Running head: PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES IN COPING
Personality differences in coping Name Professor Institution Course Date
PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES IN COPING
Abstract The impacts of personality on the determination of health and psychological status of an individual are unimaginable (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995). The current study, however, failed to reach how the personality and the condition interrelate. It is vivid that the approaches of the stressful experiences contribute to the explanation of the outcomes. Bolger and chilling outlines the framework that portrays the explanation to this. The framework attempts to mix traits and process approaches to the investigation on the personality. The framework contends that personality influences the exposure to stressful conditions,
response to the events and some cases both of them (Leary & Hoyle, 2009). The framework, therefore, facilitates the explanation about the relation of personality and the outcomes. The framework acknowledges the personality difference in the in response to stressor occurs due to the difference in the selection of coping strategies. Other causes may be the differential effectiveness of the selected strategies (Zeidner, 2010).
PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES IN COPING
Personality differences in coping Introduction The study of Personality differences with regard to coping highlights on the division of the stress process into two essential groups. These are the stressor exposure and the stressor response or the reactivity. The exposure indicates the range to which an individual is probable to experience a stressful activity (Hogan et al, 2009). However, the reactivity is the range to which an individual exhibit emotional or physical responses to stressful conditions. The consideration of the effects of the personality for the process stimulates the emergence of the four possible issues. The initial possibility is that personality has effects on exposure
or reactivity for the stressors. This possibility has the name null model (Ng, 2009). The condition notes that the stressful activities do not provide an explanation to the effects of the personality considering the health and psychological results (Burger, 2011). The following possibility is the consideration that the personality influences the exposure, however, not the reactivity to stressors. Nevertheless, the occurrence of the events propagates impacts on everyone equally the same way. The author notes this as the differential exposure model equating it to a meditational model for the path analytic terms. Personality facilitates the exposure of the stressors that contributes to the outcomes. This provides for plausible model for the explanation of the role of the personality for the stress results. Recent studies present the exposure to life changes as an intervention of the relationship between the neuroticism and the distress from the psychology (Mosconi, 2010). The personality literature provides for the advanced interests for the role of the exposure of the personality exposure to situations. Authors argue that exposure process may account for the results of the personality. The third possibility emanates from the massive personality difference in response to the stressors, however, no personality differences in the exposure
PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES IN COPING
(Carver, 2010). In the assumption, that the common exposure is not equal to zero, the differential reactivity assists in the explanation of the effects of personality on results. This is usually by moderating the extents of the impacts from stressful events for the resultant outcomes. This attracts the naming differential reactivity model. Differential reactivity models are ordinary in occurrences. The personality dispositions provide the excellent example highlighting on the significance of how neuroticism propagates distress in the regular life (Uehara, 1999). Methods The highlight on a 14-day period of data collection by the mode of a questionnaire, it is realizable that there is an occurrence of the interpersonal conflicts. This regards the selected ways of coping with the conflicts and involvement of the negative emotions that persist in the process. The methods entailed the measuring of the neuroticism, in addition to the number of, the personality in addition to social relationship variable (Diener et al, 2011). The group conducted this in the lab. The participants of the investigation comprised the students of psychology amounting about ninety-four in numbers. This comprised the male and female students. The girls were approximately sixty-five while the boys were twentynine. The mean age of the participating students was 19.5 years. The assessment of the students was using the 22-item neuroticism scale. The eysenck personality inventory aided in the design and assessment of the construct. The creating of the questions took some modes similar to do acknowledge yourself as a nervous individual? Are you a worrier? The response to the questions took either a yes or a no. However, there was a challenge posing the neuroticism that is a continuous variable (Bosworth et al, 2001). The simplification of the data into two groups eliminated a lot challenges. These groups were
PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES IN COPING
the exposure reactivity and the choice effectiveness comparisons. The coping of the student had assessment s in the regard for the ways of the coping scale (Burger, 2011). This is a short note form finely designed for the filling on daily basis. The design of the coping question had consideration for the tapping of the seven ways of copping specially with the stressful activities. These were accepting responsibility, plan oriented problem solving, self-controlling, seeking social support and distancing. Measuring of the each coping factor was viable through the consideration of the four or three highest loaded items (Carpenter, 2010). The initial consideration neuroticism into two stages of the stress activities. This included the reactivity and exposure for testing the hypothesis. The hypothesis provided the exposure of the interpersonal conflicts. There were expectations for the reporting of a massive number of interpersonal conflicts for the high neuroticism group. For the low neuroticism, it was otherwise. Results The comparison of the problem focused, and emotion focused coping facilitated the generation of the graph below. The problem focused copping endeavored in removal and circumvention of the stressor thus reducing the negative effects. This entailed taking of the active steps that targeted the mission (Aguirre, 2009). Planning was pivotal for the process especially in ensuring that the new strategies were in place for the outlaying of the appropriate thoughts on the steps and handling of the processes. The suppression of the contesting activities entailed neglecting of other projects for the thus facilitating the reduction of distraction (Perrewe & Ganster, 2011).
PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES IN COPING
This then assisted in the according of the significant consideration to the efficiency. The consideration for the restraint coping ensures that there is sufficient waiting until the prerequisite opportunity avails itself. This helps avoid premature action. Emotion focused coping bases on the need for the social support for emotional regards. This is tantamount
to moral support, understanding and the sympathy (Allen et al, 2011). It aims in the positive interpretation thus facilitating the emotional growth and maturity. The coping enhances the construing of a stressful dealing in a progressive manner.
High neuroticism Low neuroticism High extraversion Low extraversion
t 6.968 507 14.449 147
df 384 384 384 384
p 0.0001 0.61 0.0001 0.88
Discussion Reading from the introduction, personality has substantial influence especially through the effects on the stressor exposure and the stressor response or reactivity. The personality influence the stressor reactivity by the having impact on the coping choice efficacy. The analysis of the links touching on the neuroticism, coping, interpersonal conflicts, coping and emotional outcomes inform that the most of the appropriate model changes with the variation in the emotional outcome (Leary & Hoyle, 2009). Demographics Mean age 24.o31, SD: 9.726 Females 281, males: 105
PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES IN COPING
Descriptive statistics Emotion Emotion focused mean focused dev High neuroticism Low neuroticism High extraversion Low extraversion 33.26 26.03 30.97 28.13 8.01 6.169 6.233 6.183 Problem focused mean 27.96 26.32 39.22 28.22 Problem focused std dev 6.891 4.986 7.253 5.793 n
193 193 193 193
The data from the results presented indicated a large number of the students had emotion focused personality challenge as compared to the problem focused. This originates from the immense of the data for instance the there are 33.26 high neuroticism as compared to 27.96 of the problem focused.
PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES IN COPING
Reference list Allen,M.S., Green lees,I.,&Jones,M(2011).An investigation of the five factor model of the personality and stress behavior in sport.journal of sports sciences,29,841850.doi:q0.1080/2640414.2011.565064 Bolger,n.,& Zuckerman,a (1995). A framework of studying personality in stress process.journal of personality and social psychology 69,890-902
Bosworth,h.b., feaganes ,j.r., vitaliano,p.p mark,d.b.,&siegler,i.c(2001) personality and stress with a common stressor:cardiac catherisation.journal of behavior medicine,24,17-31 Carver,c.s.&connor.smith,j.(2010) personality and stress.anuaal review of psychology,61,679704.doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352
Uehara,t .,sakao,k,sakado,m,sato,t,&someya,t(1999).relationship between stress coping and personality in patients with major depressive disorder,psychotherapy and psychomatics Burger, J. M. (2011). Personality. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Mosconi, V. W. (2010). Personality differences in stress coping strategies. Aguirre, B. A. (2009). Borderline personality disorder in adolescence: A complete guide to understanding and coping when your adolescent has BPD. Beverly, Mass: Fair Winds Press. Ng, W. (2009). Personality traits, cognitive strategies, and emotion: Is it possible to use cognitive strategies to help neurotics feel better. (Dissertation Abstracts International, 692.)
PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES IN COPING
Perrewe, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. (2011). The role of individual differences in occupational stress and well being. Bingley, U.K: Emerald. Carpenter, B. N. (2010). Personal coping: Theory, research, and application. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York [u.a.: Plenum Press. Diener, E., Kahneman, D., & Schwarz, N. (2011). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Hogan, R., Briggs, S. R., & Johnson, J. (2009). Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego: Academic Press. Leary, M. R., & Hoyle, R. H. (2009). Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. New York, N.Y., [etc.: The Guilford Press.
