| Literature DB >> 33954057 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals differ in how they react to stress or trauma through different coping styles in which they may deal directly with a stressor by adopting approach coping styles or disengage with a stressor by utilizing avoidant coping styles. Avoidant coping styles have been linked to adverse outcomes including psychological distress, anxiety disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Recently, avoidance coping styles as measured by a subset of items on the Brief COPE were found to have a weak positive relationship with performance on a computer-based avatar task which is related to avoidant personality temperaments. This avatar task was developed as an alternative for paper and pencil self-report inventories for measuring avoidant tendencies based on possible response biases of avoidant individuals. In the current study, avoidance and approach coping styles as measured by the Brief Approach/Avoidance Coping Questionnaire (BACQ) were compared to avoidant coping as measured by the Brief COPE and performance on the avatar task. In addition to approach and avoidance coping, the BACQ also measures active avoidance coping (i.e., diversion) and passive avoidance coping (i.e., resignation and withdrawal). The relationships between approach and avoidance coping and performance on the avatar task were also analyzed with the outcome of perceived stress as measured by the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS).Entities:
Keywords: Approach; Avoidance; Computer-based task; Coping styles; Perceived stress
Year: 2021 PMID: 33954057 PMCID: PMC8053377 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11265
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1A sample screen capture from the avatar task.
In the first scenario, the avatar was invited to a party by her cousin and left alone to talk to someone that she did not know. At this point, the avatar has a choice between a non-avoidant response, an intermediate response, and an avoidant response. Here the participant has chosen the avoidant response.
Inventory scores gender comparison.
| Overall mean (sd) | Female mean (sd) | Male mean (sd) | Gender significance level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BACQ Approach | 22.0 (4.1) | 21.7 (4.5) | 22.6 (4.5) | ns |
| BACQ Avoidance | 16.9 (4.3) | 17.1 (4.2) | 15.8 (4.3) | ns |
| Diversion | 9.3 (2.7) | 9.5 (2.6) | 8.6 (3.0) | ns |
| Resignation & Withdrawal | 7.4 (2.6) | 7.6 (2.5) | 7.0 (2.7) | ns |
| Brief COPE Avoidance Aggregate | 20.4 (3.7) | 20.4 (3.7) | 20.6 (3.2) | ns |
| Brief COPE Non-Avoidance Aggregate | 52.1 (7.7) | 51.5 (7.8) | 53.5 (7.7) | ns |
| Avatar Task Score | 19.0 (6.1) | 19.4 (5.6) | 18.0 (6.5) | ns |
Relationships of avoidance measures.
| Avoidant coping (BACQ) | Diversion coping (BACQ) | Resignation & withdrawal coping (BACQ) | Approach coping (BACQ) | Avoidant coping (Brief COPE) | Non-Avoidant coping (Brief COPE) | Performance on the Avatar Task | Perceived stress scale (PSS) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avoidant Coping (BACQ) | – | |||||||
| Diversion Coping (BACQ) | .82 | – | ||||||
| Resignation & Withdrawal Coping (BACQ) | .79 | .31 | – | |||||
| Approach Coping (BACQ) | -.20 | -.02 | -.31 | – | ||||
| Avoidant Coping (Brief COPE) | .58 | .45 | .49 | -.23 | – | |||
| Non-Avoidant Coping (Brief COPE) | -.03 | .09 | -.20 | .39 | .02 | – | ||
| Performance on the Avatar Task | .47 | .36 | .37 | -.31 | .35 | -.16 | – | |
| Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) | .48 | .15 | .67 | -.38 | .53 | -.25 | .38 | – |
Notes.
p < .05.
p < .001.
Details on the regression analyses predicting performance on the avatar task and perceived stress.
| Variables | Standardized | b | Standard Error | R2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approach Coping | -0.243 | -0.347 | 0.132 | 0.01 | 0.232 |
| Diversion | 0.278 | 0.601 | 0.200 | 0.003 | |
| Resignation and Withdrawal | 0.214 | 0.489 | .222 | 0.03 | |
| Constant | 17.307 | 3.900 | <0.001 | ||
| Resignation and Withdrawal | 0.345 | 0.440 | 0.121 | <0.001 | 0.130 |
| Constant | 19.966 | 0.949 | <0.001 | ||