Cited by 1,453Personality Traits and PsychologyPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyOptimism, Hope, and Well-being

Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis.

Connor-Smith, Jennifer K., Flachsbart, Celeste·2007·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Personality may directly facilitate or constrain coping, but relations of personality to coping have been inconsistent across studies, suggesting a need for greater attention to methods and samples. This meta-analysis tested moderators of relations between Big Five personality traits and coping using 2,653 effect sizes drawn from 165 samples and 33,094 participants. Personality was weakly related to broad coping (e.g., Engagement or Disengagement), but all 5 traits predicted specific strategies. Extraversion and Conscientiousness predicted more problem-solving and cognitive restructuring, Neuroticism less. Neuroticism predicted problematic strategies like wishful thinking, withdrawal, and emotion-focused coping but, like Extraversion, also predicted support seeking. Personality more strongly predicted coping in young samples, stressed samples, and samples reporting dispositional rather than situation-specific coping. Daily versus retrospective coping reports and self-selected versus researcher-selected stressors also moderated relations between personality and coping. Cross-cultural differences were present, and ethnically diverse samples showed more protective effects of personality. Richer understanding of the role of personality in the coping process requires assessment of personality facets and specific coping strategies, use of laboratory and daily report studies, and multivariate analyses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080

Cites

225 of 225 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C.
Affiliations
Oregon State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2007-12
Volume
93
Issue
6
Pages
1080-1107
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2005031884
Cited by
1,453
References
215
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 103 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 114 · 2020: 129 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 89 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 86 · 2015: 92 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 94
FWCI
28.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - George Fox University (George Fox University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
Keywords
personality, coping, Big Five personality traits, extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism, problem solving, cognitive restructuring, emotion-focused coping, support seeking, wishful thinking, withdrawal, stress, moderators, cross-cultural comparison, dispositional coping
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, Personality

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