Cogent Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaed20

Self-efficacy and optimism as predictors of coping

with stress as assessed during the coronavirus
outbreak

Qutaiba Agbaria & Amnah Abu Mokh

To cite this article: Qutaiba Agbaria & Amnah Abu Mokh (2022) Self-efficacy and optimism
as predictors of coping with stress as assessed during the coronavirus outbreak, Cogent
Education, 9:1, 2080032, DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 10 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1366

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaed20
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY & COUNSELLING | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Received: 01 January 2021
Accepted: 03 April 2022
*Corresponding author: Qutaiba
Agbaria, Graduate Studies, Al-Qasemi
Academic College, Israel
E-mail: qutaiba100psych@yahoo.com
Reviewing editor:
James DiPerna, Pennsylvania State
University, State College,
Pennsylvania, USA
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Self-efficacy and optimism as predictors of
coping with stress as assessed during the
coronavirus outbreak
Qutaiba Agbaria1* and Amnah Abu Mokh1
Abstract: This study provides novel insight into the relationships between coping with
stress as reported during the first three months of the Coronavirus outbreak, self-
efficacy, and optimism among Israeli-Palestinian college students living in Israel.
Participants (n = 702) were selected using convenience sampling techniques from ten
colleges in Israel, and self-report questionnaires were utilized to assess coping, self-
efficacy, and optimism. Stepwise multiple regression models were used to examine the
unique association of each independent variable on coping with stress, while
accounting for the effects of the other independent variables to reduce multicolli­
nearity concerns. The regression models demonstrates that higher levels of self-
efficacy (β = −.12, p < 0.01) and optimism (β = −.18, p < 0.01) were negatively associated
with maladaptive emotion-focused coping, whereas pessimism was positively asso­
ciated (β = .12, p < 0.01). Further, higher levels of self-efficacy (β = .12, p < 0.01) and
optimism (β = .18, 67 p < 0.01) were positively associated with adaptive problem-
focused coping, whereas pessimism was negatively associated (β = −.10, p < 0.01).
These findings are consistent with previous studies conducted globally which entail the
contribution of self-efficacy and optimism to the improvement of coping behaviors.
Thus, the current research shows the importance of these variables as coping resources
for the Arab Israeli-Palestinian minority as well.

Subjects: Health Psychology; Social Psychology; Mental Health

Keywords: coronavirus; self-efficacy; optimism; stress; coping strategies; Israeli-

Palestinian students

ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Professor Qutaiba obtained her PhD degree in
the Department of Psychology, University of
Haifa. His research interest is addictive behavior,
especially gaming, gambling, social networking,
and Internet addiction among youth. He also
participated in studies on juvenile delinquency
and people’s gambling attitudes in different
cultural backgrounds.
The main area of his interest is understanding the
role of self-control skills, self-efficacy, positive
emotions, social support, personal components,
parenting styles and religious affiliation in pre­
dicting effective coping with various stressful
conditions among Arab adolescents and adults
living in Israel. The stressful conditions that he
examine in relation to these variables include
academic and social maladaptation, violence,
anxiety, depression, internet addiction and other
behavioural issues. The significance of this
research lies in the fact that the relationship
between these variables has not been studied in
relation to the Arab minority living in Israel.

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

1. Introduction
The Coronavirus outbreak since the end of 2019 has alerted many countries across the globe to
make better preparations to cope with the consequences of the pandemic. Some of the major
consequences these countries have had to deal with are people’s physical and mental health,
finances, employment and social relations. For these reasons, a number of studies conducted around
the world have shown the negative psychological outcomes of the Coronavirus pandemic (Dubey
et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020). These studies demonstrate how Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) has
ultimately affected people’s mental health and wellbeing by causing mass hysteria, economic
burdens and personal losses, to name a few.

The mass fear of COVID-19, termed as “Corona phobia”, has generated a plethora of negative
psychiatric manifestations across all different social groups (Dubey et al., 2020). These include
symptoms of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder that have been found in
a large number of recent studies (Gao et al., 2020). While the negative psychological consequences
of COVID-19 have been reported cross-culturally, few studies have been conducted since the start
of the pandemic within the Arab population living within Israel.

Studies conducted in many countries across the globe, and in the Palestinian population in
particular, have indicated the positive contributions that self-efficacy and optimism have for
individuals’ mental welfare, especially when tackling risk behaviours and stressful situations
(2021; Agbaria & Bdier, 2019; Agbaria & Natur, 2018; Mansdorf et al., 2020). However, no prior
research has examined whether self-efficacy and optimism are associated with more adaptive
coping strategies among the minority population of Arab individuals living in Israel. Thus, the
purpose of the current study is to be the first to examine whether self-efficacy and optimism are
associated with use of adaptive coping strategies among Arab Israeli-Palestinian students, as
assessed during the first three months of the Coronavirus pandemic when stress levels may be
heightened.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Strategies for coping with stress

Lazarus (1999) defines coping as ever-changing cognitive and behavioral efforts developed in
order to meet specific demands (external and/or internal) that are considered to exceed or go
beyond the subject’s resources. Perceived stress means experiencing difficulties in meeting
demands within important life domains (Willemen et al., 2008). Difficulties in meeting life’s
demands might lead to behaviors that deplete one’s immune system, especially if individuals
continue to allow stress to affect their health negatively. Thus, those with high levels of perceived
stress may be more prone to chronic depression and anxiety than others.

