Personality, Stress and Coping in Indian Adolescents: A Correlation Model

 

Khushali Adhiya-Shah¹*, Suman Trivedi²

¹Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Mithibai College of Arts,  Vile Parle (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

 

ABSTRACT:

Adolescents confront several stressors in their environment, and the distressing events trigger physical and mental illnesses. Differences in their coping responses are partly controlled by personality; partly influenced by social observation. This study examines a correlational model between personality, stress and coping strategies in 154 school-going, upper-economic strata children in a private school of Ahmedabad. Bi-variate correlations and t-test analysis reveal significant correlations between personality traits and stress. Findings report that extrovert and conscientious personalities experience least stress; however the former prefers problem-focused coping while the latter prefers emotion-focused coping. Personalities high on neuroticism experience high stress, with no gender difference and report no significant preference for a specific coping strategy.  While no gender difference is reported in the experience of stress, there is a gender difference between their choice of coping styles. Males have reported a mixed preference of problem and emotion focused coping while females indicate preference for emotion-focused coping largely. Implications for adolescent mental health practitioners and scope for further research is discussed.

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Stress is primarily a result. Something can produce stress without actually being stressful and can be positive or negative. It is the appraisal of the situation that matters. In our society, children are growing up much faster. They are facing new and more serious decisions at much earlier ages. In addition, they are constantly trying to live up to the expectations and demands of parents, teachers, peers, and society. In addition to the stressors of society, children and adolescents have numerous self-concerns which may produce stress (Chandler, 1985). These concerns may evolve around self-esteem, changing values, social standards, personal competence and ability, and personal characteristics and traits. Often children may lack the ability or confidence needed to meet demands placed on them by parents and society. One of the main concerns that children and adolescents may have during developmental years is that of personal traits and characteristics. Children want to be like their peers. When they deviate radically from their peers in certain traits and characteristics, it can be a serious stress-inducing factor.

 

 

The greatest problem associated with these facts, however, is that they are not likely to be able to cope with it as well as adults. This is primarily due to the fact that children have less control over their world than adults, and their adaptive mechanisms and strategies are less well-developed. There are a variety of ways open to adults of responding to stress. The options available to children, however, are much more limited. Margaret Holland, a prominent child psychologist, makes the following comparisons between choices in coping with stress open to adults and children (Margaret Holland, 1980 as stated in Humphrey, 1988).

 

1. An open display of anger is often considered unacceptable for children.

2. Children do not have the option of withdrawing or walking out, unlike adults.

3. Children may be reprimanded for daydreaming in school, although daydreaming is therapeutic and productive.

4. A child cannot get a prescription for "nerves" from a physician, unlike adults.

 

Adolescence, specifically, is a crucial period of time. It is not unusual for adolescents to experience high levels of stress. For them, stress mainly comes from academic tests, interpersonal relations, relationship problems, life changes, and career exploration. Increased competition and constant need for self-approval from the society amplifies their concerns. Such stress may usually cause psychological, physical, and behavioural problems. Some people learn to cope better to stress; however, they have their limits. Though occasional stress may not be harmful, persistent high levels of daily stress can weaken the immune system. Other factors that trigger adolescent stress include factors at home - illness of a parent or sibling, divorce and abuse (physical, emotional and sexual) are the primarily observed factors.

 

A person’s attempts to manage a stressful situation is called coping. The process of coping involves two components, appraisal and coping. The coping style we engage in is ultimately determined by whether we believe we have the resources to resolve the stressor (Lazarus, 1966). Stress-resistant people have a history of coping with childhood stress. Rather than being sheltered from stress, the children's support network (parents, teachers, other significant adults) had encouraged them in new endeavours and instilled in them a sense of self-confidence and an expectation of success if they worked long and hard enough. So, children who have a positive self-image and receive support from home, school, and other significant adults are better equipped for handling the typical stresses often found in childhood. Moreover, when they are successful in their attempts to cope with stressful situations, there is often reinforcement from a significant adult. As a result, these children become more and more confident in coping with stressful situations as they grow (Kuczen, 1982).

