Cited by 28Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesResilience and Mental Health

Cognitive Defusion Predicts More Approach and Less Avoidance Coping With Stress, Independent of Threat and Self‐Efficacy Appraisals

Donald, James N., Atkins, Paul W. B., Parker, Philip D., Christie, Alison M., Guo, Jiesi·2017·Journal of Personality

Abstract

Objective: Recent evidence suggests that the way in which individuals relate to their aversive thoughts predicts behavioral effectiveness more than the content of such thoughts. This article is among the first to explore whether this is true for coping with stressful events. Method: Three studies with emerging adults (Study 1, N = 202) and adults (Study 2, N = 201; Study 3, N = 141) tested whether changes in how individuals relate to their stress‐related thoughts, measured using the individual‐difference construct of cognitive defusion, predicted more approach and less avoidance coping behavior, controlling for stress‐related appraisals. Results: We found that cognitive defusion predicted more approach coping (Studies 1 and 3) and less avoidance coping (Studies 2 and 3) following laboratory‐induced stress (Study 1), naturally occurring monthly stress (Study 2), and daily stress (Study 3). These effects occurred independently of the effects of threat appraisals (Studies 1–3) and self‐efficacy appraisals (Study 3) on coping responses. Conclusions: Cognitive defusion may be an important individual‐difference predictor of coping behavior, adding to established theories of coping such as Lazarus and Folkman's (1987) transactional theory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jopy.12279

Cites

71 of 71 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
Donald, J. N., Atkins, P. W. B., Parker, P. D., Christie, A. M., & Guo, J.
Affiliations
  • Australian Catholic University (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Donald, James N.
Venue
Journal of Personality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-09-19
Volume
85
Issue
5
Pages
716-729
ISSN
  • 0022-3506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6494
OpenAlex
W2523647462
Cited by
28
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
Keywords
cognitive defusion, approach coping, avoidance coping, stress coping, threat appraisal, individual differences, transactional model of stress and coping, daily stress
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Stress, Psychological, Thinking, Self Efficacy, Young Adult

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