Depressive feelings and anxiety episodes usually result from adversities and unfavorable circum­
stances. One, however, can reduce the effects of these negative psychological states by adopting
active and adaptive coping strategies such as approach oriented coping and/or problem focused
coping (Dhillon & Arora, 2017). Strategies for coping with psychological stress are defined as the
methods adopted and practiced by the individual to deal with stressful situations in life. Therefore,
there are multiple strategies for coping with stressful situations that differ between different
people due to individual differences. These differences are usually linked to each individuals’
personal characteristics and/or personality traits (Chai & Low, 2015).

The various formulations for coping, nevertheless, also include defensive and ego processes
(Haan, 1969; Vaillant, 1977), conceptualization of traits (Lazarus et al., 1974; Moos & Tsu, 1977), as
well as contextual and cognitive approaches (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
For the purposes of this study, a distinction between emotion-focused coping and problem-focused
coping is adopted. Emotion-focused coping strategies are usually employed when an individual is
making active efforts to change one’s emotional response to the situation. Problem-focused

Page 2 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

coping strategies, on the other hand, are employed when an individual is making active efforts to
change the situation itself. Hence, these strategies are employed when an individual views that
his/her perception of the situation or the situation itself can be changed (Folkman & Lazarus,
1980).

Research tends to show that problem-focused coping is especially associated with adaptive
outcomes and that it is positively related to overall health (Huijs et al., 1999; Pisarski et al., 1998).
Such adaptive outcomes include better academic performance (MacCann et al., 2011) and higher
marital satisfaction (Stoneman et al., 2006). This is since problem-focused coping is the process of
employing problem-solving strategies to address a stressor (Carver & Connor-Smith, 1989; Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984). These problem-solving strategies involve task-oriented actions such as planning
or seeking instrumental support (Nes & Segerstrom, 2006). Hence, problem-focused coping is
especially important for students dealing with achievement stressors.

Emotion-focused coping, on the other hand, is the process of employing emotion-based strate­
gies in an attempt to reduce or manage the emotional distress evoked by a situation or threat
(Carver & Connor-Smith, 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This can involve adaptive strategies such
as reappraising or reinterpreting a stressor as being nonthreatening (Lazarus, 1993) or trying to
relax using breathing techniques (Nes & Segerstrom, 2006). Nevertheless, emotion-focused coping
can also involve maladaptive strategies such as yelling, crying, rumination and/or wishful thinking
(Carver & Connor-Smith, 1989). This is why previous research tends to show that adaptive forms of
emotion-focused coping are associated with positive outcomes, whereas maladaptive forms of
emotion-focused coping are associated with a range of negative emotions and cognitions includ­
ing denial, avoidance, self-blame and interpersonal withdrawal (Carver et al., 1989; Compas et al.,
2001; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996). These maladaptive strategies can hinder students’ coping abilities
by increasing students’ perceived stress instead of limiting it.

2.2. Self-efficacy and coping strategies

Self-efficacy refers to the belief that individuals have in their personal ability to deal with daily life’s
challenges (Bandura, 1997). In contrast to individuals with a strong sense of self-efficacy, indivi­
duals with a weak sense of efficacy usually avoid difficult tasks, have low aspirations and weak
commitment to their goals, and concentrate on obstacles, failures and personal deficiencies
(Bandura, 1997). Conversely, according to Bandura (2010), “a strong sense of self-efficacy will
produce “cognitive, motivational, affective and selection process” that affect human functioning.
Henceforth, individuals with a weak sense of self-efficacy are more likely to experience depression,
anxiety and even social isolation. Individuals with a strong sense of self-efficacy, on the other
hand, are more likely to cope with life’s hardships and thus experience negative emotions more
mildly.

Following from this, self-efficacy as a coping strategy refers to the extent to which individuals
believe that they can draw upon their personal resources in order to handle stressful situations in
an effective and competent way (Godoy et al., 2008). When coping with stress, it has been widely
accepted that a strong sense of self-efficacy correlates positively with adaptive coping strategies
(e.g., problem solving and cognitive restructuring) and correlates negatively with maladaptive
strategies (e.g., self-criticism, wishful thinking and social withdrawal; Hastings & Brown, 2002;
Kuhn & Carter, 2006; Lightsey & Sweeney, 2008; Salas et al., 2017; Woodman & Hauser-Cram,
2012). Too, individuals with a strong sense of self-efficacy exhibit less symptoms of distress with
less frequency whereas individuals with a weak sense of self-efficacy exhibit severe symptoms of
distress more frequently (White et al., 2019). That is, a stronger sense of self-efficacy contributes
to the individual’s overall health.

Many studies have been conducted to test the relationship between self-efficacy and coping
with stress (Gam et al., 2016; Lee, 2010; Stanley & Murphy, 1997). The results of these studies
demonstrate that individuals with a stronger sense of self-efficacy are better active copers than

Page 3 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

others. Just as perceived by others, self-efficacy has a significant negative correlation with stress
(Kreitler et al., 2007; White et al., 2019). This is since individuals with a stronger sense of self-
efficacy are more likely to use problem-focused coping whereas individuals with a weaker sense of
self-efficacy have a higher tendency to use avoidance (i.e. maladaptive emotion-focused coping
strategy) (Ślebarska, 2014). Having said that, the level of general self-efficacy (GSE) varies accord­
ing to each individual’s experiences and skills (Sherer et al., 1982). Thus, the moderating effects of
coping almost always depends on the person in situ (Lazarus, 1993).