 

Some children and adolescents do not have the ability to adapt to a stressful situation. They are unable to develop successful coping mechanisms and approach each stressful situation in a disorganized and confused manner. This type of coping may be non-communicative, uncooperative, defensive and easily angered. They may have a generally negative attitude and feel as they though cannot control the events that occur in their lives (Reed, 1984).

 

Prior research has indicated the powerful role personality plays in the way the individual appraises stressful situations. At tender ages, they are yet to be acquainted with healthy stress coping strategies. Their coping responses are partly controlled by personality, partly by the social context. Hence, the chances that students adopt unhealthy coping strategies are high.

 

Proposed by McCrae and Costa, the utilitarian model of Big Five Theory of Personality has received acknowledgement and appreciation across researches. Their ‘OCEAN’ model includes five primary personality dispositions. One is openness to experience; it reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety a person has. Two, conscientiousness: a tendency to be organized and dependable, show self-discipline, act dutifully, aim for achievement, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behaviour. Third is extraversion; energy, positive emotions, assertiveness, sociability and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others, and talkativeness. Four, agreeableness: a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. It is also a measure of one's trusting and helpful nature, and whether a person is generally well-tempered or not. And five, neuroticism: the tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, and vulnerability. Neuroticism also refers to the degree of emotional stability and impulse control and is sometimes referred to by its low pole, "emotional stability".

 

Changing societies, increasing demands, turbulent family structures, competition, etc. factors are contributing to the rough ride of developing a stable personality profile among adolescents.

 

CURRENT STUDY:

Considering the literature on adolescent stress and coping, this paper attempts to examine the correlational model between stress, personality and coping. The investigation aims to explain the association of personality traits with perceiving stress and thereby also the type of coping mechanism employed by adolescents. It is hypothesized that:

(i)       There will be no significant correlation between stress and personality in adolescents.

(ii)     There will be no significant correlation between stress and coping in adolescents.

(iii)   There will be no significant correlation between stress, personality and coping as a model.

(iv)    There will be no gender differences in the stress experienced, coping mechanisms employed and type of personality in adolescents.

 

METHODOLOGY:

Participants

A randomized sample of 75 males and 79 females were chosen. The participants includedadolescents between the ages 14-17 years (M=15.5, SD= 6.39). The participants belonged to the upper socio-economic strata and had no prior information or experience about the variables or standardized questionnaires utilized. Prior consent was taken and voluntary participation was ensured.

 

Design and Procedure:

A correlational study is employed to examine how personality traits can be associated with perceiving a situation as stressful and with specific coping styles. Such a design supports the reality that personality alone cannot be the only factor that determines appraisal of situations or the style of coping; however, it can be an associating factor in them.

 

Upon approval from respective authorities and informed consent from participants, the questionnaires were individually administered to participants. All research ethics were maintained throughout the process of data collection.  Once participants had completed the questionnaires, they were verbally debriefed about the nature of the study and created awareness about appraising stress and healthy coping mechanisms, based on previous research.

 

Instruments:

·      Index of Clinical Stress (Abell, 1991):The Index of Clinical Stress is a 25 items self-report questionnaire. The questionnaire can be administered on individual adults, over 12 years of age. A low score indicates relative absence of the problem being measured. The reliability alpha of the scale is 0.90, revealing the scale’s good internal consistency (Abell, 1991).

·      Ways of Coping (Folkman and Lazarus, 1988): The Ways of Coping Questionnaire (1988) consists of 50 items (plus 16 fill items) attempting to identify eight groups of coping strategies. Two problem-focused coping: Confrontative coping and planful problem solving; one avoidant coping strategy: disclaiming and five emotion-focused strategies: self-controlling, seeking social support, accepting responsibility, escape-avoidance, and positive reappraisal. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability (α = .94) are fairly consistent.

