A stressful episode indeed?

Generally, the pattern of results obtained for the affect measures around surgery speak for
cataract surgery as a mildly stressful situation. Negative affect was on a higher level on
both measurement occasions pre-surgery, and it dropped significantly thereafter.
Compared with a random-day, six-weeks post-assessment, negative affect levels before
patients went into surgery were noticeably higher. Positive affect on the other hand, was
lower pre- than post-surgery. Both affect measures were (marginally) related only at the
second assessment. Most previous studies investigating the stressful impact of cataract
surgery were cross-sectional designs failing to demonstrate affect changes and instead
examining different groups of cataract patients at different points in time (e.g. Foggitt,
2001). Although changes in both affect measures (especially in negative affect) were not
pronounced, they occurred in a direction that would suggest that even this low-risk
procedure poses some threat to patients.
Coping: mediation and incremental validity

In terms of unique prediction of affective adaptation, situation-specific coping remained a
more incrementally valid predictor when compared with dispositionally assessed coping.
Situation-specific coping–outcome relationships were both more frequent and more
resistant to the control of rival predictors than dispositional ones. Moreover, in most of the
situation-specific models, coping obtained a mediator status between higher-order
personality traits and outcomes.
However, with dispositional coping, associations with affect were mainly spurious and
decreased when a higher-order personality trait was included in the equations. Direct
personality effects, on the other hand, remained unscathed by the inclusion of dispositional
coping in the models. The present findings concerning the predictive value of dispositional
coping above and beyond higher-order personality traits thus somewhat resemble the ones
reported by McCrae and Costa (1986).
Although the findings yield reason to believe that the predictive value of dispositional
coping is at least partly taken over by higher-order personality factors as superordinate
constructs, related alternative explanations must be considered. Since dispositional coping
was assessed after the operation, whereas situational coping was assessed before, a number
of confounds may limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the present study.
Specifically, situation-specific (concerning the surgery) was contrasted with dispositional
(concerning stressful situations in general) measures, meaning that the target situations
that participants coped with differed. More importantly, the situation-specific assessment
took place while participants were potentially stressed whereas this was not true for the
dispositional measure. A hypothesis brought forth by Holahan and Moos (1991) clarifies
this problem. The authors suggest that stable indirect effects of coping (i.e. situation
specific and dispositional) are observed only when coping is assessed under conditions of
stress. In this case, even dispositional coping should reliably mediate the effects of other
personality factors on emotional adaptation. Murberg and coworkers (2002) come to the
same conclusion. In a study with congestive heart-failure patients, they reported reliable
mediation by dispositional coping; however, coping was assessed under conditions of
severe strain only. Consequently, one cannot rule out the possibility that dispositional
coping assessed in times of high stress may also entail higher situation-specific variance
components. On the other hand, possibly explaining instances when situation-specific
coping did not mediate between personality factors and outcomes, a higher share of
dispositional variance in coping might be to blame (Holahan & Moos, 1991; McCrae &
Costa, 1986). In retrospective assessments, for instance, Peterson (1980) claims the
possibility of a dispositional shift due to biases in recollection.
To test this proposition, groups of different levels of stress exposure would have to be
examined. Also, the mediating qualities of both situation-specific and dispositional coping
would have to be tested in all exposure groups. In the current study, we partly considered
244 N. Knoll et al.
this problem in that we included patients with different levels of prior experience with
cataract surgery and controlled for prior experience in all mediating models predicting
affect. Although prior experience had a clear-cut relation with affect and its change, it did
not interfere with situation-specific coping acting as a mediator.
Unique and mediated effects of personality