2.3. Optimism and coping strategies

Optimism is a personality dimension that plays a significant role in how individuals cope with
stress (e.g., Carver & Connor-Smith, 1989; Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). Scheier and Carver
(1985) define optimism as a general individual belief that good things rather than bad things will
happen to the person. More specifically, optimism refers to “an individual difference variable that
reflects the extent to which people hold generalised favorable expectancies for their future”
(Carver et al., 2010, p. 879). It includes the capacity to manage life’s difficulties in such a way to
maintain a sense of equilibrium in spite of these difficulties. That is, optimism as a personality trait
reflects one’s positive expectations for the future (Kapikiran & Acun-Kapikiran, 2016).

Optimism affects both how people look at the world (appraisal) and their behavior in it (effort).
Optimism is thus a likely candidate to influence coping behaviors and thereby affect adjustment.
Indeed, optimism and coping with stress were found to be strongly correlated (Karimzade &
Besharat, 2011; Malkoç, 2011; Nes & Segerstrom, 2006). Hierarchical regression analyses revealed
that the interaction between the two variables predicts a large proportion of the variance in both
perceived stress and satisfaction in life (Reed, 2016). This is because optimism challenges apprai­
sals that produce negative effects. This can be the reason why optimism has psychological benefits
for acute stressors as well as chronic stressors (see: Baumgartner et al., 2018).

It has been shown in many studies that there is a positive relationship between “perceived
stress” as a dependent variable and self-efficacy, optimism, self-esteem, positive affect and
negative affect as cognitive predictors variables (Higgins, 2017). Furthermore, optimism is asso­
ciated with heightened SBP and DBP stress reactivity and lower daily cortisol secretion (Puig-Perez
et al., 2017). One reason for this is that optimistic people have a higher tendency to employ
problem-focused strategies (Nes & Segerstrom, 2006), and the use of problem-focused coping
leads to higher levels of satisfaction in life (MacCann et al., 2012). Meta-analytic findings indicate
that optimistic individuals can also adjust their coping strategies to meet the demands of the
stressors at hand (Nes & Segerstrom, 2006). This flexibility makes optimistic individuals overall
better copers.

Optimism has a strong influence on coping strategies and perceived satisfaction in life among
students (Cabras & Mondo, 2018; Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). Cabras and Mondo (2018)
suggest that optimistic students have a more complex series of goals to achieve and they behave
in a way that is more likely to result in goal achievement when compared with their pessimistic
peers. That is, students who are confident and optimistic about their future achievements tend to
persist with achieving their goals even when they are facing great difficulties (Carver & Connor-
Smith, 1989; Carver et al., 2010; Nes & Segerstrom, 2006). Moreover, optimism plays an important
role in increasing the student’s ability to adapt to new educational environments. Optimism thus
helps students experience lower levels of psychological distress and higher levels of social support
(Brissette et al., 2002; Scheier & Carver, 1992; Taylor et al., 1990). This makes sense when
considering how optimism is positively associated with active coping, planning and acceptance
but negatively associated with denial, behavioural disengagement and mental disengagement
(Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Brissette et al., 2002; Nes & Segerstrom, 2006).

Page 4 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

2.4. The present study

The current study is the first to investigate the relationship between coping with stress as reported
during the first three months of the Coronavirus outbreak, self-efficacy, and optimism among
Israeli-Palestinian college students (n = 702). Previous literature has shown that self-efficacy and
optimism are positively correlated with adaptive problem-focused coping strategies and negatively
correlated with maladaptive emotion-focused coping strategies. However, no prior studies have
assessed whether little is known about whether these associations translate to coping with stress
among this understudied sample of Arab students living in Israel. The present data was collected
during the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may be a time of particularly
heightened stress and thus an opportune time to assess how individual differences in self-efficacy
and optimism relate to adaptive versus maladaptive coping strategies. Based on previous research
findings on coping with stress in general, and the literature on the Arab Israeli-Palestinian minority
in particular, the current study hypothesizes that among Israeli-Palestinian college students in
Israel, 1) self-efficacy and optimism will negatively correlate with maladaptive emotion-focused
coping strategies reported during the first three months of COVID-19, and 2) self-efficacy and
optimism will positively correlate with adaptive problem-focused coping strategies reported during
the start of COVID-19.

The Arab Israeli-Palestinian minority living in Israel is of particular uniqueness. This community
lives as a collective society that is experiencing rapid modernization along with “Israelization” on
one hand (Al Hajj, 1996), while also experiencing movements in the opposite direction by
Islamization and “Palestinianization” on the other (Samoha, 2004). In addition to the formal and
informal discrimination faced by many minorities across the globe and in Israel, the Arab Israeli-
Palestinian community in Israel have to lead a double life as an undesirable ethnic, religious and
political minority living in a Jewish-majority state. Hence, this community has captured itself as
a community on the fringes of Israeli society, being disadvantaged in terms of social and health
services, along with a lower economic status and lower mental health welfare when compared to
the Jewish community living in Israel. Additionally, this population faces a unique dichotomy
within their own culture that may cause challenges to their identity formation (Erikson, 1961;
Sue & Sue, 2003).

During the Coronavirus crisis, the Arab Israeli-Palestinian community was further marginalised in
the public discourse as the Israeli government’s health services classified this minority as“ not
meeting the priority criteria”. Therefore, this community has been excluded from the general mass
COVID-19 tests carried out by the government as well as the public guidelines around the disease.
In part, this means that the rates of COVID-19 within this student population have not been
examined nor recognized as warranting healthcare resources or other forms of support. This
context therefore presents a timely opportunity to examine the relationships between individual
characteristics and the strategies employed when coping with the stress, given that stress may be
especially heightened due to the treatment of Arab individuals living in Israel during the
Coronavirus outbreak. Thus, the present work is the first to examine the relationship between
coping with stress (as reported during the first three months of COVID-19), self-efficacy, and
optimism.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample
The sample consisted of 702 Israeli-Palestinian college students, 75% of which were females and
25% were males. Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 30 years old (M = 26.14, SD = 5.91). The
participants were recruited using non-random convenience sampling from ten colleges in Israel.
61% of the participants grew up in villages (rural) and 39% of them grew up in cities (urban). In
terms of religious affiliation, 81% of the participants identify as Muslims, 13% identify as Christians,
and 6% identify as Druze.

