Adaptive versus maladaptive coping strategies: insight from Lebanese young adults navigating multiple crises.

BACKGROUND

Coping strategies are composites of cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage the internal and external demands of stressful situations. They have been documented to relate to general well-being and mental health. However, not all types of coping are created equal, and adaptive versus maladaptive strategies seem to have understudied differential impacts, notably with accumulated adversities.

METHODS

We examined coping strategies in a sample of 489 Lebanese university students during accumulating crises, including socio-political unrest and the COVID- 19 pandemic. They were asked to fill out an online survey including standardized questionnaires of well-being (WEMWBS), depression (PHQ- 9), anxiety (HAM-A), intolerance of uncertainty (IUS), and coping (Brief COPE), in addition to demographics and questions about their attitudes and future perspectives.

RESULTS

The results highlight that adaptive coping strategies positively correlate with psychological well-being, whereas maladaptive ones are associated with higher levels of psychopathology. Specifically, it was shown that a positive association exists between anxiety, depression, intolerance of uncertainty, and maladaptive coping strategies while evidencing a negative association between the latter and well-being. Our multinominal regression showed that anxiety, intolerance of uncertainty and well-being were associated with low levels of adaptive coping when taking adaptive coping as a dependent variable.

CONCLUSION

Our study mainly highlights the relation between coping, uncertainty, and mental health. Although intended to help relieve tension, maladaptive strategies might worsen it instead. We emphasize previous findings to promote healthy adaptive coping strategies in times of unprecedented crises.