Cited by 256Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesResilience and Mental HealthStudent Stress and Coping

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 102 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interaction of Cognitive Avoidance Coping and Stress in Predicting Depression/Anxiety

Blalock, Janice A., Joiner, Thomas E.·2000·Cognitive Therapy and Research

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1005450908245

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Women who respond to stress with avoidance or rumination tend to have higher levels of anxiety symptoms compared with men who have the same coping responses.

    “Likewise, women who respond to stress with avoidance or rumination tend to have higher levels of anxiety symptoms compared with men who have the same coping responses [39,40]”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press.
  2. Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Manual for the revised Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
  3. Benson, J., & Hagtvet, K. A. (1996). The interplay among design, data analysis, and theory in the measurement of coping. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 83-106). New York: Wiley.
  4. Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1995). Life context, coping processes, and depression. In E. E. Beckham & W. R. Leber (Eds.), Handbook of depression (pp. 569-587). New York: Guilford Press.
  5. Folkman, S. (1992). Making the case for coping. In B. D. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application (pp. 31-46). Westport, CT: Praeger.
  6. Folkman, S., & Chesney, M. (1995). Chronic diseases: Perspective in behavioral medicine (p. 122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. Kessler, R. C., McLeod, J. D., & Wethington, E. (1985). The costs of sharing: A perspective on the relationship between sex and psychological distress. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 409-506). The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhof.
  8. Moos, R. H. (1988). Coping Responses Inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University and Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Blalock, J. A., & Joiner, T. E.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Florida State University (US)
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Published
2000-02
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
47-65
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
OpenAlex
W4136413
Cited by
256
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 12
FWCI
4.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
Keywords
stress, negative life events, depression, anxiety, gender differences, moderating effect

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review