Page 5 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

3.2. Measures
Each measure was translated from English into Arabic by five interdisciplinary Israeli-Palestinian
scholars who are experts in conducting cross-cultural research in psychology. The measures were
assessed by the researchers in collaboration with the five experts and they were checked for the
clarity and cultural appropriateness of the content and translation. The questionnaires were then
translated back into English by an independent expert in translation. Finally, 40 Israeli-Palestinian
students completed the questionnaires and provided feedback to confirm that the measures
appropriately captured the constructs as intended.

3.2.1. Demographic variables questionnaire

The variables included in this instrument are gender, age, residence and religion.

3.2.2. Coping style questionnaire

This questionnaire is based on Carver et al.’s (1989) questionnaire that was first translated into
Hebrew (Ben-Zur, 2005), and then translated into Arabic. The Arabic and Hebrew versions include
30 items assessed according to a scale of 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. These items
exhibited good internal consistency in the present study for both subscales of problem-focused
coping (α = .71) and emotion-focused coping (α = .76). In the validation study for the Hebrew
version, good internal consistency was also observed (problem-focused coping, α = .82; emotion-
focused coping, α = .72). Examples of coping strategies assessed by the measure included taking
additional action to try to solve a problem (problem-focused coping) and avoidance (emotion-
focused coping). All the items had a factor load level greater than 0.4.

3.2.3. Self-efficacy questionnaire

The present work used the Arabic version of Schwarzer and Jerusalem’s (1995) Generalized Self-
Efficacy scale that Radhwan (1997) developed to fit Arab culture. The scale consists of ten items
answered in a 4-point (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree) format. Sample questions included:
“I know how to deal with unexpected situations” and “I always find solutions to problems facing me.”
In the present study, Cronbach Alpha was (α = .83), which is comparable to prior research using this
measure (e.g., α = .80; Alrekebat, 2016). All the items had a factor load level greater than 0.4.

3.2.4. Optimism & pessimism scale (OPS)

This scale was designed by William Dember and colleagues in 1989 to measure optimism and
pessimism as two poles of a single trait. This scale is the first to separate optimism and pessimism
as related sub-traits rather than a unidimensional trait. The OPS includes 56 items answered in
a 4-point (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree) format. 18 items measure optimism (e.g., “All
in all the world is a good place”), 18 items measure pessimism (e.g., “I believe there’s not much
hope for the human race.”), and 20 items are filler items that are included to mask the purpose of
the scale (e.g., “It is wise to flatter important people.”). The scale provides subscale scores for each
optimism and pessimism sub-traits, with higher scores indicating more of the construct. In the
present study Cronbach Alpha was α = .83 for optimism and α = .79 for pessimism, which is
comparable to the findings in the validation study for the measure (optimism: α = .83-.84;
pessimism: α = .86-.88) . All the items had a factor load level greater than 0.4.

3.3. Research procedure

The study sample was recruited by non-random convenience sampling from ten colleges in Israel.
The research was conducted in 2020 over the course of three months, i.e. during the first months
of the Coronavirus outbreak in Israel, in order to examine how coping with stress is related to
personal factors as reported at the beginning of COVID-19. After obtaining the needed clearances
from each of the colleges as well as the ethical committee at Al-Qasemi College, the question­
naires were distributed using Google forms. All participants have been informed that the ques­
tionnaires will remain anonymous. Eighty percent of all eligible students agreed to participate, for
a sample size of 702 individuals.

Page 6 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

3.4. Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics for the study variables (problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping,
self-efficacy and optimism) were examined. Assumptions of normality, homogeneity of var­
iances, linearity and independence were confirmed, demonstrating the appropriateness of con­
ducting the parametric testing. In order to examine the study hypotheses, two approaches were
used. First, bivariate correlations were examined for all study variables. Correlations were
considered to have a small effect size if r = |.10-.29|, medium if r = |.30-.49|, and large if
r = |.50-.1.00|. Second, hierarchical linear multiple regression models were employed to test
the associations of the independent variables of self-efficacy, optimism, and pessimism on the
dependent variables of problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping (in separate
regression models for each dependent variable). The independent variables (self-efficacy, opti­
mism pessimism) were entered in step 2 in a hierarchical fashion for each dependent variable.
Order of entry was explored for the three variables and all orders of entry yielded the same
variables emerging as significant predictors. Thus, the reported order of entry for step 2 of each
regression model was: 1) religiosity; 2) optimism; 3) pessimism; and 4) self-efficacy. In step 1,
control demographic variables of gender, age, residence, and religiosity were entered into the
model to increase the likelihood that the associations of interest were not due to confounding
individual characteristics. The hierarchical multiple regression model was used in order to
understand how each of the independent variables (self-efficacy, optimism, and pessimism)
uniquely relates to the outcomes of coping with stress using problem-focused coping and
emotion-focused coping, while controlling for other independent variables in the model.

4. Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the study variables. Overall, the students exhibited
medium scores in the coping styles questionnaire and medium scores in each of the self-efficacy
and optimism questionnaires.

