Psychological Distress, Causal Attributions, and Coping

Abstract

The potential differing effects of causal attributions on both psychological distress and coping in response to a hypothetical exam failure were investigated. A 59 item questionnaire was distributed to 99 male and 90 female students from the University of Canterbury. The questionnaire measured anticipated psychological distress and the probable causes for a hypothetical exam failure using attributional dimensions pertaining to locus of causality, controllability, and stability. Furthermore, the questionnaire listed the coping strategies from the Revised Ways of Coping Checklist (Vitaliano, et al., 1985). The respondents rated the likelihood a strategy would be utilised if they had to cope with failing an exam. The findings showed that exam failures attributed to internal and unstable causes linked to lower levels of anticipated psychological distress. Causes that were rated as stable were strong predictors of avoidance and wishful thinking coping strategies. As expected, women anticipated significantly more psychological distress than men did. Women also reported to a greater extent than men that they would adopt a social support coping strategy if they had to cope with failing an exam. ********** Having to cope with the psychological distress of failing an exam is inevitable for some university students. The causes that attributed for the failure may influence subsequent studying behaviour (Weiner, 1985). This implies that coping is shaped by causal attributions, and leads to the question: are associated levels of psychological distress also directly impacted by the causal attributions for an exam failure? The central theme is that certain cognitive processes have a predictive capacity when investigating a hypothetical psychological stress transaction. Moreover, gender has proven to be a robust predictor of psychological distress and coping (Day & Livingstone, 2003; Misra, McKean, West, & Russo, 2000; Ptacek, Smith, & Dodge, 1994; Wohlgemuth & Betz, 1991). The present study examines whether gender and causal attributions for a hypothetical exam failure have any bearing on students' anticipated psychological distress and likely coping options. Distress and Coping Psychological distress is a negative emotional condition that is an adjunct to the appraisal of threat, harm or loss vis-a-vis an important goal. The negative emotion has been described in one particular study as unpleasant, frustrating, irritable, worrisome, and anxious (Kanner, Coyne, Schafer, & Lazarus, 1981). Consequently, psychological distress ensues from an important demand (stressor) and inadequate resources to mitigate any potential harm, loss or threat (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Amelioration of harm or threat is achieved by both regulating distressing emotions and changing the problem that is causing the discomfort; these labelled emotion focused coping and problem focused coping, respectively (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Note that psychological distress is a stress specific response that is negatively valenced (c.f., Selye, 1976). For all intents and purpose, stress is an inevitable manifestation of living and certain demands that encountered may threaten a person's well-being and thereby negatively implicate stress. On the other hand, many demanding encounters proffer stress responses that associated with positive psychological states. This stress specific affect is called eustress (Edwards & Cooper, 1988; Selye, 1976; Simmons & Nelson, 2001). The current focus is on psychological distress where the stress response is associated with an appraisal of threat, harm, or loss and coping ameliorates well-being. Coping refers to the cognitions and behaviours that people use to regulate distressing situations (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Common nomenclature for the diverse ways of coping is typically constrained to either instrumental or emotional strategies. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 36 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.