·      Mini IPIP/NEO Scale (Donnellan, et al., 2006): The Mini IPIP is a 20 items short form of the 50 items International Personality Item Pool-Five-Factor Model (Goldberg, 1991). It is a tiny-yet effective measure of the Big Five Factors of Personality, assessing for items as per the Big Five Traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and imaginativeness). The measure has consistent and acceptable internal consistencies across five studies (=at or well above 0.60), and a test-retest correlation similar to the parent measure across intervals of a few weeks. It also shows a comparable pattern of convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity with other Big Five measures^.

 

Statistical Analysis:

Bivariate correlations and student’s t-testwere carried out using the SPSS statistical software program (version 16.0) (SPSS, 2008).

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

By and large, mental health has been predicted by personality and coping with 40-50% of explained variance, as suggested by several research findings (Carver and Connor-Smith, 2010).Considering the variables under this study as vulnerable to uncontrolled and confounding variables such as upbringing, cultural factors, parenting style, family structure, educational qualifications, etc., the associational analysis presents the following results.

 

Table 1 presents the correlational model between stress experienced, the eight coping mechanisms and personality adopted in the total sample.

PERSONALITY TRAIT	STRESS	Confronting	Positive Reappraisal	Self Control	Seek Social Support	Accept responsibility	Disclaiming	Planful Problem Solving	Escape avoidance
Extraversion	-0.164*	0.073	-0.106	-0.176*	0.081	-0.025	-0.029	0.006	-0.003
Agreeableness	0.054	0.127	0.101	0.142	0.013	0.152	-0.103	0.128	0.148
Conscientiousness	-0.174*	0.013	0.226**	0.033	0.103	-0.076	0.037	0.016	-0.129
Neuroticism	0.476**	0.053	0.046	0.037	-0.139	0.147	-0.034	-0.08	0.039
Openness	-0.029	-0.12	-0.196*	-0.146	-0.054	-0.079	-0.257**	0.012	-0.097

 

It is observed that adolescents characterized by extraversion and conscientiousness share negative significant correlations with stress levels (-0.164* and -0.174* respectively). It had been established that extraversion was negatively associated with suicidality and clinical symptoms such as mood, anxiety and eating disorders (Brezo, et al., 2006), which is confirmed in this study. They are more prone to appraise the situation positively (Mirnics, et al., 2013).As for conscientious personalities, Mirnics, et al., (2013) indicated that such an attribute adjust better and have better mental health through conscious and self-confident positive reappraisal or conscious suppression of negative emotions. However, personalities highlight characterized by neuroticism experience the highest levels of stress (0.476**).

 

With reference to coping styles adopted, some personalities have been seen to adopt a specific coping style and reject strongly the use of other coping styles. It is observed that adolescents with high levels of extraversion have significantly rejected the self-control coping style (-0.176*); they would rather prefer seek social support (0.081). Previous studies have indicated the use of problem-focused strategies by extrovert personalities (David and Suls, 1999; Watson and Hubbard, 1996). This study confirms with the negative correlation between extraversion and self-control (emotion-focused strategy).

 

Agreeable personalities report moderate levels of stress (0.054) and have not shown to adopt or not adopt a specific coping style. They direct future research to consider accepting responsibility as a coping strategy (0.152). It is a trait that is reflected in non-clinical adjustment parameters such as subjective and objective quality of social interactions (Mirnics, et al., 2013), thereby increasing its importance in adolescents.

 

Conscientious personalities in adolescents have seen to experience the least levels of stress (-0.174*) and have significantly demonstrated to adopt positive reappraisal as their coping style (0.226**). This indicates that such personalities who have tendencies to display self-discipline, act dutifully and strive for achievement would prefer to adopt an emotion-focused coping of reappraising the situation positively to deal with the problem effectively. Prior research has suggested contradictory findings; high conscientiousness has been related to obsessive-compulsive disorder (Samuel and Widiger, 2011) while low conscientiousness has been linked to antisocial and criminal behaviours (Ozer and et al., 2006). This leads further research to examine the impact of moderate levels of conscientiousness.