Table 2 reveals the correlations between the study variables. Significant correlations were
observed between problem-focused coping scores and self-efficacy, pessimism, and optimism.
Significant correlations were observed between emotion-focused coping scores and self-efficacy,
pessimism and optimism.

The regression model (Table 3) demonstrates that higher levels of self-efficacy and optimism
were negatively associated with maladaptive emotion-focused coping, whereas pessimism was
positively associated.

The regression model (Table 4) demonstrates that higher levels of self-efficacy and optimism
were positively associated with adaptive problem-focused coping, whereas pessimism was nega­
tively associated.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations (SD), minimum, and maximum values for study variables
(n = 702)
Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Problem-focused 3.69 1.65 1 5
coping
Emotion-focused 3.41 1.71 1 5
coping
Optimism 2.97 1.77 1 4
Pessimism 2.74 1.87 1 4
Self -efficacy 2.81 1.44 1 4

Page 7 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

Table 2. Correlations between study variables (n = 702)

1 2 3 4 5
1. Problem- -
focused coping
2. Emotion- −.36** -
focused coping
3. Optimism .31** −.33** -
4. Self efficacy .34** −.36** .37** -
5. Pessimism −.33** .37** −.39** −.35** -
**p < 0.01

Table 3. Hierarchical linear regression model predicting emotion focused coping (n = 702)
β (standardized B (unstandardized
coefficient) coefficient) SE Adjusted R Square T
Step1 0.022 1.01
Gender .02 .03 .02
Age −.02 −.02 .03
Residence .02 .01 .02
Religiosity −.03 −.03 .04
Step2 0.18** 3.11**
Optimism −.18 −.17** .14
Step3 0.08** 2.98*
Pessimism .12 .10**
Step4
Self efficacy −.15 −.15** 0.11** 3.01**
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Table 4. Hierarchical linear regression model predicting problem focused coping (n = 702)
β (standardized B (unstandardized
coefficient) coefficient) SE Adjusted R Square T
Step1 0.022 0.98
Gender −.02 −.02 .03
Age .02 .02 .04
Residence .03 .02 .04
Religiosity .04 .03 .04
Step2 0.19** 3.21**
Optimism .18 .18** .07
Step3 0.07** 2.91*
Pessimism −.10 −.09**
Step4 0.09** 2.98**
Self efficacy .12 .11**
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Page 8 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

5. Discussion
This study examined the relationships between coping with stress (as reported during the first
three months of the Coronavirus outbreak), self-efficacy, and optimism among Israeli-Palestinian
college students. The aim of this study was to examine the contribution of personal and social
resources on how well Arab Israeli-Palestinian students cope with the stress, and assessing these
relationships during the ongoing situational stressor of COVID-19 was opportune for elucidating
individual differences in coping.

5.1. Self-efficacy and coping strategies as assessed during COVID-19

The study results indicate that self-efficacy positively correlates with adaptive problem-focused
coping strategies (e.g., problem solving and cognitive restructuring) and negatively correlates with
maladaptive emotion focused-coping strategies (e.g, self-criticism, wishful thinking and social
withdrawal), as reported by Israel-Palestinian students during the COVID-19 pandemic. These
findings align with previous studies that demonstrate that self-efficacy correlates positively with
adaptive problem-focused coping strategies and correlates negatively with maladaptive emotion-
focused coping strategies (Hastings & Brown, 2002; Kuhn & Carter, 2006; Lightsey & Sweeney,
2008; Salas et al., 2017; Woodman & Hauser-Cram, 2012). One possible explanation for these
results lies in the fact that individuals with a stronger sense of general self-efficacy (GSE) are more
active copers, meaning that they are more likely to use problem-focused coping. Individuals with
a weaker sense of GSE, on the other hand, experience emotional turbulences more frequently and
have a higher tendency to use avoidance as a coping strategy (Ślebarska, 2014).

These results can also be explained through Bandura’s (1997) assessment which entails that
individuals with a weak sense of self-efficacy have a high tendency to avoid difficult tasks, have
low aspirations and weak commitment to their goals. This is since individuals with a weaker sense
of self-efficacy tend to concentrate on obstacles, the consequences of failures and their personal
deficiencies when they are faced with difficult tasks. That is in contrast to individuals with a strong
sense of self-efficacy. That is, individuals with a strong sense of self-efficacy are able to motivate
themselves and become more affectionate when facing obstacles (Bandura, 2010). Furthermore,
individuals with a strong sense of self-efficacy are able to divert their attention and think creatively
to find alternative solutions as well as change their automatic ways of thinking and replace them
with planned and more appropriate ones. Hence, a stronger sense of self-efficacy can enable
individuals cope more effectively with new stressful situations.

While the associations between higher self-efficacy with greater likelihood to use adaptive
problem-focused coping strategies and a reduced likelihood to use maladaptive emotion-
focused coping strategies are consistent with prior findings, this provides novel insight for the
individual differences in how Israeli-Palestinian college students have handled coping, particularly
during the situational stress of COVID-19. Notably, the present findings aligning with prior research
may suggest that individuals with higher self-efficacy may have exhibited more adaptive coping
strategies generally. In other words, the individuals who felt a greater capacity to overcome
challenges generally may also have been most likely to feel equipped to overcome potential
stressors of COVID-19 using similar, adaptive coping strategies. These findings highlight the
importance of establishing self-efficacy within marginalized populations like Israeli-Palestinian
youths to cope with discrimination as religious minorities and in times of international crisis like
COVID-19.

