Lecture 20: Coping and coping effectiveness

Question 1

Coping

Answer 1

• ‘Constantly changing cognitive & behavioural effects to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding resources of pain’
  1. stressful situations
  2. external and internal demands
  3. cognitive and behavioural effects
  4. subjective perception of person-env. relationship (‘appraisal’)

Question 2

Classic distinction

Answer 2

(high control) - problem focused strategies = aim to alter stressful situation
(low control) - emotion focused strategies = aim to alter emotional reaction to a stressful situation

Question 3

Coping - experts vs. beginners

Answer 3

• Experts report better skill on a wider rnge of skills than beginners -> mental skills are important
• But why do strategies not always work?
• What make coping effective?
• Coping effectiveness = ‘extent to which a coping strategy optimizes person-env relationship and contrbutes to performance by altering a stressful situation or dysfunctional emotions’

Question 4

Coping effectiveness

Answer 4

• Available explanations highlight aspects of C.E:
  = perceived control/subjective experience
  = practice
  = situational specificity

Question 5

An individualised and phenomenological approach

Answer 5

1. Use performance related experiences as a basis for understanding the selection, implementation and success of coping strategies
2. View coping as a process of awareness, acceptance and action (Triple-A)

Question 6

Self-regulation as a basis for coping

Answer 6

Situational experiences e.g. thoughts patterns of experiences e.g. trait anxiety meta experiences e.g. knowledge, attitudes

Question 7

Coping as triple-A process:

Answer 7

Awareness -> acceptance -> action

Situational awareness -> meta-experiences -> situational action ->

Question 8

Meta-experiences and coping effectiveness in sport

Answer 8

• ‘Meta experiences might play a crucial role in determining selection, implementation and success of coping strategies’
• Case study = 1 elite level sailor (Nieuwenhuys et al. 2007)
• Follow-up study - 10 elite level athletes, 10 individual sports (Nieuwenhuys et al. 2010)
• Semi-structured interviews = very good & very bad performances
  = analysed for different types of experiences
  = interrater reliability r>.90
• Results = increased frequency of coping strategies occuring for bad vs. good performances (no sig diff)
  = good performance: higher % of successful coping strategies, coping strategies based on meta exp. and lower % of coping strategies contradicting meta exp.
  1) Coping more effective in context of good performances
  2) Meta experiences may play on important role in coping effectiveness