 

Personalities with high levels of neuroticism have demonstrated to experience the highest levels of stress (0.476**), clearly indicating the ill-effects of enduring neurotic traits in an adolescent’s personality. Such personalities are more sensitive to life events, which they appraise more negatively. They have greater exposure and reactivity to conflicts (Bolger and Zuckerman, 1995). Due to poor emotional regulation, these emotions spill over from one area of life to another (Suls and Martin, 2005; Ozer and Benet-Martinez, 2006). This could possibly be the reason why these personalities have not shown to significantly adopt a coping style in this study.

 

However, they have directed towards the use of accepting responsibility coping style, an emotion-focused coping strategy, contrary to Cloninger et al., (1993)’s findings that individuals with maladaptive personality traits may be more inclined to engage in avoidant coping as they are characterized by higher levels of pessimism and low self-esteem. Several factors can be attributed to such adolescents’ use of accepting responsibility; they include increased mental health services being provided in schools, the school environment per se, family structure, nature of peer group, fear of rejection and need for approval. The last two factors emerge as central aspects of an adolescent’s life in their academic and personal settings and thereby may choose to/ be forced to cope with the situation by accepting responsibility for the stressful situation. However, other research findings have explained the likelihood of such personalities to experience depression, anxiety and anger, leading to poor adjustment and use of maladaptive coping strategies (Lee-Baggley, et al., 2005). These results also fall in line with Kardum and Krapic’s findings (2001).

 

Personalities that are open to experiences and high on imagination tend to experience relatively the least stress (-0.029). They have significantly rejected the use of positive reappraisal (-0.196*) and disclaiming coping styles (-0.257**). Interestingly, data in this investigation reveals that such personalities have primarily rejected seven out of the eight coping styles (two significantly).

 

It must be noted that coping strategies operate in tandem with other variables as well as explain their unique variance in adjustment and maladjustment (Mugberg, and Stephens, 2002), thereby expanding the scope for future research in this direction. Therefore, these findings confirm Yuhui and Jianxin’s findings (2004): personality traits do have direct effects on coping styles.

 

Table 2 presents the interactional correlations between the various personality dimensions, stress experienced and respective coping strategy adopted in the male sample (N=75) and female sample (N=79).

Participants	PERSONALITY TRAIT	STRESS	COPING STYLES
			Confronting	Positive Reappraisal	Self Control	Seek Social Support
Male Adolescents (N=75)	Extraversion	0.093	0.095	-0.001	-0.105	-0.03
	Agreeableness	0.067	0.073	0.131	0.13	0.069
	Conscientiousness	-0.364**	0.168	0.384**	0.049	0.085
	Neuroticism	0.474**	0.101	0.054	-0.065	-0.148
	Openness	0.007	-0.053	-0.121	0.003	-0.095
Female Adolescents (N=79)	Extraversion	-0.399**	0.052	-0.21	-0.237*	0.173
	Agreeableness	0.048	0.199	0.066	0.167	-0.044
	Conscientiousness	-0.004	-0.14	0.086	0.003	0.126
	Neuroticism	0.457**	0.053	0.044	0.168	-0.164
	Openness	-0.045	-0.199	-0.272*	-0.283*	-0.016

 

Table 2.. Cont.....

Participants	PERSONALITY TRAIT	STRESS	COPING STYLES
			Accept responsibility	Disclaiming	Planful Problem Solving	Escape avoidance
Male Adolescents (N=75)	Extraversion	0.093	-0.003	-0.029	0.005	-0.063
	Agreeableness	0.067	0.234*	0.012	0.178	0.148
	Conscientiousness	-0.364**	-0.003	-0.1	0.148	-0.047
	Neuroticism	0.474**	0.169	-0.019	0.025	0.054
	Openness	0.007	0.076	-0.186	0.141	-0.067
Female Adolescents (N=79)	Extraversion	-0.399**	-0.043	-0.029	0.006	0.062
	Agreeableness	0.048	0.075	-0.240*	0.084	0.15
	Conscientiousness	-0.004	-0.118	0.126	-0.082	-0.212
	Neuroticism	0.457**	0.103	-0.003	-0.164	0.033
	Openness	-0.045	-0.2	-0.336**	-0.095	-0.131

 

In terms of experiencing stress, it is observed that male and female adolescents with high levels of neuroticism experience the highest stress levels (0.474** and 0.457** respectively). On the other hand, males high in conscientiousness (-0.364**) and the extrovert female personalities experience the least stress (-0.399*). They are more prone to positive appraisal of the situation, than to the management of social interactions (Mirnics, et al., 2013).

