Cited by 149Resilience and Mental HealthStudent Stress and CopingStress and Burnout Research

Cognitive processes underlying coping flexibility: Differentiation and integration

Cheng, Cecilia, Cheung, Mike W. L.·2005·Journal of Personality

Abstract

This study investigates how individuals formulate flexible coping strategies across situations by proposing differentiation and integration as two stress-appraisal processes. Results showed that participants who coped more flexibly adopted the dimensions of controllability and impact in differentiating among different stressful situations. They also deployed an integrated strategy: the deployment of more monitoring in situations perceived as controllable but less of this strategy in situations perceived as uncontrollable. Participants who coped less flexibly did not adopt any given dimensions and tended to use more monitoring regardless of situational characteristics. These results suggest that individuals with different extents of coping flexibility differ in the cognitive processes. Individuals who cope more flexibly display a greater extent of differentiation and integration than do those who cope less flexibly. These findings are translated into strategies for stress management workshops.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00331.x

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • Later experimental and prospective work has reproduced the advantage of flexibility over any single self-regulatory strategy configuration.

    “These findings on the benefits of flexibility compared with any particular configuration of self-regulatory strategies have been replicated in subsequent experimental and prospective studies (e.g., Cheng, 2003; Cheng & Cheung, 2005).”

    From Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health (2010) · cites this paper as Cheng & Cheung, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheng, C., & Cheung, M. W. L.
Affiliations
  • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Cheng, Cecilia
Venue
Journal of Personality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-05-04
Volume
73
Issue
4
Pages
859-886
ISSN
  • 0022-3506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6494
OpenAlex
W1974825932
Cited by
149
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
coping flexibility, stress appraisal, differentiation, integration, controllability, cognitive appraisal, coping strategies, stress management
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Cognition, Defense Mechanisms, Female, Humans, Individuality, Internal-External Control, Life Change Events, Male, Models, Psychological, Personality, Personality Development, Personality Inventory, Problem Solving, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Desirability, Stress, Psychological

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