5.2. Optimism and coping strategies assessed during COVID-19

The study results indicate that optimism positively correlates with adaptive problem-focused
coping strategies (e.g., careful planning and acceptance) and negatively correlates with maladap­
tive emotion focused-coping strategies (e.g., denial, behavioural disengagement and mental dis­
engagement). These findings align with previous studies conducted during similar situations which
demonstrate that optimism positively correlates with adaptive problem-focused coping strategies

Page 9 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

and negatively correlated with maladaptive emotion-focused coping strategies (Aspinwall &
Taylor, 1992; Brissette et al., 2002; Nes & Segerstrom, 2006).

A possible explanation for these results lies in the notion that happiness helps enable flexible
thinking which ultimately helps individuals in problem-solving, self-control, thinking ahead and
taking caution (Aspinwall, 1998; Isen & Reeve, 2005). In other words, positive feelings contribute to
less impulsive and more controlled and planned behavior. Another explanation for these results
lies in the fact that optimism refers to the ability to manage life’s difficulties in order to maintain
a sense of balance despite these difficulties. This is consistent with the conceptual basis of
dispositional optimism which assumes that positive expectancies for the future lead to engage­
ment and striving rather than disengagement and giving up (e.g., Billingsley et al., 1993; Carver
et al., 1989; Fontaine et al., 1993).

Thus, higher optimism has related to a greater likelihood to use adaptive problem-focused
coping strategies consistently throughout the literature and also was associated with more
adaptive coping as reported during COVID-19 among Israeli-Palestinian college students. It may
be that students with a greater sense of optimism were more likely to perceive their stress both
generally or specific to COVID-19 as temporary negative circumstances that could be managed
with active, problem-focused coping techniques. The active coping strategies may reflect that
Israeli-Palestinian students were optimistic that certain facets of the difficulties they were experi­
encing related or unrelated to COVID-19 were malleable and able to be improved to a certain
extent. These findings highlight the relevance of offering support to this marginalized group to help
create a greater sense of optimism and thus encourage the use of more active, adaptive problem-
focused coping strategies.

5.3. Limitations
The results of this study should be interpreted in light of the following limitations. First, while the
circumstances of COVID-19 presented an opportune time to assess and elucidate individual
differences in adaptive versus maladaptive coping strategies, the purpose of this study was not
to assess participants’ perceived levels of stress due to COVID-19 nor the strategies they used to
cope with stress attributed specifically to COVID-19. Thus, future studies may consider highlighting
the personal experiences of Arab individuals living in Israel during COVID-19 and individual
characteristics associated with more or less stress. Additionally, the sample was not recruited
using a randomized subset of the larger population, and all participants identify as one racial and
ethnic group. Future research may consider recruiting a more diverse sample to permit direct
comparisons across racial, ethnic and religious groups as means to increase the validity of the
current findings. In addition, the data was comprised only of self-report questionnaires which may
be subject to reporting bias. Thus, further studies may consider additional tools of measurement
(e.g., behavioral observations). Finally, there is a need for future research to examine the relation­
ship between coping with stress, self-efficacy and optimism by testing a wider variety of moderat­
ing and mediating effects.

5.4. Conclusion
This study is the first to investigate the relationship between coping with stress as reported
during the first three months of the Coronavirus outbreak, self-efficacy and optimism among
Israeli-Palestinian college students. The aim of the study is to examine, for the first time, how
self-efficacy and optimism may increase adaptive coping skills among this unique sample of
Arab college students living in Israel. The results demonstrate that a stronger sense of self-
efficacy increases one’s ability to cope actively, adaptively and efficiently. The results also
demonstrate that optimistic students tend to employ active problem-focused coping much
more often than maladaptive emotion-focused coping. These results align with results from
other studies conducted across the globe. Lastly, we hope that the present research can
provide insight into coping with stress during times of international crisis in a manner that