 

In terms of the coping styles preferred to adopt in stressful situations also, gender differences are observed as seen in Table 2. Male adolescents high in agreeableness prefer to accept responsibility (0.234*), an emotion-focused coping that amplifies their chances of greater subjective well-bring. Those high in conscientiousness prefer to positively reappraise (0.384**) the stressful situation. This stands in line with Watson andHubbard’s study (1996), in addition with another emotion-focused coping – seeking social support. The other personality traits in male adolescents have not significantly showcased the preference for a specific coping style; however, their directions for further research are noted. Males high in extraversion prefer confronting (0.095), those high in neuroticism prefer accepting responsibility (0.169) and those high in openness to experience prefer to adopt planful problem solving (0.141).Extrovert personalities have been found to adopt problem-focused coping mechanisms (David and Suls, 1999; Watson and Hubbard, 1996). In this study, male extrovert adolescents have demonstrated the directed used of confrontation (0.095). Hence, the coping styles broadly employed by male adolescents include confronting, accepting responsibility, positive reappraisal and planful problem solving.

 

On the other hand, female adolescents have demonstrated the use of different strategies. Female adolescents high in extraversion have significantly rejected the use of self-control (-0.237*); they have directed towards the use of seeking social support (0.173). The use of emotion-focused strategy by female extrovert adolescents (contrary to studies by David and Suls, 1999 and Watson and Hubbard, 1996) indicates the need for further exploration. It is known that females are more prone to share concerns with their friends and seek for emotional support in their social surroundings, as is confirmed by their directed us in this study (0.173). Female adolescents high in agreeableness have significantly rejected the use of disclaiming (emotion-focused) and have directed towards the use of confronting coping style (0.199). Rejection of an emotion-focused coping and accepting a problem-focused coping in females directs a new stream of theory, which falls in line with coping literature that have consistently shown positive associations between avoidant coping and psychological distress across a number of diverse populations including university students (Crockett et al., 2007; etc.).Like the males, females have indicated the probable use of seeking social support (0.126) as well as disclaiming (0.126).While males high in neuroticism tend to accept responsibility, females high on this trait have indicated the probable use of self-control (0.168). Although both have chosen an emotion-focused coping, such personalities have largely been found to adopt maladaptive coping strategies (Lee-Baggley, et al., 2005). According to Ormel, et al (2013), this trait reflects individual differences in cognitive control over negative stimuli with reduced amygdala-anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) connectivity in individuals high on neuroticism. Females high in imagination have significantly rejected the use of positive reappraisal (-0.272*), self-control (-0.283*) and disclaiming (-0.366**); however, no coping style has been favored. Gil (2005) found that males expressed higher levels on this dimension than did females, as is confirmed by this study. These results indicate the need for further intensive research in this specific direction.

 

Furthermore, in line with Heike Eschenbeck, et al., (2007) reports, it is clearly observed that female participants have twice rejected the use of disclaiming avoidant-coping and scored higher (average 0.173 across all personality traits) than boys (average 0.085) in seeking social support.

 

Table 3 presents the significant gender differences in the stress experienced by the sample (N=154).

