Strentz T, Auerbach S M
Federal Bureau of Investigation-Training Division, Quantico, Virginia.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Oct;55(4):652-60. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.55.4.652.
We instructed 57 subjects about to be exposed to a simulated abduction and 4 days of captivity in either problem- or emotion-focused coping techniques, or we gave them a control orientation presentation. Retrospective self-report data obtained on the Ways of Coping Checklist indicated that subjects tended to use coping processes consistent with the type of prestress preparation they had received. Dramatic fluctuations in State Anxiety scores over the course of captivity indicated that the simulation was perceived to be highly stressful. Subjects given emotion-focused preparation reported the lowest anxiety and emotional distress levels and were rated as exhibiting the lowest levels of behavioral disturbance during captivity. Externals engaged in more emotion-focused coping than internals, but externals given problem-focused preparation responded the most poorly of all subgroups on all response measures. Overall, locus of control differences were of secondary impact (vs. situational variables) in influencing anxiety and adjustment. We discuss the characteristics of the stressor that may have accounted for the major findings and the stressful circumstances under which emotion-focused versus problem-focused coping may be of differential utility.
我们指导了57名即将面临模拟绑架和4天囚禁的受试者，向他们传授了以问题为导向或情绪为导向的应对技巧，或者给他们进行了一次控制取向的讲座。通过《应对方式清单》获得的回顾性自我报告数据表明，受试者倾向于采用与其所接受的应激前准备类型相一致的应对方式。在囚禁过程中，状态焦虑得分出现了剧烈波动，这表明该模拟被认为极具压力。接受以情绪为导向准备的受试者报告的焦虑和情绪困扰水平最低，并且在囚禁期间被评为行为干扰水平最低。外控型者比内控型者更多地采用以情绪为导向的应对方式，但接受以问题为导向准备的外控型者在所有反应指标上的表现是所有亚组中最差的。总体而言，在影响焦虑和适应方面，控制点差异（与情境变量相比）的影响是次要的。我们讨论了可能导致主要研究结果的应激源特征，以及在哪些压力情境下，以情绪为导向的应对方式与以问题为导向的应对方式可能具有不同的效用。