As expected, much of the present evidence pointed to emotionally labile persons being
generally more troubled. Our findings suggest, however, that some part of these unpleasant
emotional experiences during the stressful situation might have been due to the way
Neuroticism high-scorers coped with the circumstances. On a situation-specific level,
more Support Coping, Evasive Coping, and less focusing on the positive side of the
situation seemed to be related to emotionally labile persons’ worse affect.
Findings concerning Extraversion, related coping strategies, and outcomes were
generally rosier than those concerning Neuroticism. Extraverts exhibited higher levels of
positive affect even before surgery, somewhat resembling the proposal by Caspi and
Moffitt’ (1993) that ambiguous and threatening life transitions accentuate rather than
overpower pre-existing traits.
Aside from a tendency to feel relatively better when compared to their counterparts,
extraverts also reported using situation-specific Focus on Positive coping, which in turn
accounted for much of the level and change variance in positive affect. The fact that
Support Coping has repeatedly been found in association with Extraversion, predomi-
nantly in younger samples (e.g. David & Suls, 1999; Watson & Hubbard, 1996), but not in
the present study, might be worth a closer look in future work. Furthermore, Extraversion
was not related to any of the dispositional coping scales, while it had exhibited rather
strong relations with situation-specific Focus on Positive Coping as reported above.
In sum, extraverts’ tendency to report positive mood while awaiting a potential threat to
their physical well-being (surgery) was in this case almost fully explained by their
tendency to take the situation with humour, accept it, and highlight the likely positive sides
of it.
Openness through its associated forms of situation-specific coping, that is, higher Active
and less Evasive Coping, seemed to have a protective effect on affect prior to surgery. As
McCrae and Costa (1997) suggested, open individuals choose unconventional, creative,
but mostly problem-oriented ways of dealing with stressful circumstances. Self Blame,
Venting, and Denial as constituents of evasive forms of coping should thus not be
compatible with individuals who wish to closely investigate and find somewhat creative
ways out of their current problems.
Possibly also accounting for some parts of the mediated Openness–affect relationships,
previous findings suggest that open individuals have a higher tolerance for ambiguous
situations (Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001). Awaiting a potentially risky surgery that, on the other
hand, may improve eyesight is an ambiguous situation in its own right. Tolerance for
ambiguity may free up resources to cope with the situation more creatively or actively and
keep individuals from dwelling on its potential negative aspects.
Limitations of the study and perspectives for future research

Mainly for test-economical reasons due to tight hospital routines, it was not possible to
conduct several assessments of situation-specific coping in anticipation of the acute
stressor. Instead, situation-specific coping was measured only once, and it was used to
predict all concurrent and prospective outcomes. While this single measurement of coping
was still adequate to address the central questions posed in this study, multiple mea-
surements would have yielded a number of additional possibilities, namely studying
coping as a process.
Furthermore, the proposed direction of coping predicting outcome or being a mediator
(instead of an outcome) is only assumed here as, aside from not being experimental, the
present study cannot adequately examine in detail the so-called feedback problem (Baron
& Kenny, 1986). The fact that different aspects of coping predicted residualized change of
outcomes points to some validity of statements concerning predictional direction. On the
other hand, as additional reversed direction of the longitudinal coping–outcome effects
may not be ruled out, future studies incorporating more than one measurement point of
situation-specific coping strategies are more than called for. One might argue that what has
been shown here to be hardly adaptive forms of coping, such as Evasive Coping, might in
turn represent an overall desperate coping reaction to a priori high levels of stress,
meaning that it is caused by stress in addition to causing stress. This influence of prior
affect levels on ways of coping is indeed more than likely, as has been shown in many
studies (e.g. Carver et al., 1993; Carver & Scheier, 1994).
Furthermore, using positive and negative affect as outcomes might have inflated
personality–outcome associations for reasons of conceptual and item-content overlap,
leaving both dispositional and situation-specific coping at a somewhat disadvantaged
position as a predictor. To test this notion and partly account for the overlap in item
wording between personality traits and affect, data were reanalysed, omitting NEO-FFI
items that included explicit affect terms, which generally did not alter results. Also,
analyses of alternative outcomes, such as depressive symptoms and functional adaptation
to enhanced visual acuity post-surgery, yielded the same pattern of findings (Knoll, 2002).
Dispositional coping failed to mediate the personality–outcome relationships and did not
account for outcome variance in path models with higher-order personality traits as fellow
predictors.
Conclusions
This study provided further evidence for the connection between personality traits and the
way individuals approach a taxing situation, deal with it, and adapt to its consequences.
The data suggest that coping as an ‘epiphenomenon of personality’ (McCrae & Costa,
1986) may be related to the methodological approaches of its operationalization. In terms
of incremental validity, situation-specific coping seemed to remain a more reliable
predictor of emotional outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche For-
schungsgemeinschaft, DFG; DFG-GK 429/1-98) with a pre-doctoral stipend to Nina Knoll
and Nina Rieckmann. We thank Dr. Ch. Hartmann and Dr. N. Anders of the Charité
Campus Virchow and Dr. N. Pfeiffer, Dr. B. Dick, and Dr. O. Schwenn of the Mainz
University Hospital for their support of the project. We also wish to thank two anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
246 N. Knoll et al.
REFERENCES
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mediator–moderator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 525–537.
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890–902.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und
McCrae [The NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) after Costa and McCrae]. Göttingen:
Hogrefe.
Bosworth, H. B., Feaganes, J. R., & Vitaliano, P. P. (2001). Personality and coping with a common
stressor: Cardiac catheterization. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 24, 17–31.
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the Brief
COPE. International Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 4, 92–100.
Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S. D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. F., Robinson, D. S., Ketcham, A. S.,
Moffat, F. L., Jr., & Clark, K. C. (1993). How coping mediates the effects of optimism on distress:
A study of women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 375–391.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful
transaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 184–195.
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.
Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (1993). When do individual differences matter? A paradoxical theory of
personality coherence. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 247–271.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural
sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Ressources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1987). Neuroticism, somatic complaints, and disease: Is the bark
worse than the bite? Journal of Personality, 55, 299–316.
David, J. P., & Suls, J. (1999). Coping efforts in daily life: Role of Big Five traits and problem
appraisals. Journal of Personality, 67, 265–294.
Federal German Statistical Office. (2001). Federal Health Monitoring System. Retrieved
January 15, 2002, from http://www.gbe-bund.de/pls/gbe/isgbe.prc_isgbe?p_uid ¼ gast&p_aid ¼
3205648&p_sprache ¼ e.
Foggitt, P. S. (2001). Anxiety in cataract surgery: Pilot study. Journal of Cataract and Refractive
Surgery, 27, 1651–1655.
Hemenhover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (1998). Prediction of health patterns from general appraisal,
attributions, coping, and trait anxiety. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 231–253.
Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Life stressors, personal, and social resources, and depression:
A 4-year structural model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 31–38.
Knoll, N. (2002). Coping as a personality process: How elderly patients deal with cataract surgery,
dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin. Retrieved October 16, 2003, from: http://www.diss.fu-
berlin.de/2002/108/.
Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Tausch, A. (1996). Untersuchungen mit einer
deutschen Version der ‘Positive and Negative Affect Schedule’ (PANAS) [Investigations with a
German version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)]. Diagnostica, 42, 139–
156.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult
sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385–405.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of Openness to Experience. In
R. Hogan, & J. A. Johnson (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA:
Academic.
Murberg, T. A., Bru, E., & Stephens, P. (2002). Personality and coping among congestive heart
failure patients. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 775–784.
Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the Big Five, emotional responses and
coping with acute stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1215–1128.
Peterson, C. (1980). Memory and the ‘dispositional shift’. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43,
372–380.
Spielberger, C. D. (1985). Anxiety, cognition, and affect: A state–trait perspective. In A. H. Tuma, &
J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Suls, J., David, J. P., & Harvey, J. H. (1996). Personality and coping: Three generations of research.
Journal of Personality, 64, 713–735.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
1063–1070.
Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the
context of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 737–774.
Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story writing,
and hobbies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 297–310.