			Group Statistics
			0= males 1= females					N		Mean	Std. Deviation		Std. Error Mean
			Stress		0			75		32.92	16.176		1.868
					1			79		37.13	18.134		2.04
Independent Samples Test
				Levene's Test for Equality of Variances			t-test for Equality of Means
				F		Sig.	t		df	Sig.          (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference		95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
														Lower		Upper
Stress	Equal Variances assumed			1.258		0.264	-1.516		152	0.132	-4.207	2.774		-9.688		1.275
	Equal Variances not assumed						-1.521		151.422	0.13	-4.207	2.766		-9.672		1.259

 

Table 3 presents the significant gender differences in the stress experienced by the sample (N=154). Non-significant differences between males and females are observed in appraising stressful situations (-1.516, p>0.05).On the contrary, Compas, et al., (1993) hypothesized that exposure to and appraisals of interpersonal stress combine with aspects of biological development and the use of maladaptive coping strategies to account for the emergence of significant gender differences in depression and other forms of psychopathology during adolescence. Also, de Anda, et.al, (1997), in their study reported that gender differences were evident throughout the study, with girls indicating higher levels of stress and boys and girls reporting different behavioural and affective responses to stress. Recent findings by Hampel and Peterman (2006) are also rejected by these findings.These studies clearly suggest the generational and cultural differences in findings and thereby the need to update our theories.

Therefore, the first three hypotheses of this research are rejected; the fourth hypothesis is partly accepted for there is no gender difference in the stress but significant differences in personality and coping.

 

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS:

In addition to existing literature, this investigation has provided further understanding into adolescent personalities, their impact on appraising stressful situations and how these associate with choosing a coping style.A detailed profiling of every personality type (of the Big Five personality traits) with respect to its role in appraising situations as stressful and in choosing a coping style is explained with existing research validation.

 

One of the primary strengths of this study includes the sample of young adolescents. Meta-analytic study by Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007) indicated that personality more strongly predicted coping in young samples, stressed samples, and samples reporting dispositional rather than situation-specific coping.

 

Another asset of this study includes the findings of non-significant gender differences in the perception of stress – a concern that requires attention by mental health care providers. An additional strength is the attempt to correlate all three variables under one study and examine their associations as a model, defying the study of these variables independently and interactional in adolescents specifically.

 

However, certain limitations confine the findings of this study. Use of self-report measures, limited sample size and lack of control over confounding variables such as present life situations and mood of participants also further restricts the scope of the investigation. It, nonetheless, provides strong direction for mental health practitioners to explore.

 

CONCLUSION:

Several studies have demonstrated the link between the variables individually. This research investigation has attempted to present a profiling model, discussing the role of personality in the appraisal of stress and choice of coping mechanism. As some significant data emerges, it draws the attention of mental health practitioners, working specifically with adolescents, to utilize the information in their work.

 

Findings of this investigation have clearly revealed how different adolescent personalities appraise situations as stressful differently, and also how their choice of coping styles varies. While both extrovert and conscientious personalities report to experience less stress, their choice of coping varied: the former group preferred problem-focused coping while the latter indicated preference for emotion-focused coping style.

 

Meaningfully, the need of the hour in adolescents is addressed by the findings that indicate how personalities high on neuroticism experience high levels of stress and are unable to indicate a preference for any coping strategy significantly. As early studies have indicated, emotional turmoil in such adolescents is high and may spill over into other arenas of their life. This causes alarm for such adolescents require immediate attention and intervention – large number of suicidal ideation cases can be prevented by identifying the personality type and examining the (faulty) coping style. Counselors in schools, communities and private practitioners must address this concern.

 

Findings have also indicated how personalities high in agreeableness experience moderate stress and choose to accept responsibility as a coping mechanism. Their quality of social interactions may be affected by their appraisal of situations; however, practitioners must investigate for the presence of any faulty motivator of accepting responsibility that may lead to suppression of real identity.

 

An interesting direction is presented by personalities high in imagination, wherein, they not only report less stress but also direct towards no significant coping strategy. This is an area of further research – exploring their freedom of thoughts to adapt to the situation specifically and not generalize a coping strategy in specific.

 

However, counselors and therapists work with both the genders and there are some significant differences that have emerged in the findings. Although, personalities high in neuroticism of both the genders have reported to experience high stress, it is the conscientious males and extrovert females that report low stress levels. This reiterates the role of personality in the appraisal of situations.