Page 10 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032
may increase early identification and intervention efforts within this marginalized population of
Israeli-Palestinian individuals.
Funding
The authors received no direct funding for this research.
Author details
Qutaiba Agbaria1
E-mail: qutaiba100psych@yahoo.com
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1945-5289
Amnah Abu Mokh1
E-mail: mar180596@gmail.com
1
Graduate studies, Al-Qsaemi College, Israel.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Citation information
Cite this article as: Self-efficacy and optimism as predic­
tors of coping with stress as assessed during the corona­
virus outbreak, Qutaiba Agbaria & Amnah Abu Mokh,
Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032.
References
Agbaria, Q., & Natur, N. (2018). The relationship between
violence in the family and adolescents aggression:
The mediator role of self-control, social support,
religiosity, and well-being. Children and Youth
Services Review, 91, 447–456. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.016
Agbaria, Q., & Bdier, D. (2019). The association of Big Five
personality traits and religiosity on Internet addiction
among Israeli-Palestinian Muslim college students in
Israel. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 22(9),
956–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2019.
1699041
Agbaria, Q., & Bdier, D. (2021). The role of self-control and
identity status as predictors of internet addiction
among Israeli-Palestinian college students in Israel.
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction,
19(1), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-
00172-4
Al Hajj, M. (1996). Identity and orientation among Arabs
in Israel: A state of double periphery. In R. Gibson &
D. Hacker (Eds.), The Jewish-Arabic divide in Israel,
a reader (pp. 112–124). Israel Institute for
Democracy.
Alrekebat, A. F. (2016). Internet addiction and its rela­
tionship with self-efficacy level among Al-Hussein Bin
Talal University students. Journal of Education and
Practice, 7(32), 123–131.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cog­
nitive adaptation: A longitudinal investigation of
the impact of individual differences and coping on
college adjustment and performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 989.
Aspinwall, L. G. (1998). Rethinking the role of positive
affect in self-regulation. Motivation and Emotion,
22(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1023080224401
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy and health behaviour.
Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and
Medicine, 160–162.
Bandura, A. (2010). Self-efficacy. The Corsini Encyclopedia
of Psychology, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9780470479216.corpsy0836
Baumgartner, J. N., Schneider, T. R., & Capiola, A.
(2018). Investigating the relationship between
optimism and stress responses: A biopsychosocial
perspective. Personality and Individual Differences,
129, 114–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.
03.021
Ben-Zur, H. (2005). Coping, distress, and life events in
a community sample. International Journal of Stress
Management, 12(2), 188.
Billingsley, K. D., Waehler, C. A., & Hardin, S. I. (1993).
Stability of optimism and choice of coping strategy.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76(1), 91–97. https://doi.
org/10.2466/pms.1993.76.1.91
Brissette, I., Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2002). The role
of optimism in social network development, coping,
and psychological adjustment during a life transition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1),
102.
Cabras, C., & Mondo, M. (2018). Coping strategies, opti­
mism, and life satisfaction among first-year univer­
sity students in Italy: Gender and age differences.
Higher Education, 75(4), 643–654. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10734-017-0161-x
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989).
Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based
approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56(2), 267.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010).
Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 879–889.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006
Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and
coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 679–7.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.
100352
Chai, M. S., & Low, C. S. (2015). Personality, coping and
stress among university students. American Journal
of Applied Psychology, 4(3–1), 33–38. https://doi.org/
10.11648/j.ajap.s.2015040301.16
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H.,
Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping
with stress during childhood and adolescence:
Problems, progress, and potential in theory and
research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations
between personality and coping: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6),
1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080
Dhillon, R., & Arora, M. (2017). Perceived stress,
self-efficacy, coping strategies and hardiness as
predictors of depression. Journal of Psychosocial
Research, 12(2), 325–333.
Dubey, S., Biswas, P., Ghosh, R., Chatterjee, S., Dubey, M. J.,
Chatterjee, S., Lahiri, D., & Lavie, C. J. (2020).
Psychosocial impact of COVID-19. Diabetes & Metabolic
Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. 788–779 ,(5)14,.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.05.035
Erikson, E. H. (1961). Childhood and society. The Hogarth
Press.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping
in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 21(3), 219–239. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2136617
Fontaine, K. R., Manstead, A. S., & Wagner, H. (1993).
Optimism, perceived control over stress, and coping.
European Journal of Personality, 7(4), 267–281.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.241007040
Gam, J., Kim, G., & Jeon, Y. (2016). Influences of art
therapists’ self-efficacy and stress coping strategies
on burnout. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 47, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2015.09.005
Page 11 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032
Gao, J., Zheng, P., Jia, Y., Chen, H., Mao, Y., Chen, S., Dai, J.,
Fu, H., & Dai, J. (2020). Mental health problems and
social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak.
PLoS One, 15(4), e0231924. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0231924
Godoy, D., Godoy, J. F., López-Chicheri, I., Martínez, A.,
Gutiérrez, S., & Vázquez, L. (2008). Psychometric
properties of the Coping with stress Self- Efficacy
Scale. Psicothema, 20(1), 155–165.
Haan, N. (1969). A tripartite model of ego functioning
values and clinical and research applications. The
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 148(1),
14–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053–
196901000-00003
Hastings, R. P., & Brown, T. (2002). Behavior problems of
children with autism, parental self-efficacy and
mental health. American Journal of Mental
Retardation, 107(3), 222–232.
Higgins, G. (2017). The role of cognition in stress:
Relationship between perceived life stress, self-
efficacy, optimism, self-esteem, positive affect, nega­
tive affect, and work stress [Doctoral dissertation],
Dublin, National College of Ireland. http://trap.ncirl.
ie/id/eprint/2819.
Huijs, J., Koppes, L., Taris, T., & Blonk, B. (1999).
Differences in predictors of return to work among
long-term: Sick-Listed employees with different
self-reported reasons for sick leave. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(6), 897–910. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.897
Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The influence of positive
affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating
enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and
self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29(4), 295–323.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9019-8
Kapikiran, S., & Acun-Kapikiran, N. (2016). Optimism and
psychological resilience in relation to depressive
symptoms in university students: Examining the
mediating role of self-esteem. Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice, 16(6), 2087–2110.