Coping As A Mediator Between Personality and Stress Outcomes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coping As A Mediator Between Personality and Stress Outcomes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Personality

Eur. J. Pers. 19: 229–247 (2005)

Coping as a Mediator Between Personality

NINA KNOLL1*, NINA RIECKMANN2 and RALF SCHWARZER3

Received 23 April 2004

than others. Neuroticism, for example, is suggested to be linked to individual differences

Coping: incremental validity and mediation

The present study

Design and sample

Neuroticism’s (N) internal consistency was acceptable with Cronbach’s ¼ 0.69 as

Table 1. Affect outcomes: descriptive statistics

Negative affect admission (T1) 1.34 0.29 1.00–2.70

Affect pre- to post-surgery

Coping: situation speciﬁc versus dispositional

Associations between personality variables and pre- and post-surgical affect

Table 2. Bivariate correlations: personality, situation-speciﬁc and dispositional coping with

Table 3. Bivariate correlations of coping responses with higher-order personality traits

sita dispob sit dispo sit dispo sit dispo

Neuroticism 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.27** 0.25* 0.25* 0.35**

Personality predicts situation-speciﬁc and dispositional coping

Coping mediates the relationship between personality traits and affect?

0.20* F/POS 0.18* 0.04

0.00 F/POS/d 0.09 0.00

0.24* F/POS 0.11 0.03

0.01 F/POS/d 0.08 0.00

0.12 F/POS 0.02 0.00

Models predicting positive affect

Table 5. Path models predicting levels and changes of positive affect

0.14 F/POS 0.32** 0.05

A stressful episode indeed?

Coping: mediation and incremental validity

Unique and mediated effects of personality

Limitations of the study and perspectives for future research

You might also like