 

With reference to their choice of coping strategy as well, differences emerge. There appears to be a mixed preference between problem and emotion-focused coping in the male adolescents, favoring the latter. This comes as a revelation, for it is not expected that males would show preference towards emotion-focused strategies; thereby, practitioners may look at working with males adolescents on their emotional appraisal of situations, breaking the barriers of socializing males as ‘stronger’ individuals.

 

Female adolescents, as previous research also confirms, have preferred emotion-focused coping and have rejected an avoidant coping strategy. This falls in line with our existing literature. Emotion-focused coping has been found to be both positively and negatively associated with psychological distress (Wijndaele, et al., 2007; etc.).However, unlike male adolescents, female adolescents high on imagination have rejected the significant preference of a particular coping strategy – this calls for further exploration.

 

Yet another striking finding that contradicts previous research is the non-significant differences between the males and females in their perception of stress. Both male and female adolescents seem to appraise of situations as stressful equally. This draws attention for practitioners to focus on both the genders equally, reach out to them and generate awareness of their assistance, starting from schools and community centers.

 

Eventually, it must be acknowledged that coping responses are partly controlled by personality and partly by the social context, specifically the nature of the stressful situations (Carver and Connor-Smith, 2010), and that both personality and coping play independent and interactive roles in influencing physical and mental health. McCrae and Costa (1986) have pointed out that individuals who used more effective ways of coping generally reported higher subsequent happiness and life satisfaction – this is one of the primary aims of adolescent mental health practitioners.

 

One of the most imperative implications of this study applies to the social environment around children and adolescents. In general, children who have a positive self-image and receive support from home, school, and other significant adults are better equipped for handling the typical stresses often found in childhood. Moreover, when they are successful in their attempts to cope with stressful situations, there is often reinforcement from a significant adult. As a result, these children become more and more confident in coping with stressful situations as they grow (Kuczen, 1982).

 

Results of the study call for further attention towards the mental health of adolescents. Findings suggest that individuals with optimistic and positive personalities are more likely to appraise a stressful situation more positively and consequently engage in a pro-active coping style.  In contrast, more pessimistic or fearful individuals are more likely to appraise a stressful situation as negative and underestimate their ability to deal with the stressor. This leads them to choose a more passive coping style (Ball, et al., 2002).

 

Eventually, findings of the study help counselors and school mental health service providers to predict and confirm behavior patterns of adolescents for timely assessment and intervention.

 

In addition to above listed implications, further research in this field invites the examination of several factors/variables. Several moderators such as stressor severity, age, and temporal proximity between the coping activity and coping report can be considered. Culture-specific (and not only gender-specific) investigation in the interaction between the three variables would also add immense value to the existing literature. Richer understanding of the role of personality in the appraisal of stress and choice of coping mechanism also summons the comparison between laboratory and daily report studies as well as multivariate analysis.

 

Since no conclusive coping strategy emerged to be adopted by adolescents (specifically those high on neuroticism), it is imperative to consider the robust effects of emotional stability/neuroticism. Mirnics et al., (2013) have suggested personality change through long-term psychotherapy as a more fruitful intervention option than target-specific improvement.

 

REFERENCES:

Abell, J.N. (1991). The index of clinical stress: A brief measure of subjective stress for practice and research. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 27(2), 12-15.

Ball, S., Smolin, J., and Shekhar, A. (2002). A psychobiological approach to personality: examination within anxious outpatients. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 36 (2), 97-103.

Bolger, N., and Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (5), pp. 890-902.

Brezo, J., Paris, J., and Turecki, G. (2006) Personality traits as correlates of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide completions: a systematic review. Acta Psychiatria Scandinavica, 113, pp. 180–206.

Carver, C.S., and Connor-Smith, J. (2010) Personality and Coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, pp. 679–704.

Chandler, L. A. (1985). Assessing Stress in Children. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., and Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975-990.

Compas, B.E., Orosan, P.G., and Grant, K.E. (1993). Adolescent stress and coping: implications for psychopathology during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 16 (3), pp. 331-349.