Karimzade, A., & Besharat, M. A. (2011). An investigation
of the relationship between personality dimensions
and stress coping styles. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 30, 797–802. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.155
Kreitler, S., Peleg, D., & Ehrenfeld, M. (2007). Stress,
self-efficacy and quality of life in cancer patients.
Psycho-Oncology: Journal of the Psychological, Social
and Behavioral Dimensions of Cancer, 16(4), 329–341.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1063
Kuhn, J. C., & Carter, A. S. (2006). Maternal self-efficacy
and associated parenting cognitions among mothers
of children with autism. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 76(4), 564–575.
Lazarus, R. S., Averill, J. R., & Opton, E. M. (1974). The
psychology of coping: Issues of research and
assessment. Coping and Adaptation, 249–315.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and
coping. Springer publishing company.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past,
present, and future. Fifty Years of the Research and
Theory of RS Lazarus: An Analysis of Historical and
Perennial Issues, 366–388.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). A new synthesis: Stress and emotion.
New York. Springer Publishing Company. Revised may,
4, 2006.
Lee, I. C. (2010). Job stress of youth companion and
relationship with job satisfaction and psychological
burnout-control effect of self-efficacy and stress
disposal method [Master’s thesis], Seoul: Univ. of
Kwangwoon.
Lightsey, O. R. J., & Sweeney, J. (2008). Meaning in life,
emotion oriented coping, generalized self-efficacy,
and family cohesion as predictors of family satisfac­
tion among mothers of children with disabilities. The
Family Journal, 16(3), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1066480708317503
MacCann, C., Fogarty, G. J., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D.
(2011). Coping mediates the relationship between
emotional intelligence (EI) and academic
achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
36(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.
2010.11.002
MacCann, C., Lipnevich, A. A., Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. D.
(2012). The best years of our lives? Coping with stress
predicts school grades, life satisfaction, and feelings
about high school. Learning and Individual
Differences, 22(2), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2011.08.004
Malkoç, A. (2011). Big five personality traits and coping
styles predict subjective well-being: A study with
a Turkish sample. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 12, 577–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2011.02.070
Mansdorf, I., Weinberg, M., Weinberg, J., & Mahajnah, M.
(2020). Resilience, stringency of restrictions and
psychological consequences of Covid-19 in Israel:
Comparing Jewish and Arab samples. Jerusalem
Viewpoints, 630.
Moos, R. H., & Tsu, V. D. (1977). The crisis of physical
illness: An overview. Coping with physical illness
(pp.3–21). Plenum Medical Book Co.
Nes, L. S., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2006). Dispositional opti­
mism and coping: A meta-analytic review. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 235–251. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_3
O’Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional
context of problem-, emotion-, and relationship-
focused coping: The role of the big five personality
factors. Journal of Personality, 64(4), 775–813.
Pisarski, A., Bohle, P., & Callan, V. J. (1998). Effects of
coping strategies, social support and work-nonwork
conflict on shift worker’s health. Scandinavian Journal
of Work, Environment & Health, 141–145.
Puig-Perez, S., Hackett, R. A., Salvador, A., & Steptoe, A.
(2017). Optimism moderates psychophysiological
responses to stress in older people with Type 2
diabetes. Psychophysiology, 54(4), 536–543. https://
doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12806
Radhwan, S. (1997). Expectations of self-efficacy: Building
conceptual and measurement. Social Affairs
Magazine ,55, 25–51. http://iiste.org/Journals/index.
php/JEP.
Reed, D. J. (2016). Coping with occupational stress: The
role of optimism and coping flexibility. Psychology
Research and Behavior Management, 9, 71. https://
doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S97595
Salas, B. L., Rodríguez, V. Y., Urbieta, C. T., & Cuadrado, E.
(2017). The role of coping strategies and self-efficacy
as predictors of life satisfaction in a sample of par­
ents of children with autism spectrum disorder.
Psicothema, 29(1), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.7334/psi
cothema2016.96
Samoha, S. (2004). Index of Arab-Jewish Relations in
Israel. Rekhes (In Hebrew).
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and
health: Assessment and implications of generalized
outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4(3),
219–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism
on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical
overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy
Page 12 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032
and Research, 16(2), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.
1007/BF01173489
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-
efficacy scale. Measures in health psychology: A user’s
portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs, 1(1), 35–37.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn,
S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy
scale: Construction and validation. Psychological
Reports, 51(2), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.
1982.51.2.663
Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2007). The
development of coping. Annual Review of Psychology,
58(1), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.58.110405.085705
Ślebarska, K. (2014). Emotional costs, self-efficacy and coping
strategies among unemployed individuals during pro­
fessional internship. Stanisław Juszczyk, 251–264.
Stanley, K. D., & Murphy, M. R. (1997). A comparison of
general self-efficacy with self-esteem. Genetic Social
and General Psychology Monographs, 123(1), 81–99.
Stoneman, Z., Gavidia-Payne, S., & Floyd, F. (2006).
Marital adjustment in families of young children
with disabilities: Associations with daily hassles
and problem-focused coping. American Journal on
Mental Retardation, 111(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.1352/0895-8017(2006).111[1:MAIFOY]2.0.CO2
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the Culturally
Diverse: Theory and Practice (4th ed.). Wiley.
Taylor, S. E., Buunk, B. P., & Aspinwall, L. G. (1990). Social
comparison, stress, and coping. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 16(1), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0146167290161006
Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to Life. Harvard
University Press.
Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, L., & Rotundo, T. (1999).
Unemployed individuals: Motives, job-search compe­
tencies, and job-search constraints as predictors of
job seeking and reemployment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(6), 897–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.84.6.897
White, L. L., Cohen, M. Z., Berger, A. M., Kupzyk, K. A., &
Bierman, P. J. (2019, January). Self-Efficacy for man­
agement of symptoms and symptom distress in
adults with cancer: An integrative review. Oncology
Nursing Forum, 46(1).
Willemen, A. M., Koot, H. M., Ferdinand, R. F.,
Goossens, F. A., & Schuengel, C. (2008). Change in
psychopathology in referred children: The role of life
events and perceived stress. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(11), 1175–1183.
Woodman, A. C., & Hauser-Cram, P. (2012). The role of
coping strategies in predicting change in parenting
efficacy and depressive symptoms among mothers of
adolescents with developmental disabilities. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 57(6), 513–530. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01555.x
Page 13 of 14
Agbaria & Abu Mokh, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2080032
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2080032

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Education (ISSN: 2331-186X) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 14 of 14