Connor-Smith, J.K., and Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 (6), pp. 1080-1107.

Crockett, L.J., Iturbide, M. I., Stone, R.A.T., McGinley, M., Raffaelli, M., and Carlo, G. (2007). Acculturative Stress, Social Support, and Coping: Relations to Psychological Adjustment among Mexican American College Students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(4), pp. 347-355. doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.13.4.347.

David, J.P., and Suls, J. (1999). Coping efforts in daily life: Role of big five traits and problem appraisals. Journal of Personality, 67: 265–294.

De Anda, D., Bradley, M., Collada, C.., and Wadsworth, T. (1997). A Study of Stress, Stressors, and Coping Strategies among Middle School Adolescents. Children and Schools, 19 (2): 87-98. Doi: 10.1093/cs/19.2.87

Donnellan, B.M., Oswald, L.F., Baird, B.M., and Lucas, R.E. (2006) The Mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of Personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), Jun, 192-203. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192.

Folkman, S., and Lazarus, R.S. (1988b). Manual for the Ways of Coping Scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.

Folkman, S. (1997). Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Social Science and Medicine, 45 (8), pp. 1207-1221.

Gil, S. (2005). Personality traits and coping styles as mediators in risky sexual behaviours: A comparison of male and female undergraduate students. Social behaviour and Personality, 33(2), pp. 149-158.

Hampel, P., and Petermann, F. (2006). Perceived stress, coping, and adjustment in adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 38 (4), pp. 409-415.

Eschenbeck, H., Kohlmann, C., and Lohaus, A. (2007). Gender Differences in Coping Strategies in Children and Adolescents. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, pp. 18-26. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001.28.1.18.

Humphrey, J. H. (1988). Children and Stress. New York: AMS Press.

Kardum, I., and Krapic, N. (2001) Personality traits, stressful life events, and coping styles in early adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 30 (3): 503-515. Doi:  10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00041-6

Kuczen, B. (1982). Childhood Stress: Don’t let your child be a victim. New York: Delacorte Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw Hill.

Lee-Baggley, D., Preece, M., and DeLongis, A. (2005) Individual differences in coping across time: Role of the Big 5 Personality Dimensions. Journal of Personality, 73, pp. 1141-1180.

McCrae, R.R., and Costa, P.T. (1986) Personality, coping and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54 (2):385-404.

Mirnics, Z., Heincz, O., Bagdy, G., Surányi, Z., Gonda, X., Benko, A.,  Molnar, E., Jakšić, N., Lazary, J., and Juhasz, G. (2013). The relationship between the big five personality dimensions and acute psychopathology: Mediating and moderating effects of coping strategies. Psychiatria Danubina, 25(4), pp. 379-388.

Murberg, T.A., Bru, E., and Stephens, P. (2002) Personality and coping among congestive heart failure patients. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, pp. 775–84.

Ormel. J., Bastiaansen, A., Riese, H., Bos, EH., Servaas, M., Ellenbogen, M., Rosmalen, J.G.M., and Aleman, A. (2013). The biological and psychological basis of neuroticism: Current status and future directions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, pp. 59–72.

Ozer, D.J., and Benet-Martínez, V. (2006) Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, pp. 401-21.

Reed, S. (1984). Stress: What makes kids vulnerable? Instructor, 93 (9), 28-32.

Samuel, D.B., and Widiger, T.A.(2011). Conscientiousness and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Personality Disorders , 2, 161-74.

Suls, J., and Martin, R. (2005) The daily life of the garden-variety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal of Personality, 73:1485–1510.

Watson, D., and Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the fivefactor model. Journal of Personality, 64, pp. 737–774.

Wijndaele, K., Matton, L., Duvigneaud, N., Lefevre, J., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Duquet, W., et al. (2007). Association between leisure time physical activity and stress, social support and coping: A cluster-analytical approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(4), 425-440.

Yuhui, L., and Jianxin, Z. (2004). The relationship between personality traits, subjective stress, and coping styles in adolescence. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 36 (1), pp. 71-77.